First do the search WITHOUT the word 'three'. Suddenly you get no mugshots.
It's the word three that's a problem. Nobody labels normal photos with the word 'three' in it. Instead, generally NEWS PHOTOS get that distinction. All the image searches you get when you do a 'three' search come from the news.
Try searching for: three teenagers three Jewish teenagers three Christian teenagers three Indian teenagers
When you ask for teenagers, you get a lot of black, Hispanic, and white teenagers, all mixed up.
When you specify that you only want three black teenagers or only three white teenagers - YOU are doing a search that embodies the racism. What's wrong with the Chinese teenagers? etc. etc.
But when racists go looking for three white teenagers, they want clean cut photos, so that's what Google gives them. When a racist goes looking for three black teenagers, they want thugs, so that is what Google gives them. When you want three Indian teenagers, you get poor people. Etc. etc. etc.
It's all from the racism inherent in the people asking those kinds of questions, not the search itself.
It's based on the faulty idea that the government must be evil so you can't give them control over it.
The government is made of people - some good and some bad. As such, ALL governments do some good as well as some bad.
There is no way to have an internet with significantly less government control without a shit load more doxing, Blackmail, identity theft, sale of dangerous drugs, pedophilie videos, viruses, hacking and tons of other crimes.
Hell, the government can barely contain the crime on the internet now.
Which means any significantly 'freer' internet would end up being banned.
The BEST they could hope for is to create a specific libertarian UN empowered organization in charge of the free-web, giving it massive enforcement powers but only related to the free-web.
That libertarian organization could possibly maintain enough control over the internet to reign in mankind's darker side, and at the same time preventing regular governments from over-regulating and controlling it.
But make no mistake, it can only be done by ADDING a new layer of government to the internet, not by creating a new internet.
The problem comes from the assumption by the lawmakers that businesses were always honest. They basically said anyone that doesn't answer a legal demand must be guilty, but they made no attempt to ensure that the legal demands were a) actually sent and b) believed to be real, rather than a typical scare tactic used by con men.
The lawmakers in question should be flooded with legal demands from non-existent cases to assist them in learning the era of their ways.
But you won't do that if you are poor, because that cost assumes you use it very rarely. The more you use it, the more it costs for fuel and maintance.
The poorer pilots are already flying all the time other wise they wouldn't pay for the expense of their own plane.
It is true that there will be a FEW more flights from using this, but we are not even talking a doubling of the number of flights.
More importantly, flying - even small planes - is still a lot safer than driving on a per mile basis.
If the current flights were not dangerous, then doubling them would not be dangerous. Your basic assumptions are wrong.
How do you convince people to let you rape them every day? You start by saying that no one is perfect, and that all are corrupt, therefore, just sit there and take the rape.
What total BULL
Anyone that tries to claim that 'all are bad so stop caring', is in fact the CAUSE of the corruption.
Simply because there is no perfection does not mean you shouldn't strive for it. The existence of corruption does not mean you shouldn't look for the LEAST corruption.
Anyone that thinks it doesn't matter is either a total IDIOT, or is directly benefiting from the corruption.
How much were you paid to disparage everything? You getting a check from Putin to spread lies and stupidity about how the other systems, which are clearly superior and less corrupt?
Or are you simply an idiot teenager that knows nothing about the world?
Some of you are concentrating on the lack of resources necessary for heavy industry. That's not really the problem. There are a ton of resources in space - lots of them in asteroid belts that are not in a gravity well, it's the lack of people that's a problem.
Even assuming we built a robot factory up there to build more robots to run the heavy industry, we would need so many people that commuting costs becomes cost prohibitive.
The only way it works is if the people live in space, then we end up with families moving to space for the jobs, and it's not 'moving the heavy industry', it's moving the population.
Now, there is one thing we COULD build in space and send back to earth - without a massive human population - and that's solar power. Which would have the real danger of global warming on a scale never before seen.
Iridium and all other civilian satellite systems (to my knowledge - and clearly I don't know jack about the military and/or espionage satellites) do not cover all the oceans Most don't cover Antartica either. Simply not enough people there to make it worth their effort.
The Atlantic is small, and mostly covered, but large areas of the Pacific Ocean are not covered by satellite phone systems.
1) You spend cash, you burn fuel. Trying to combine environmental concerns with this issue is a POOR idea. It's not a major cause of fossil fuel use, there are far better ways to reduce fossils fuels. These are two separate issues - a) fossil fuels and b) finding lost aircraft.
2) Your limited concept of a black box is clearly not the answer. It demonstrates ignorance about many of the issues involved, including weight, time, floating recovery, ejection from sinking aircraft, etc. A far simpler solution is to simply have all planes continuously broadcast their GPS location whenever they go below a certain altitude or descend too quickly. Have them broadcast using a satellite phone system that covers the ENTIRE world - including the oceans, of course. Yes this would require some new satellites - but it is a global problem that the UN could easily solve with money.
