If our planet is absorbing these impacts, and therefore converting the potential energy into something else, what's the (previously-unmeasured) impact of that?
Never actually been to the "bible-belt," have you? It shows in your bigotry against those of us who actually live here, the irony of which is not lost on me.
Having moved from the Ozarks to Dallas, I can comfortably say 'bible belt my ass'. DFW is heathen by comparison to the actual bible belt.
In short, stupid people shop at both Walmart and Whole Foods. It's just that the Whole Foods stupid people are trying to let other people think for them, where as the Walmart stupid people don't particularly care.
Do you think that statement is incorrect? That for $10 million worth of effort, you could always find a new vulnerability in Apache, no matter how many iterations of bug-fixing you've already gone through?
I certainly do. First of all, there are only so many lines of code. Once you hypothetically 'fix' every one of them, you're done. Vulnerabilities exists because people are fallible and make mistakes, but ultimately there will be a limit and the assumption that this limit is effectively unreachable is absurd enough to require evidence on your part.
Programmers and crackers are equally human. They're using the same hardware and software systems to do the analysis. Assuming that the latter will ALWAYS win an arms race is flawed logic. And to be clear, you absolutely did communicate that there will never be a scenario where attackers can't find new exploits no matter how many iterations the programmers do.
Cynically true? Sure, go with your badself if it helps. But actually, honestly true? That's going to take some evidence on your part. Moreso than "I met this guy once".
I'm not certain that's supported by the text of the actual document. The point of the constitution is to set limits on the government's behaviors, one of those being 'everyone is the same under the law'.
"Can have guns" is the same under the law.
Nothing in the constitution undermines the concept of the wealthy buying their way out of problems, and in fact the original document heavily favored landowners.
In short, the 2nd amendment favors the rich because they can arm themselves to the hilt, should they wish. Not very equal, is it?
Did you just make a "life isn't fair" argument?
How less available for purchase is law enforcement, as opposed to guns? Or do you deny that the rich get different treatment than the poor under the law?
Seriously, you just made a 'money exists' argument as though that was removed by retooling the 2nd amendment.
So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?
No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget. Brains have an unreliable nature to them, which people over the millennia have learned to exploit. There's value in that, which people do not want to lose, so they resist. Plain and simple.
I wonder, though, what people will do once science eventually finds a way to play back memory? Will your very eyes and ears be as offensive as Glass?
Because that's the only difference - the ability to play it back. Everything witnessed by the Glass device is being witnessed by the wearer as well. It isn't the OBSERVATION that's the problem, but the playback.
There's no suggestion that the boy told his mother about the bullying, there's no suggestion that the mother contacted the school about the bullying before the recording was made.
The teacher is present on the recording as well. The authorities had 'been contacted', since they were directly witnessing the events. There's no additional onus to rub their noses in it. The idea that a teacher feels the words 'cunt' and 'twat' being used in her presence are acceptable is absurd.
I wasn't under the impression that we as a people had money to lose. How far down can the US GDP go before we can no longer pay the interest on our loans? (Hint, not very far.)
The risk of insolvency is greater than global catastrophe due to AGW.
My youngest son has high-functioning autism with pdd. From my point of view, you're both right and wrong (in that extremely insensitive way only an ignorant person can be.) So let me reflect.
You're right - there is a 'craze'. It involves things like throwing Risperdal and/or non-gluten-casein diets at a problem that science can't even define, let alone treat. Jenny McArthy's book, all that crap. It is crap, you're right about that. It is the same as all infant science - as much voodoo as fact. But that goes for a lot of medicine these days, so let's not judge too harshly.
You're wrong (in a fuck-you-generating way) that this is 'just' a craze. My son is a very different type of human. In fact this is how we break in new care givers: "Imagine a space craft landed and dropped off one of their children. Everything he does is normal on his home planet, and most of the things we do are weird and strange to him. That's Scott."
