I understand. It doesn't bode well for that 18yos freedom down the road. If it becomes mainstream, you can bet access to that remote controlled mobility will depend on an ever increasing list of state/institution imposed expectations. That's a powerful leash.
How about just letting people handle their own shit and call AAA if they need help, or 911 if they're in dire straits? They're there, the remote 'driver' is not, and the computer is too stupid to know what it is looking at. So what now? The average driver is to be considered too incompetent such that they must wait for a 'professional' driver to take remote control of the vehicle when the computer's heuristics inevitably fail?
Automation is supposed to make life better, not disenfranchise people and bind them ever more tightly to bureaucratic expectation. All ideas like this do is breed learned helplessness into individuals. I don't idea of a future where citizens are totally helpless and dependent on these systems to bounce them from one crisis to the next.
Today's 'free' societies are much more interested in convenience than they are in their autonomy, independence, and civil liberties. Dude, the future's like social! omg!
People are way too willing to give up their privacy and autonomy for half-assed conveniences nowadays. Considering the behavior of today's public and private institutions, it's nuts.
All advertising is targeted at the female ego nowadays. Even commercials selling to men frame the message in terms of what women will think (those horrible fiber one ads come to mind). Very few if any products are sold 'to' men directly.
Some men like to share videos of their hobbies without a bunch of women shaming them back to the plantation. Before they'd have to create a separate profile or kick their female friends of their FB account. This gives them another option.
Of course, the real solution is for both to grow a spine and quit worrying about and/or micromanaging what the other sex is thinking/doing.
Right well, if the person defines these 'subjective' experiences, then holding others responsible for them is oppressive, and really how can men be expected to modify their behavior accordingly if they can't understand? Conversely, how could women be expected to? It would be best if everyone's civil liberties were returned to them, allowing individuals to set up their lives as they see fit.
And anyone, with or without direct experience, can dump a lot of people into a certain classification and badmouth that classification
Exactly. Feminists do this to men all the time. It's their standard modus operandi. Men who speak up are shouted down with cries of "It's a women's issue! You're not a woman, you don't understand!" Then they go right back to pushing for law and cultural change based on their own generalizations and stereotypes of men. It's quite hypocritical.
'Considering' yourself something and being something are two different things. There are lots of feminists who, when put on the spot to justify some sexist position taken in the name of feminism, claim the 'no true feminist would' fallacy as a response. "Oh that isn't really feminism, my own brand of it is." This doesn't change the basic fact that the de facto feminism exists, manipulating law and culture in hypocritically sexist and harmful ways. One, two, or 100 women claims of being feminists, and your choice to listen to them is irrelevant as far as this is concerned.
However, with or without direct experience, anyone can speak to feminists from reason, fact, and observation to tear down their arguments. They just don't like it when men do that so they use shaming language that claims it as victimization.
Doesn't seem to stop feminists from spouting off what it's like to be a guy, generalizing and stereotyping men as they go. The real catch is that their spouting often becomes state and institutional policy everywhere. That's quite a privilege, so perhaps feminists should check it.
Re:The geek on the lecture circuit.
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 1
The definition of 'open platform' in terms of hardware primarily means the ability to load your own software, not on how many locked down options there are on the market.
The fact is, the majority of systems on the market now are closed. Examples include game consoles, cell phones, tablets, and embedded machines in consumer products of all types. The only exception is the desktop PC, and even there, many are now shipping with UEFI locked bootloaders, and we have only the 'magnanimous' promise from Microsoft to continue offering their signed stubs for use in loading alternative OSs. Initially, the ability to shut off signed loads was mandated, but MS has now changed that policy. It's really only a matter of time before most PCs are locked down with the OS they shipped with. Today, the open system is the minority, not the majority.
Popularity is often not a good measure of quality, openness, or freedom. It's just a measure of dominance. Youtube is dominant because it was one of the first, not because it is now the best. Even if it was the best when it launched, continued dominance does not imply that it continues to be the best.
