>"California is centre-right, it's the rest of US politics that is so heavily skewed to the right it makes them look like an outlier on the spectrum."
Wow- that is so wrong it is crazy, but spoken predictably if you are looking through left-colored-glasses. Cal as a whole, is considerably left of center. Significant PARTS of Cal are far, far, far left. Other parts are center and still others are considerably right. But the average ends up being left. This is one reason many would like to see Cal split up (also due to physical size and also population). Personally, I think that might be a good idea, although I think it will likely never happen.
Yeah, sad, isn't it? I do remember the important and good stuff. Unfortunately, it seems like so little available to watch is worth remembering. Hey- at least I follow Slashdot!
Funny you should say that. I had symptoms of thyroid issues many years ago. They performed a nuclear iodine scan on me and said I had "pre-Hashimoto-like nodules." My younger sister WAS diagnosed with Hashimoto's. My TSH continues to come back normal every year and I have not been rescanned.
>"USDA daily recommended levels are so high I couldn't possibly hit them even if I ate a perfect diet. Yet I've had blood work done and never once been low on any vitamins"
I have. As part of regular lab work, my D came back more than once as "low", despite years of taking a multivitamin with breakfast and dinner; although I admit I don't get much sun. I was told to take a D3 supplement (which I then started adding a 2,000 UI pill in the morning). Now, people can debate what is correctly "normal" or "high", but the tests do find people they think need more supplementation. My Mom's was low too, and she was put on several supplements because her bone density was low (had a scan) and my grandmother had osteoporosis. I did my research, considered it super safe, super cheap, and no big deal to just take a supplement. No prescription needed, and have been doing in for something like 8 years now.
>"Can a billion dollar industry form around a vitamin the human body produces itself in ample supply. As the NYT article states, "Drug companies can sell fear, but they can't sell sunlight, so there's no promotion of the sun's health benefits."
And the sun benefits the mood and brain, releasing other important factors and benefiting sleep cycles. However, sun exposure also contribute to wrinkles and skin cancer. Plus there really are a lot of people who don't and won't get enough vitamin D (3) due to their type of job, lifestyle, location, and/or skin pigment. But it is often hard to believe that what is in a typical, cheap, widespread multivitamin AND what you get with even a little sun exposure, AND what is naturally in food, AND what is fortified already in many foods, isn't "enough". At least vitamin D3 supplements are dirt cheap and it seems it isn't toxic even with crazy high doses, making it pretty "safe".
>"By the way: Why would *you* want to know how much *you* liked something? Don't you remember?"
Hell no! I can't hardly remember last week, much less which of the many THOUSANDS of programs and movies I have watched!!
Besides, it isn't just about ME knowing how much I liked/hated something, but letting Netflix know, so it can better offer suggestions. Lots of stuff I saw I neither liked nor disliked, so neither + nor - make any sense; and leaving it unrated could me "don't know" or "forgot" or "haven't seen it" or any number of things.
>"Almost everyone I know who eats low carb does so for a reason. They are fat, prone to be fat, diabetic, celiacs, or some other health problem that made them switch to low carb in the first place. Otherwise healthy people generally don't choose low carb without a health problem first.""
The main problem is obesity. It is far, far worse than WHAT people eat. And the cure is simple. Eat less. Low-carb is just essentially another fad deit like low-fat, low-sugar, low-salt, pills, high-fiber, all-fruit, exercise-focused, paleo, etc. The solution is LOWER CALORIES and spread over more time. It really is that simple. I just lost 22 pounds (14% of my total weight) over just a 3 month period by reducing the amount of calories. It is really THAT easy- eat most anything you want, just less of it.