He can't really relate to people in a natural way. Eye contact is poison. He mixes up the concepts of 'love' and 'need' (he'll be the first to tell you he 'loves to fart', for example.) He'll probably never have a 'normal job', but could work in a specialized environment, etc.
There are upsides, too. Some of them are basically superpowers. For example, if he saw a calendar at any time during his life, he remembers it forever. So you can ask him, 'what was the Wednesday before April 7th, 2006' and he'll tell you. I have no idea how useful this would be to anyone, but it's still pretty remarkable. His circadian rhythms are pretty much infallible. Stuff like that.
In short, he's unique enough to have a 'thing' that deserves a name. The existence of the 'craze' doesn't invalidate the 'thing'.
From the attacker's view, this largely makes sense. The 'top 25 news organizations' are all deeply biased towards keeping the government happy, and even we Kool Aid drinking Americans are aware of it.
To an outsider, they're probably pretty hard to distinguish from state-run news.
Slashdot Mirror
Here let me save you the time - "Unless they're sold to you by a licensed Ophthalmologist at five times the normal price, they are bad for your eyes."
Never ask the salesman what you should buy.
I'm actually more interested in the glasses than the 3D hack-job...
The site is down - anyone recognize them?
If our planet is absorbing these impacts, and therefore converting the potential energy into something else, what's the (previously-unmeasured) impact of that?
For example, what if that energy became heat?
Is there a statement in my post that you think is incorrect or unclear?
Using a PS2-to-USB adapter, I take it?
Never actually been to the "bible-belt," have you? It shows in your bigotry against those of us who actually live here, the irony of which is not lost on me.
Having moved from the Ozarks to Dallas, I can comfortably say 'bible belt my ass'. DFW is heathen by comparison to the actual bible belt.
He is right to contrast Whole Foods with Walmart:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05...
http://www.thetasteoftomorrow....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
In short, stupid people shop at both Walmart and Whole Foods. It's just that the Whole Foods stupid people are trying to let other people think for them, where as the Walmart stupid people don't particularly care.
Do you think that statement is incorrect? That for $10 million worth of effort, you could always find a new vulnerability in Apache, no matter how many iterations of bug-fixing you've already gone through?
I certainly do. First of all, there are only so many lines of code. Once you hypothetically 'fix' every one of them, you're done. Vulnerabilities exists because people are fallible and make mistakes, but ultimately there will be a limit and the assumption that this limit is effectively unreachable is absurd enough to require evidence on your part.
Programmers and crackers are equally human. They're using the same hardware and software systems to do the analysis. Assuming that the latter will ALWAYS win an arms race is flawed logic. And to be clear, you absolutely did communicate that there will never be a scenario where attackers can't find new exploits no matter how many iterations the programmers do.
Cynically true? Sure, go with your badself if it helps. But actually, honestly true? That's going to take some evidence on your part. Moreso than "I met this guy once".
I submit this could be an improvement over the helicopter kids.
You're assuming that all information is good and that all bullets are bad.
You simply can't do that without context.
Did I consent to your observing me in my home? If so, please proceed.
I'm not certain that's supported by the text of the actual document. The point of the constitution is to set limits on the government's behaviors, one of those being 'everyone is the same under the law'.
"Can have guns" is the same under the law.
Nothing in the constitution undermines the concept of the wealthy buying their way out of problems, and in fact the original document heavily favored landowners.
He's not comparing 'kill people'. You are.
He is comparing technological advancement, which is very much apples and apples.
It is no 'straw man' to argue that the freedom of the press never envisioned the internet, and therefore should be reevaluated along these same lines.
You're better than 'buzz word bingo'. Perhaps your response was a bit rash.
Right, and I get that, but that difference is an emotional one, mostly.
The boobs were observed.
Playback allows the observation of the boobs by others, which largely is not desired. This is understood.
But humans are capable of playback as well. Description, depiction, etc.
"Jenny's pads her boobs, I know because she showed me last night" gets into the exact same privacy issues as Glass, does it not?