I'm not trying to stick it to the corps. I am trying to set up a fair system where both sides get something. But I will state that my original post did not mention anything about class action suits so I will add that a 'fair' arbitration clause should not prevent class action suits.
A government agency should right up a generic TOS, with appropriate safeguards for consumer rights as well as for the corporation. Even include a reasonable requirement for arbitration (one that works both ways - they can't sue you if you can't sue them).
Then we could say that you can only get consent by click if the TOS was approved by the agency. Otherwise, you would need a real, actual ink on paper signature to get consent for TOS.
Nice compromise - corps can still create bullshit TOS, but they need to get you to sign paper to use that.
Can't be too hard. I am pretty sure most sex bots will spontaneously generate the feeling of being creeped out. The trick might be in teaching them that some people are not that creepy.
I really wanted to say yes, but there are a lot of issues with this concept. It benefits the readers but hurts society at large, (undermining ownership rights, lowering the number of copies floating around for non-owners to discover, use).
The used market is predicated on depreciation preventing people from competing with the original sellers. You buy X brand new for $Y, use it up some, then sell it for $Y - z.
Without depreciation, what you are doing is more similar to renting a book, rather than buying and reselling it. You get full use of it, but it is returned in practically the same state, with only time being gone.
Renting e-books would be a BAD idea - it would hurt the writers tremendously and the general population would no longer own the books, which would leave the population open to giving up ownership rights, something that has high value for society, but low values for the individuals as a whole.
A better question would be to clarify ownership after Death. I bought ebooks, and both they and my account should be inheritable after death.
But seriously, this idea is idiotic. It misunderstands the nature of mankind and the nature of work.
First and foremost, work is defined by what we want to do, not what we need to have done. We met our "needs" thousands of years ago. We ben doing what we want since before the Egyptians built the first pyramid.
Second, the stupidest human around is still FAR smarter than any robot with the sole exception of mathematical skills and memory, both of which may fixed with cheap calculators, not expensive robots.
Third, #2 will remain true until robots are created that can demand equal rights and a fair wage. Because those are things that the STUPIDEST and lowest capability humans do.
Four. Yes, robots will replace jobs that require certain physical characteristics (strength, speed, etc). Yes robots will replace jobs that require perfect math and memory. Those already happen. Instead, we will develop NEW jobs that only a human can do, just as we replaced hunter/gathers with farmers/herders, and farmer/herders with industrial jobs, then industrial jobs with tech jobs, etc. etc.
You are violating one of the most important principles of the free market - free exchange of information. Go read Wikipedia, it will explain how free exchange of information is essential to a free market.
What's going on here is that one side has all the information and the other side is blind, depending on Uber to be honest.
Uber has no business learning about the state of your phone battery. It doesn't need it and it's YOUR private, personal confidential information that poor software design let Uber steal. They don't tell you about the desperate need for cash by their drivers because their rent is due and they would accept ANY fair.
Uber is not being 'good', it knows that if they unethically use your private information they have unethically gathered, then it will piss us off enough to pass laws preventing them from gathering it.
The price of everything is the amount a buyer is willing to pay AND a seller is willing to sell when competition keeps prices fair and information is fairly and ethically exchanged.
When you ignore the rules that undermine capitalism, you aren't being capitalistic, you are being a thief. And people like you is why socialism has grown so popular - when you cheat the way you want to, it upsets people and they demand government intervention.
That's a bizarre interpretation of what I said. What makes you think I was talking about dating? I was talking about how women act and used dating as a method to prove it. Your comments about dating are WAY off topic.
I refer you to my sig - read what I actually write, not what's in your own head.
I repeat my point - women are just as judgmental as men are. Anyone that says otherwise is bigoted.
Slashdot Mirror
Put GPS chips in each gun.
Not tracking the people - tracking the gun.
After all, we put GPS chips in each phone and expect everyone to carry them.
First do the search WITHOUT the word 'three'. Suddenly you get no mugshots.
It's the word three that's a problem. Nobody labels normal photos with the word 'three' in it. Instead, generally NEWS PHOTOS get that distinction. All the image searches you get when you do a 'three' search come from the news.
Try searching for:
three teenagers
three Jewish teenagers
three Christian teenagers
three Indian teenagers
When you ask for teenagers, you get a lot of black, Hispanic, and white teenagers, all mixed up.
When you specify that you only want three black teenagers or only three white teenagers - YOU are doing a search that embodies the racism. What's wrong with the Chinese teenagers? etc. etc.
But when racists go looking for three white teenagers, they want clean cut photos, so that's what Google gives them. When a racist goes looking for three black teenagers, they want thugs, so that is what Google gives them. When you want three Indian teenagers, you get poor people. Etc. etc. etc.