You don't even have to "calorie count". Just adjust your portion size of your three meals (breakfast is important) by X amount (in my case, it was about 1/3) until you start losing and stay with that portion size. It requires little effort, no experts, no books, no pills, no special prep, no special foods, and saves money too. And if doing it right, you shouldn't really even be hungry between meals (and if you are, then eat a TINY snack, like 8 peanuts or 3 crackers). People can typically lose weight on ANY diet, not because of what they are eating, but because they are watching what they eat so they necessarily end up eating fewer calories; but they then unnecessarily attribute it to all kinds of magic, complex, and often unpleasant other factors.
The hard part is then adjusting "after" the diet so you increase the calories enough to stop losing but not enough to start gaining AND STICK WITH IT as a lifestyle change. Note, I am NOT saying it isn't a good idea to eat "better" and exercise (less processed, less sugar, more veggies, well-balanced, more water and fiber, etc). I am saying that none of that really matters if you are overweight, and changing the quality of food without taking calories into account and then following it up with a permanent change is doomed to long-term failure and often even short-term failure. If you cut out the things people love to eat, it will be impossible for most people to succeed and maintain.
>"but I can see why they want to do this as they have a lot of original content, and they have a point as to how people would find out about it otherwise.""
If their interface weren't so HORRIBLE, it would be easy to find and explore new things. Their stupid, massive collection of horizontal scrolling lists is completely non-functional; horribly show, endlessly frustrating, with irrelevant topics and groupings to me.
1) I want to know what is new TO ME. It still shows things as "new" even if I have known about it or even watched it several months ago. 2) I want to filter out things I have already seen 3) I want to have filtered searches 4) I want to know what is a film from what is a series 5) I want to be able to mark seasons as complete 6) I want to TURN OFF DAMN AUTOPLAY so when I fall asleep, I don't have to fight going back and "rewatching" things it thinks I watched 7) I want to be able to rate things with 1-5 stars so I know HOW MUCH I liked or disliked something 8) I don't want the screen to "dim" and "overlay" when I pause video to look at something 9) I want to turn on/off captioning with a single key while watching 10) I want to "subscribe" to series so I am immediately informed of new episodes 11) I want to optionally jump through lists a page at a time not just one miserably slow scrolling item at a time 12) I want an easy-to-read history list of what I have watched, with dates, ratings, etc 13) I want to be able to sort things by category, recommendation, type, last seen, ratings, etc
The list could go on and on. It is one of the worst user interfaces ever (especially after using TiVo forever). And if they introduce unskippable or "painfully" skippable "ads" of any type, I will immediately cancel my subscription, write them a scathing letter, and give them a bad word-of-mouth from that point forward.
>"As long as it's voluntary, then more power to 'em. It's not something I would choose, but if they're happy, then I'm happy for them"
The problem is that it really isn't truly "voluntary" if there is pressure, coercion, discrimination, etc to comply. The more people that can be convinced into doing it, the more it becomes "normalized" and expected. At some point there will be "rewards" to those who comply, and those rewards exclude those who don't.... which essentially becomes a punishment. I am not saying it should be outlawed- we have enough laws restricting freedom. But I am saying that it is degrading and it can become a dangerous thing; especially when people don't understand all the implications of what they are getting themselves into.
>"That's weird, you think market crashes are due to "Wallstreet cheats?""
For him it is not weird at all because he is a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist (even if he doesn't realize it). Most every post indicating that all our problems are due to big corporations and capitalism; and how more government will solve the problem, with socialized healthcare, socialized internet, "free" college, more welfare, more "wealth re-distribution", more regulations, more departments, more programs, etc. Spend spend spend spend spend... and somehow, while we have a 21.3 TRILLION dollar debt that grows every year, we can magically tax some large corporations to death without them fleeing the country to pay for it, and/or steal the wealth of the top X% as if that would EVER be enough to fix the problems.
I am just as shaded as the next guy about corporate corruption and anti-competitive behavior from huge businesses, but I also think that adding more and more government spending, control, regulations, and power, especially Federal, into the mix, is not going to solve anything; it is just like adding fuel to a fire.