In short, the 2nd amendment favors the rich because they can arm themselves to the hilt, should they wish. Not very equal, is it?
Did you just make a "life isn't fair" argument?
How less available for purchase is law enforcement, as opposed to guns? Or do you deny that the rich get different treatment than the poor under the law?
Seriously, you just made a 'money exists' argument as though that was removed by retooling the 2nd amendment.
Basically people like privacy and glass threatens that.
This is emotional and illogical. 'Glass' does not 'threaten that', being observed 'threatens that'.
Tell me, if you're not being observed, what threat does a recording pose?
Don't move the goalposts. We're discussing the second test, per your setup:
there were no adequate lawful means to address the situation
The means were clearly inadequate, because there was a teacher in the room and yet the 'zero tolerance behavior' continued.
The problem in this situation is the second one.
Second test is now met. "Legitimacy" isn't even in the criteria you listed.
So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?
No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget. Brains have an unreliable nature to them, which people over the millennia have learned to exploit. There's value in that, which people do not want to lose, so they resist. Plain and simple.
I wonder, though, what people will do once science eventually finds a way to play back memory? Will your very eyes and ears be as offensive as Glass?
Because that's the only difference - the ability to play it back. Everything witnessed by the Glass device is being witnessed by the wearer as well. It isn't the OBSERVATION that's the problem, but the playback.
There's no suggestion that the boy told his mother about the bullying, there's no suggestion that the mother contacted the school about the bullying before the recording was made.
The teacher is present on the recording as well. The authorities had 'been contacted', since they were directly witnessing the events. There's no additional onus to rub their noses in it. The idea that a teacher feels the words 'cunt' and 'twat' being used in her presence are acceptable is absurd.
So do your very atoms. What's your point?
I guess this solves the mystery as to why Amazon never batted any eyelashes towards Chromecast.
I wasn't under the impression that we as a people had money to lose. How far down can the US GDP go before we can no longer pay the interest on our loans? (Hint, not very far.)
The risk of insolvency is greater than global catastrophe due to AGW.
It's about priorities, I think.
My youngest son has high-functioning autism with pdd. From my point of view, you're both right and wrong (in that extremely insensitive way only an ignorant person can be.) So let me reflect.
You're right - there is a 'craze'. It involves things like throwing Risperdal and/or non-gluten-casein diets at a problem that science can't even define, let alone treat. Jenny McArthy's book, all that crap. It is crap, you're right about that. It is the same as all infant science - as much voodoo as fact. But that goes for a lot of medicine these days, so let's not judge too harshly.
You're wrong (in a fuck-you-generating way) that this is 'just' a craze. My son is a very different type of human. In fact this is how we break in new care givers: "Imagine a space craft landed and dropped off one of their children. Everything he does is normal on his home planet, and most of the things we do are weird and strange to him. That's Scott."
He can't really relate to people in a natural way. Eye contact is poison. He mixes up the concepts of 'love' and 'need' (he'll be the first to tell you he 'loves to fart', for example.) He'll probably never have a 'normal job', but could work in a specialized environment, etc.
There are upsides, too. Some of them are basically superpowers. For example, if he saw a calendar at any time during his life, he remembers it forever. So you can ask him, 'what was the Wednesday before April 7th, 2006' and he'll tell you. I have no idea how useful this would be to anyone, but it's still pretty remarkable. His circadian rhythms are pretty much infallible. Stuff like that.
In short, he's unique enough to have a 'thing' that deserves a name. The existence of the 'craze' doesn't invalidate the 'thing'.
It isn't all bad
From the attacker's view, this largely makes sense. The 'top 25 news organizations' are all deeply biased towards keeping the government happy, and even we Kool Aid drinking Americans are aware of it.
To an outsider, they're probably pretty hard to distinguish from state-run news.
It's an interesting idea by itself, but it occurs to me you could also combine the platform's capabilities with other needs: e.g. cell towers.
Imagine if every ugly tower was instead a floating power plant...