1. Most corporate environments don't allow tweaks like startisback. Most don't allow much registry tweaking either. 2. Metro is a pain in the ass on the desktop. Win10 fixes some of this, but still leaves much to be desired. 3. People who like to focus on getting the job done don't want extra hassles and steps added to their workflows by idiot managers who insist on software upgrades because newversion > currentversion.
I hope you said more than "I don't" and explained the threat in terms she could relate to as well. "Because I'm the parent" does not go over well. In fact, it may make her angry enough to go anyway, just to spite you. Don't chase her into his arms.
The IAEA is probably the primary reason nuclear power has the shitty rep it has. Its behavior and impartiality concerning the impact of major accidents has been deplorable (chernobyl, fukushima and probably others too). I think they're still trotting out the chernobyl '5000' deaths bit. It's probably closer to 50000+, and hundreds of thousands with illness from exposure to massive radiation and toxic chemicals.
I wouldn't trust the IAEA any more than I'd trust exxon-mobil's reporting on their tanker safety, or governments' reporting on upholding civil liberties.
The problem is still political. Movies pushing left wing 'progressive' agendas are given slavishly positive reviews by so-called 'critics', many of whom are blatantly obvious and open about their political views in their reviews. These movies often go on to win awards from organizations whose committees also suffer from 5th columns, creating a nice false consensus.
Not quite. Until a few years ago, most devs used major numbers to suggest major changes that break compatibility, minor numbers to suggest additions that do not break compatibility, and pico numbers to suggest bug or security fixes. This is still very useful, but like a lot of society, devs are going full retard now.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand. It doesn't bode well for that 18yos freedom down the road. If it becomes mainstream, you can bet access to that remote controlled mobility will depend on an ever increasing list of state/institution imposed expectations. That's a powerful leash.
How about just letting people handle their own shit and call AAA if they need help, or 911 if they're in dire straits? They're there, the remote 'driver' is not, and the computer is too stupid to know what it is looking at. So what now? The average driver is to be considered too incompetent such that they must wait for a 'professional' driver to take remote control of the vehicle when the computer's heuristics inevitably fail?
Automation is supposed to make life better, not disenfranchise people and bind them ever more tightly to bureaucratic expectation. All ideas like this do is breed learned helplessness into individuals. I don't idea of a future where citizens are totally helpless and dependent on these systems to bounce them from one crisis to the next.
Today's 'free' societies are much more interested in convenience than they are in their autonomy, independence, and civil liberties. Dude, the future's like social! omg!
People are way too willing to give up their privacy and autonomy for half-assed conveniences nowadays. Considering the behavior of today's public and private institutions, it's nuts.
All advertising is targeted at the female ego nowadays. Even commercials selling to men frame the message in terms of what women will think (those horrible fiber one ads come to mind). Very few if any products are sold 'to' men directly.
You'll almost NEVER see ads like this on TV, given current political narratives in the media
https://www.youtube.com/v/5ZqX...
Some men like to share videos of their hobbies without a bunch of women shaming them back to the plantation. Before they'd have to create a separate profile or kick their female friends of their FB account. This gives them another option.
Of course, the real solution is for both to grow a spine and quit worrying about and/or micromanaging what the other sex is thinking/doing.
Right well, if the person defines these 'subjective' experiences, then holding others responsible for them is oppressive, and really how can men be expected to modify their behavior accordingly if they can't understand? Conversely, how could women be expected to? It would be best if everyone's civil liberties were returned to them, allowing individuals to set up their lives as they see fit.
And anyone, with or without direct experience, can dump a lot of people into a certain classification and badmouth that classification
Exactly. Feminists do this to men all the time. It's their standard modus operandi. Men who speak up are shouted down with cries of "It's a women's issue! You're not a woman, you don't understand!" Then they go right back to pushing for law and cultural change based on their own generalizations and stereotypes of men. It's quite hypocritical.