The biggest problem our country has right now is a system that prevents any party other than mainstream D and R from getting elected. We are paralyzed by two stupid parties that are both beholden to corporations and corruption and never-ending spending. This can and should end with instant runoff voting at all levels and in all primaries. This would fight corruption and 'crony capitalism' more than anything else could by adding accountability and competition into the mix. Next biggest is spending more money than is taken in. After that would be out-of-control entitlements and laws that create entitlement thinking and allowing people to skirt responsibility for all their actions and choices, making ever more people "victims." It spreads and grows generation to generation like a virus that is infecting the country creating helplessness and fueling identity politics, racism, classism, sexism, and the like.
>"Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect."
Right there in your quote is the answer- copycat effect. At closer ranges, an AR-15 is not more effective a killing machine than any of a zillion models and brands of large capacity, full-sized handguns. It is being actively selected for other reasons- primary the "look". Banning it won't solve any problems, the focus will just shift to the next thing to "ban." The reason "mass shootings" occur will not disappear with the AR-15, but remain because of "gun free zones", allowing masses of good people to collect in a sensitive area with no way to defend themselves.
>"I've read that the focus on guns versus screwdrivers is that a malicious person can more quickly kill multiple people with a gun"
And now change the equation to a populous where all or almost all the good people are stripped of guns and yet the bad people still carry a bunch of "weapons" of any sort- often even including guns. Now those screwdrivers, keys, clubs, hammers, etc suddenly become a LOT more dangerous and threatening because there is little chance of meaningful resistance to them by the majority of people who are weaker. This is exactly what happened in London. So the list of things they will need to "ban" will ever grow and yet still not solve the problems.
We have seen the same fallacy over and over with so-called "gun free zones" which are NOT gun-free and NOT weapon-free. It is just the law-abiding people who are hurt the most and left as defenseless "prey." This is why almost all "mass shootings" occur in gun-free zones- there is zero deterrence because there is no resistance. Maximum killing zone is what they should be called.
The problems remain- even if it reduced violence ON THE SUBWAY, that violence will simply shift to right outside the subway while people are traveling to/from it, since they necessarily are defenseless with such new procedures. You can't effectively defend yourself or others (using a weapon), or even act as a deterrent, if ANY point along the way of your daily travel strips you of those rights. It would be like making shoes illegal in just 1% of your travel- if you have no way of storing those shoes and recovering them, then you have to walk barefoot the rest of the 99%, leaving you 100% of shoeless the entire time.
>"low-cost WiFi devices to detect and identify suspicious objects hidden in baggage without intrusion (e.g., opening the bag)."
I guess that depends on one's definition of "intrusion" because I consider searching me or my stuff without probable cause to be intrusion, whether you do it with a physical search or some automated one at a distance. In fact, the latter is probably WORSE because it enables far more searching and the real possibility of it being done clandestinely.
And, of course, just about anything can be a "weapon" in the hands of a "bad" person, and "weapons" are of little concern in the hands of "good" people. Too bad we can't have a "good" vs. "bad" person detector...
>"It's damn near impossible to game the system for long."
I don't know much about welfare fraud, but suspect it is pretty high in many ways; although the worst problems with it are designed right into it. But Social Security "disability" fraud is rampant and probably far more worthy of investigation. I know people that have been on it for many years who are perfectly able to work, some who even work under-the-table. Almost anyone who is denied just gets a lawyer and "presto", approved... complete with back payments.
I want to know what is wrong with a gun being that weapon? Is this system going to stop law-abiding, good, licensed people from being able to carry? How is THAT going to increase security? We are not talking about an occasional plane trip here, with at LEAST the possibility of checking such into baggage, we are talking about DAILY TRANSPORTATION for many people. This would effectively strip them of their self-protection the entire day, every day. Oh, but it won't stop fists or baseball bats, or screwdrivers, or any other weapon that bad people to use to attack their potentially weaker, or older victims.