It's all from the racism inherent in the people asking those kinds of questions, not the search itself.
And they are too stupid to know it.
The privacy laws make it illegal for the landlords to ask AND also illegal for the anyone working for the land lords to ask those things.
No company is allowed to break the law merely because they have a contract from their victims saying they can.
Otherwise landlords would have you sign such a contract before you rent a place.
It's based on the faulty idea that the government must be evil so you can't give them control over it.
The government is made of people - some good and some bad. As such, ALL governments do some good as well as some bad.
There is no way to have an internet with significantly less government control without a shit load more doxing, Blackmail, identity theft, sale of dangerous drugs, pedophilie videos, viruses, hacking and tons of other crimes.
Hell, the government can barely contain the crime on the internet now.
Which means any significantly 'freer' internet would end up being banned.
The BEST they could hope for is to create a specific libertarian UN empowered organization in charge of the free-web, giving it massive enforcement powers but only related to the free-web.
That libertarian organization could possibly maintain enough control over the internet to reign in mankind's darker side, and at the same time preventing regular governments from over-regulating and controlling it.
But make no mistake, it can only be done by ADDING a new layer of government to the internet, not by creating a new internet.
The problem comes from the assumption by the lawmakers that businesses were always honest. They basically said anyone that doesn't answer a legal demand must be guilty, but they made no attempt to ensure that the legal demands were a) actually sent and b) believed to be real, rather than a typical scare tactic used by con men.
The lawmakers in question should be flooded with legal demands from non-existent cases to assist them in learning the era of their ways.
You do not understand the current economics of being a pilot.
Basically, there is NO SUCH thing as a 'non-wealthy pilot.
About the cheapest you can do is get one for $90k plus $15k a year. ( https://www.quora.com/How-much...)
But you won't do that if you are poor, because that cost assumes you use it very rarely. The more you use it, the more it costs for fuel and maintance.
The poorer pilots are already flying all the time other wise they wouldn't pay for the expense of their own plane.
It is true that there will be a FEW more flights from using this, but we are not even talking a doubling of the number of flights.
More importantly, flying - even small planes - is still a lot safer than driving on a per mile basis.
If the current flights were not dangerous, then doubling them would not be dangerous. Your basic assumptions are wrong.
Other laws (not under discussion) require that the flights can NOT be profitable.
Basically, they can only charge a percentage of the cost for jet fuel and stuff like that.
They are not flying for compensation, they are flying for gas money.
It's not an either/or situation - we can argue about EVERYTHING.
If your point is that some people are bad at arguing and making no sense, that's one thing.
But claiming that an argument isn't important enough to fight about just makes you look stupid.
Because the people that are getting screwed over by X definitely want to fight it.
Issue isn't safety - airplanes would be making the trip anyway.
Also note they let people do the cost sharing - they are just outlawing the wholesale version by outlawing using the internet to find share.
So effectively they are fine with people doing it, just not a LOT of it - with strangers.
Frankly it looks more like a protection for airlines rather than anything else.
How do you convince people to let you rape them every day? You start by saying that no one is perfect, and that all are corrupt, therefore, just sit there and take the rape.
What total BULL
Anyone that tries to claim that 'all are bad so stop caring', is in fact the CAUSE of the corruption.
Simply because there is no perfection does not mean you shouldn't strive for it. The existence of corruption does not mean you shouldn't look for the LEAST corruption.
Anyone that thinks it doesn't matter is either a total IDIOT, or is directly benefiting from the corruption.
How much were you paid to disparage everything? You getting a check from Putin to spread lies and stupidity about how the other systems, which are clearly superior and less corrupt?
Or are you simply an idiot teenager that knows nothing about the world?
Some of you are concentrating on the lack of resources necessary for heavy industry. That's not really the problem. There are a ton of resources in space - lots of them in asteroid belts that are not in a gravity well, it's the lack of people that's a problem.
Even assuming we built a robot factory up there to build more robots to run the heavy industry, we would need so many people that commuting costs becomes cost prohibitive.
The only way it works is if the people live in space, then we end up with families moving to space for the jobs, and it's not 'moving the heavy industry', it's moving the population.
Now, there is one thing we COULD build in space and send back to earth - without a massive human population - and that's solar power. Which would have the real danger of global warming on a scale never before seen.
Nope.
If I find a need for your home to require a fire alarm, I can't break into your home and install one, then demand money for the 'work' I did.
Seriously, you expect me to believe there are still over 400 million Myspace accounts left?
I mean really. Next you will be telling me there are unpaid women on Ashley Madison.
I was in fact referencing Globalstar and had assumed it was the same for the other systems.
Thank you for educating me.
We know they do bad things, so they are the goto bad-guys now. After all, if they support counterfeiting, what else won't they do?
Honestly, we probably have no idea who did this, but they are the most likely bad actors.