'Considering' yourself something and being something are two different things. There are lots of feminists who, when put on the spot to justify some sexist position taken in the name of feminism, claim the 'no true feminist would' fallacy as a response. "Oh that isn't really feminism, my own brand of it is." This doesn't change the basic fact that the de facto feminism exists, manipulating law and culture in hypocritically sexist and harmful ways. One, two, or 100 women claims of being feminists, and your choice to listen to them is irrelevant as far as this is concerned.
However, with or without direct experience, anyone can speak to feminists from reason, fact, and observation to tear down their arguments. They just don't like it when men do that so they use shaming language that claims it as victimization.
Doesn't seem to stop feminists from spouting off what it's like to be a guy, generalizing and stereotyping men as they go. The real catch is that their spouting often becomes state and institutional policy everywhere. That's quite a privilege, so perhaps feminists should check it.
The definition of 'open platform' in terms of hardware primarily means the ability to load your own software, not on how many locked down options there are on the market.
The fact is, the majority of systems on the market now are closed. Examples include game consoles, cell phones, tablets, and embedded machines in consumer products of all types. The only exception is the desktop PC, and even there, many are now shipping with UEFI locked bootloaders, and we have only the 'magnanimous' promise from Microsoft to continue offering their signed stubs for use in loading alternative OSs. Initially, the ability to shut off signed loads was mandated, but MS has now changed that policy. It's really only a matter of time before most PCs are locked down with the OS they shipped with. Today, the open system is the minority, not the majority.
Popularity is often not a good measure of quality, openness, or freedom. It's just a measure of dominance. Youtube is dominant because it was one of the first, not because it is now the best. Even if it was the best when it launched, continued dominance does not imply that it continues to be the best.
..and I suppose you know the identity of this supposedly objective arbiter of social justice who will decide how technology will be used?
Your shitty argument is little different than the "this is why we can't have nice things" retort often repeated here.
Wow, I think that takes the cake for 'WTF embedded job of the year.'
1. Most corporate environments don't allow tweaks like startisback. Most don't allow much registry tweaking either.
2. Metro is a pain in the ass on the desktop. Win10 fixes some of this, but still leaves much to be desired.
3. People who like to focus on getting the job done don't want extra hassles and steps added to their workflows by idiot managers who insist on software upgrades because newversion > currentversion.
Sounds like the PEBKAC to me.
Aww, sounds like someone's got an early case of the mondays.
I hope you said more than "I don't" and explained the threat in terms she could relate to as well. "Because I'm the parent" does not go over well. In fact, it may make her angry enough to go anyway, just to spite you. Don't chase her into his arms.
This isn't a case of a few tainted apples. This is a case of a contaminated orchard.
Why not just refuse to train them? Tell your ex-employer that you're too busy looking for another job.
You aren't a real ferengi unless you carry a plasma whip!
The IAEA is probably the primary reason nuclear power has the shitty rep it has. Its behavior and impartiality concerning the impact of major accidents has been deplorable (chernobyl, fukushima and probably others too). I think they're still trotting out the chernobyl '5000' deaths bit. It's probably closer to 50000+, and hundreds of thousands with illness from exposure to massive radiation and toxic chemicals.
I wouldn't trust the IAEA any more than I'd trust exxon-mobil's reporting on their tanker safety, or governments' reporting on upholding civil liberties.
The problem is still political. Movies pushing left wing 'progressive' agendas are given slavishly positive reviews by so-called 'critics', many of whom are blatantly obvious and open about their political views in their reviews. These movies often go on to win awards from organizations whose committees also suffer from 5th columns, creating a nice false consensus.
Actually, I miss the previous one that was shattered and torched.
Not quite. Until a few years ago, most devs used major numbers to suggest major changes that break compatibility, minor numbers to suggest additions that do not break compatibility, and pico numbers to suggest bug or security fixes. This is still very useful, but like a lot of society, devs are going full retard now.
vista = nt 6.0
7 = nt 6.1
8 = nt 6.2
8.1 = nt 6.3
10 = nt 6.4 (even though they changed the build numbers to 10.x)