Is this what terrorism hysteria and security theater has come to now?
>"The $6,3 million saved will pay for a lot of KFC Gravy Bowls on Air Force One. Plus, Colorado and Hawaii voted for Hillary, so fuck them libs, amirite? Trump is just that kind of petty degenerate.."
I don't want to see the WWV dismantled. I have lots of equipment that use it both at home and work. But I really would like someone to explain to me how it can possibly cost 6.3 million dollars a year for such an incredibly simple function/technology. THAT should be the uptake here- not that we don't need or shouldn't have the service, but why does it need cost so much?
And what temperature? And what it temperature controlled or just "dumb." I am no expert in that field, but it seems with just preliminary researching that there are probably many, many factors involved. Coming to any conclusion will require knowing those factors and how they interplay and holding them constant for many different tests.
>"You seem to have no problem discussing the problems of the smart watch, how about explaining the 'extremely useful' part:)"
LOL! 'Tis true, I seem to be focused on the negative. Here are some:
1) Love controlling music remotely 2) Love notifications 3) Love being able to read and voice reply to text messages 4) Like seeing radar, temp, forecast quickly 5) Like being able to do quick web searches (although they made that WORSE in WearOS 2.0) 6) Like glancing for directions while driving/navigating, especially if I didn't hear what the phone said or can't remember 7) Like being able to shut up the phone from ringing quickly
Keep in mind, I typically keep my phone considerably out of reach- in a briefcase or belt case or fanny pack. The smart watch allows me have light, small, convenient remote control over it.
I have no love of the "big media"/"mainstream media", most of which is horribly slanted, all of which is sensationalist and becoming more absurd each year.
But Facebook, of all organizations, being the one to throw crud at the "mainstream" media, claiming THEIR business model is obsolete and should die.... and that Facebook as the answers..... well, that has to be the funniest thing I have heard in many months.
If Facebook is the alternative to the mainstream big media, then heaven help us all.
I know there is a lot of hate on Slashdot about smart watches, and I certainly understand a lot of it, but I actually like them. Sure, they have issues, but they can be extremely useful. I have had the Moto 360 and Moto 360.2. The 360.2 version is oh so much better, and the always-on screen is a must (and it can go all day with the always on). In the first year, it could go 2 days with the always-on screen (although as the battery grew old, it became 1 day, then less than a full day, and now I have to turn off the always-on feature I love).
Every WearOS watch I have seen since the 360.2 has been LED (not LCD) and has to be "activated" to use it every time... so it looks like an ugly black puck the rest of the time. Some support a limited "super dim/boring" always-on, which can't even be seen, and still barely gets through the day. I want a watch I can glance at any time, even stealthily, not one that has to be twisted or shaken or touched and then wait a second for it to finally show something. I am hoping the new breeds are all ALWAYS ON, like a real watch should be.
Fingers crossed...
Also, I don't care if I have to charge it every day, just like I do with my phone. But when it costs so much, I *DO* want the option to replace the battery myself in 2 years when it croaks!
>"That said, the TFA is right to be concerned because elsewhere Taylor says "We need access to digital networks and devices, and to the data on them", which does imply an attack on encryption. Now, I'm no fan of our current government, or regressive right-wing government in general, but "
I don't know about how it is with left/right in Australia, but in the US, it is not a "right-wing" issue. For example, the Patriot Act was passed by both parties and extended by both parties. Obama is quite "left-wing" and signed the extension into law....
>"and that takes us back to the "government wants a backdoor" "
And if there are back doors, they *will* be found and used by everyone. Your government, private industries, malware, other governments, terrorists, everyone. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
>"California is centre-right, it's the rest of US politics that is so heavily skewed to the right it makes them look like an outlier on the spectrum."