Iridium and all other civilian satellite systems (to my knowledge - and clearly I don't know jack about the military and/or espionage satellites) do not cover all the oceans Most don't cover Antartica either. Simply not enough people there to make it worth their effort.
The Atlantic is small, and mostly covered, but large areas of the Pacific Ocean are not covered by satellite phone systems.
1) You spend cash, you burn fuel. Trying to combine environmental concerns with this issue is a POOR idea. It's not a major cause of fossil fuel use, there are far better ways to reduce fossils fuels. These are two separate issues - a) fossil fuels and b) finding lost aircraft.
2) Your limited concept of a black box is clearly not the answer. It demonstrates ignorance about many of the issues involved, including weight, time, floating recovery, ejection from sinking aircraft, etc. A far simpler solution is to simply have all planes continuously broadcast their GPS location whenever they go below a certain altitude or descend too quickly. Have them broadcast using a satellite phone system that covers the ENTIRE world - including the oceans, of course. Yes this would require some new satellites - but it is a global problem that the UN could easily solve with money.
I'm not trying to stick it to the corps. I am trying to set up a fair system where both sides get something. But I will state that my original post did not mention anything about class action suits so I will add that a 'fair' arbitration clause should not prevent class action suits.
Can't really do this, people find a way to claim it is related to anything.
What they CAN do is give the original submitter of a bill veto power over all riders.
A government agency should right up a generic TOS, with appropriate safeguards for consumer rights as well as for the corporation. Even include a reasonable requirement for arbitration (one that works both ways - they can't sue you if you can't sue them).
Then we could say that you can only get consent by click if the TOS was approved by the agency. Otherwise, you would need a real, actual ink on paper signature to get consent for TOS.
Nice compromise - corps can still create bullshit TOS, but they need to get you to sign paper to use that.
Can't be too hard. I am pretty sure most sex bots will spontaneously generate the feeling of being creeped out. The trick might be in teaching them that some people are not that creepy.
I really wanted to say yes, but there are a lot of issues with this concept. It benefits the readers but hurts society at large, (undermining ownership rights, lowering the number of copies floating around for non-owners to discover, use).
The used market is predicated on depreciation preventing people from competing with the original sellers. You buy X brand new for $Y, use it up some, then sell it for $Y - z.
Without depreciation, what you are doing is more similar to renting a book, rather than buying and reselling it. You get full use of it, but it is returned in practically the same state, with only time being gone.
Renting e-books would be a BAD idea - it would hurt the writers tremendously and the general population would no longer own the books, which would leave the population open to giving up ownership rights, something that has high value for society, but low values for the individuals as a whole.
A better question would be to clarify ownership after Death. I bought ebooks, and both they and my account should be inheritable after death.
But seriously, this idea is idiotic. It misunderstands the nature of mankind and the nature of work.
First and foremost, work is defined by what we want to do, not what we need to have done. We met our "needs" thousands of years ago. We ben doing what we want since before the Egyptians built the first pyramid.
Second, the stupidest human around is still FAR smarter than any robot with the sole exception of mathematical skills and memory, both of which may fixed with cheap calculators, not expensive robots.
Third, #2 will remain true until robots are created that can demand equal rights and a fair wage. Because those are things that the STUPIDEST and lowest capability humans do.
Four. Yes, robots will replace jobs that require certain physical characteristics (strength, speed, etc). Yes robots will replace jobs that require perfect math and memory. Those already happen. Instead, we will develop NEW jobs that only a human can do, just as we replaced hunter/gathers with farmers/herders, and farmer/herders with industrial jobs, then industrial jobs with tech jobs, etc. etc.
You are violating one of the most important principles of the free market - free exchange of information. Go read Wikipedia, it will explain how free exchange of information is essential to a free market.
What's going on here is that one side has all the information and the other side is blind, depending on Uber to be honest.
Uber has no business learning about the state of your phone battery. It doesn't need it and it's YOUR private, personal confidential information that poor software design let Uber steal. They don't tell you about the desperate need for cash by their drivers because their rent is due and they would accept ANY fair.
Uber is not being 'good', it knows that if they unethically use your private information they have unethically gathered, then it will piss us off enough to pass laws preventing them from gathering it.
The price of everything is the amount a buyer is willing to pay AND a seller is willing to sell when competition keeps prices fair and information is fairly and ethically exchanged.
When you ignore the rules that undermine capitalism, you aren't being capitalistic, you are being a thief. And people like you is why socialism has grown so popular - when you cheat the way you want to, it upsets people and they demand government intervention.
That's a bizarre interpretation of what I said. What makes you think I was talking about dating? I was talking about how women act and used dating as a method to prove it. Your comments about dating are WAY off topic.
I refer you to my sig - read what I actually write, not what's in your own head.
I repeat my point - women are just as judgmental as men are. Anyone that says otherwise is bigoted.