Wow- that is so wrong it is crazy, but spoken predictably if you are looking through left-colored-glasses. Cal as a whole, is considerably left of center. Significant PARTS of Cal are far, far, far left. Other parts are center and still others are considerably right. But the average ends up being left. This is one reason many would like to see Cal split up (also due to physical size and also population). Personally, I think that might be a good idea, although I think it will likely never happen.
Yeah, sad, isn't it?
I do remember the important and good stuff. Unfortunately, it seems like so little available to watch is worth remembering. Hey- at least I follow Slashdot!
Funny you should say that. I had symptoms of thyroid issues many years ago. They performed a nuclear iodine scan on me and said I had "pre-Hashimoto-like nodules." My younger sister WAS diagnosed with Hashimoto's. My TSH continues to come back normal every year and I have not been rescanned.
>"USDA daily recommended levels are so high I couldn't possibly hit them even if I ate a perfect diet. Yet I've had blood work done and never once been low on any vitamins"
I have. As part of regular lab work, my D came back more than once as "low", despite years of taking a multivitamin with breakfast and dinner; although I admit I don't get much sun. I was told to take a D3 supplement (which I then started adding a 2,000 UI pill in the morning). Now, people can debate what is correctly "normal" or "high", but the tests do find people they think need more supplementation. My Mom's was low too, and she was put on several supplements because her bone density was low (had a scan) and my grandmother had osteoporosis. I did my research, considered it super safe, super cheap, and no big deal to just take a supplement. No prescription needed, and have been doing in for something like 8 years now.
>"Can a billion dollar industry form around a vitamin the human body produces itself in ample supply. As the NYT article states, "Drug companies can sell fear, but they can't sell sunlight, so there's no promotion of the sun's health benefits."
And the sun benefits the mood and brain, releasing other important factors and benefiting sleep cycles. However, sun exposure also contribute to wrinkles and skin cancer. Plus there really are a lot of people who don't and won't get enough vitamin D (3) due to their type of job, lifestyle, location, and/or skin pigment. But it is often hard to believe that what is in a typical, cheap, widespread multivitamin AND what you get with even a little sun exposure, AND what is naturally in food, AND what is fortified already in many foods, isn't "enough". At least vitamin D3 supplements are dirt cheap and it seems it isn't toxic even with crazy high doses, making it pretty "safe".
>"By the way: Why would *you* want to know how much *you* liked something? Don't you remember?"
Hell no! I can't hardly remember last week, much less which of the many THOUSANDS of programs and movies I have watched!!
Besides, it isn't just about ME knowing how much I liked/hated something, but letting Netflix know, so it can better offer suggestions. Lots of stuff I saw I neither liked nor disliked, so neither + nor - make any sense; and leaving it unrated could me "don't know" or "forgot" or "haven't seen it" or any number of things.
>"You can disable autoplay. You just have to do it on their website. Under "Playback Settings"."
+1 Informative
I had no idea it was there. It appears the be the ONLY setting other than default quality. I immediately changed it. Thanks!
>"What player are you using?"
Samsung and TiVo. Both look the same or nearly so.
>"Almost everyone I know who eats low carb does so for a reason. They are fat, prone to be fat, diabetic, celiacs, or some other health problem that made them switch to low carb in the first place. Otherwise healthy people generally don't choose low carb without a health problem first.""
The main problem is obesity. It is far, far worse than WHAT people eat. And the cure is simple. Eat less. Low-carb is just essentially another fad deit like low-fat, low-sugar, low-salt, pills, high-fiber, all-fruit, exercise-focused, paleo, etc. The solution is LOWER CALORIES and spread over more time. It really is that simple. I just lost 22 pounds (14% of my total weight) over just a 3 month period by reducing the amount of calories. It is really THAT easy- eat most anything you want, just less of it.
You don't even have to "calorie count". Just adjust your portion size of your three meals (breakfast is important) by X amount (in my case, it was about 1/3) until you start losing and stay with that portion size. It requires little effort, no experts, no books, no pills, no special prep, no special foods, and saves money too. And if doing it right, you shouldn't really even be hungry between meals (and if you are, then eat a TINY snack, like 8 peanuts or 3 crackers). People can typically lose weight on ANY diet, not because of what they are eating, but because they are watching what they eat so they necessarily end up eating fewer calories; but they then unnecessarily attribute it to all kinds of magic, complex, and often unpleasant other factors.
The hard part is then adjusting "after" the diet so you increase the calories enough to stop losing but not enough to start gaining AND STICK WITH IT as a lifestyle change. Note, I am NOT saying it isn't a good idea to eat "better" and exercise (less processed, less sugar, more veggies, well-balanced, more water and fiber, etc). I am saying that none of that really matters if you are overweight, and changing the quality of food without taking calories into account and then following it up with a permanent change is doomed to long-term failure and often even short-term failure. If you cut out the things people love to eat, it will be impossible for most people to succeed and maintain.
>"but I can see why they want to do this as they have a lot of original content, and they have a point as to how people would find out about it otherwise.""
If their interface weren't so HORRIBLE, it would be easy to find and explore new things. Their stupid, massive collection of horizontal scrolling lists is completely non-functional; horribly show, endlessly frustrating, with irrelevant topics and groupings to me.
1) I want to know what is new TO ME. It still shows things as "new" even if I have known about it or even watched it several months ago.
2) I want to filter out things I have already seen
3) I want to have filtered searches
4) I want to know what is a film from what is a series
5) I want to be able to mark seasons as complete
6) I want to TURN OFF DAMN AUTOPLAY so when I fall asleep, I don't have to fight going back and "rewatching" things it thinks I watched
7) I want to be able to rate things with 1-5 stars so I know HOW MUCH I liked or disliked something
8) I don't want the screen to "dim" and "overlay" when I pause video to look at something
9) I want to turn on/off captioning with a single key while watching
10) I want to "subscribe" to series so I am immediately informed of new episodes
11) I want to optionally jump through lists a page at a time not just one miserably slow scrolling item at a time
12) I want an easy-to-read history list of what I have watched, with dates, ratings, etc
13) I want to be able to sort things by category, recommendation, type, last seen, ratings, etc
The list could go on and on. It is one of the worst user interfaces ever (especially after using TiVo forever). And if they introduce unskippable or "painfully" skippable "ads" of any type, I will immediately cancel my subscription, write them a scathing letter, and give them a bad word-of-mouth from that point forward.
>"As long as it's voluntary, then more power to 'em. It's not something I would choose, but if they're happy, then I'm happy for them"
The problem is that it really isn't truly "voluntary" if there is pressure, coercion, discrimination, etc to comply. The more people that can be convinced into doing it, the more it becomes "normalized" and expected. At some point there will be "rewards" to those who comply, and those rewards exclude those who don't.... which essentially becomes a punishment. I am not saying it should be outlawed- we have enough laws restricting freedom. But I am saying that it is degrading and it can become a dangerous thing; especially when people don't understand all the implications of what they are getting themselves into.
>"That's weird, you think market crashes are due to "Wallstreet cheats?""
For him it is not weird at all because he is a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist (even if he doesn't realize it). Most every post indicating that all our problems are due to big corporations and capitalism; and how more government will solve the problem, with socialized healthcare, socialized internet, "free" college, more welfare, more "wealth re-distribution", more regulations, more departments, more programs, etc. Spend spend spend spend spend... and somehow, while we have a 21.3 TRILLION dollar debt that grows every year, we can magically tax some large corporations to death without them fleeing the country to pay for it, and/or steal the wealth of the top X% as if that would EVER be enough to fix the problems.
I am just as shaded as the next guy about corporate corruption and anti-competitive behavior from huge businesses, but I also think that adding more and more government spending, control, regulations, and power, especially Federal, into the mix, is not going to solve anything; it is just like adding fuel to a fire.
The biggest problem our country has right now is a system that prevents any party other than mainstream D and R from getting elected. We are paralyzed by two stupid parties that are both beholden to corporations and corruption and never-ending spending. This can and should end with instant runoff voting at all levels and in all primaries. This would fight corruption and 'crony capitalism' more than anything else could by adding accountability and competition into the mix. Next biggest is spending more money than is taken in. After that would be out-of-control entitlements and laws that create entitlement thinking and allowing people to skirt responsibility for all their actions and choices, making ever more people "victims." It spreads and grows generation to generation like a virus that is infecting the country creating helplessness and fueling identity politics, racism, classism, sexism, and the like.
Sorry for the rant.
>"He would be a "good terrorist", however, since blowing himself up in his livingroom isn't very terrorizing"
LOL!
>"Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect."
Right there in your quote is the answer- copycat effect. At closer ranges, an AR-15 is not more effective a killing machine than any of a zillion models and brands of large capacity, full-sized handguns. It is being actively selected for other reasons- primary the "look". Banning it won't solve any problems, the focus will just shift to the next thing to "ban." The reason "mass shootings" occur will not disappear with the AR-15, but remain because of "gun free zones", allowing masses of good people to collect in a sensitive area with no way to defend themselves.
>"I've read that the focus on guns versus screwdrivers is that a malicious person can more quickly kill multiple people with a gun"
And now change the equation to a populous where all or almost all the good people are stripped of guns and yet the bad people still carry a bunch of "weapons" of any sort- often even including guns. Now those screwdrivers, keys, clubs, hammers, etc suddenly become a LOT more dangerous and threatening because there is little chance of meaningful resistance to them by the majority of people who are weaker. This is exactly what happened in London. So the list of things they will need to "ban" will ever grow and yet still not solve the problems.
We have seen the same fallacy over and over with so-called "gun free zones" which are NOT gun-free and NOT weapon-free. It is just the law-abiding people who are hurt the most and left as defenseless "prey." This is why almost all "mass shootings" occur in gun-free zones- there is zero deterrence because there is no resistance. Maximum killing zone is what they should be called.
The problems remain- even if it reduced violence ON THE SUBWAY, that violence will simply shift to right outside the subway while people are traveling to/from it, since they necessarily are defenseless with such new procedures. You can't effectively defend yourself or others (using a weapon), or even act as a deterrent, if ANY point along the way of your daily travel strips you of those rights. It would be like making shoes illegal in just 1% of your travel- if you have no way of storing those shoes and recovering them, then you have to walk barefoot the rest of the 99%, leaving you 100% of shoeless the entire time.
>"low-cost WiFi devices to detect and identify suspicious objects hidden in baggage without intrusion (e.g., opening the bag)."
I guess that depends on one's definition of "intrusion" because I consider searching me or my stuff without probable cause to be intrusion, whether you do it with a physical search or some automated one at a distance. In fact, the latter is probably WORSE because it enables far more searching and the real possibility of it being done clandestinely.
And, of course, just about anything can be a "weapon" in the hands of a "bad" person, and "weapons" are of little concern in the hands of "good" people. Too bad we can't have a "good" vs. "bad" person detector...
>"It's damn near impossible to game the system for long."
I don't know much about welfare fraud, but suspect it is pretty high in many ways; although the worst problems with it are designed right into it. But Social Security "disability" fraud is rampant and probably far more worthy of investigation. I know people that have been on it for many years who are perfectly able to work, some who even work under-the-table. Almost anyone who is denied just gets a lawyer and "presto", approved... complete with back payments.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...
http://www.reformssdinow.org/w...
>"What is a weapon?"
I want to know what is wrong with a gun being that weapon? Is this system going to stop law-abiding, good, licensed people from being able to carry? How is THAT going to increase security? We are not talking about an occasional plane trip here, with at LEAST the possibility of checking such into baggage, we are talking about DAILY TRANSPORTATION for many people. This would effectively strip them of their self-protection the entire day, every day. Oh, but it won't stop fists or baseball bats, or screwdrivers, or any other weapon that bad people to use to attack their potentially weaker, or older victims.
Is this what terrorism hysteria and security theater has come to now?
>"The $6,3 million saved will pay for a lot of KFC Gravy Bowls on Air Force One. Plus, Colorado and Hawaii voted for Hillary, so fuck them libs, amirite? Trump is just that kind of petty degenerate.."
I don't want to see the WWV dismantled. I have lots of equipment that use it both at home and work. But I really would like someone to explain to me how it can possibly cost 6.3 million dollars a year for such an incredibly simple function/technology. THAT should be the uptake here- not that we don't need or shouldn't have the service, but why does it need cost so much?
+1 insightful
And what temperature? And what it temperature controlled or just "dumb." I am no expert in that field, but it seems with just preliminary researching that there are probably many, many factors involved. Coming to any conclusion will require knowing those factors and how they interplay and holding them constant for many different tests.
>"You seem to have no problem discussing the problems of the smart watch, how about explaining the 'extremely useful' part :)"
LOL! 'Tis true, I seem to be focused on the negative. Here are some:
1) Love controlling music remotely
2) Love notifications
3) Love being able to read and voice reply to text messages
4) Like seeing radar, temp, forecast quickly
5) Like being able to do quick web searches (although they made that WORSE in WearOS 2.0)
6) Like glancing for directions while driving/navigating, especially if I didn't hear what the phone said or can't remember
7) Like being able to shut up the phone from ringing quickly
Keep in mind, I typically keep my phone considerably out of reach- in a briefcase or belt case or fanny pack. The smart watch allows me have light, small, convenient remote control over it.
I have no love of the "big media"/"mainstream media", most of which is horribly slanted, all of which is sensationalist and becoming more absurd each year.
But Facebook, of all organizations, being the one to throw crud at the "mainstream" media, claiming THEIR business model is obsolete and should die.... and that Facebook as the answers..... well, that has to be the funniest thing I have heard in many months.
If Facebook is the alternative to the mainstream big media, then heaven help us all.
I know there is a lot of hate on Slashdot about smart watches, and I certainly understand a lot of it, but I actually like them. Sure, they have issues, but they can be extremely useful. I have had the Moto 360 and Moto 360.2. The 360.2 version is oh so much better, and the always-on screen is a must (and it can go all day with the always on). In the first year, it could go 2 days with the always-on screen (although as the battery grew old, it became 1 day, then less than a full day, and now I have to turn off the always-on feature I love).
Every WearOS watch I have seen since the 360.2 has been LED (not LCD) and has to be "activated" to use it every time... so it looks like an ugly black puck the rest of the time. Some support a limited "super dim/boring" always-on, which can't even be seen, and still barely gets through the day. I want a watch I can glance at any time, even stealthily, not one that has to be twisted or shaken or touched and then wait a second for it to finally show something. I am hoping the new breeds are all ALWAYS ON, like a real watch should be.
Fingers crossed...
Also, I don't care if I have to charge it every day, just like I do with my phone. But when it costs so much, I *DO* want the option to replace the battery myself in 2 years when it croaks!
>"That said, the TFA is right to be concerned because elsewhere Taylor says "We need access to digital networks and devices, and to the data on them", which does imply an attack on encryption. Now, I'm no fan of our current government, or regressive right-wing government in general, but "
I don't know about how it is with left/right in Australia, but in the US, it is not a "right-wing" issue. For example, the Patriot Act was passed by both parties and extended by both parties. Obama is quite "left-wing" and signed the extension into law....
This is a "hysteria" issue.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
>"and that takes us back to the "government wants a backdoor" "
And if there are back doors, they *will* be found and used by everyone. Your government, private industries, malware, other governments, terrorists, everyone. Period.