>"The idea of getting from one city to another at 700 MPH without having to suffer through an airport and all that jazz is revolutionary"
And you REALLY think that if hyperloop takes off and gets big that their ports won't be exactly like airports? Dream on. Security Theater will be there just as much, complete with nonsense measures, nude scanning, baggage limitations, prohibited items, etc, etc. Dealing with expensive parking. Dealing with "secure vs. non-secure zones." Dealing with lost/damaged baggage and pickups. Why would that not happen with hyperloop?
Brush with it (at least twice a day) and when done spit it all out but DO NOT RINSE. There is nothing harmful or toxic in it to humans. The harmful bacteria will eat the Xylitol and simply die because they can't process/digest it.
Yay! Zillions of more juicy Email addresses and phone numbers to collect and spam! Robots will sweep up all that data and hammer the "contacts" to death.
This is just the start. Web sites are already ruining older and slower computers with unnecessary animation, auto-scrolling, video, huge photo resizing locally, etc, etc. They totally zap precious battery life on mobile devices. They decimate any type of multiuser machines. They gobble data needlessly for those on metered or limited connections.
I am not opposed to mining in the browser as a concept, but I am opposed to it being done without the user having some reasonable control over resources. This is a bad trend that could evolve into something much worse.
Browsers need to give users more control over CPU usage, more control to place limits, to identify tight loops and auto-throttle, etc.
Well of course it is, in a similar (but even more apparent) way that the other question was worded. Trying to get people to realize just how incredibly hostile and prejudice the "survey" was.
>"When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could,""
Sorry, that is a loaded question because it is not what mainstream USA Libertarianism is. It seems very popular for many to label Libertarianism that way, however. But it would be like me asking this to determine if they would agree with the Democrat party:
"Would you like to live in a society where everything you do is regulated and controlled by the government, especially at the Federal level, where government redistributes income aggressively, and the Constitution is flexible and interpreted any way the wind blows?"
First, most USA Libertarians will say that the Federal Government should be limited exactly as it says in the Constitution. But there are more things the Fed is supposed to do (per the Constitution) than just provide defense and police. And except for radical Libertarians (extremists, just like you have in all parties), most also support LIMITED government to do things like prevent monopolies, provide for patents, regulate scarce resources (like airwaves/radio frequencies), etc.
>"Gonna go with ICE and DHS being under the Executive branch of the government, of which Trump is the titular head?"
And was it during the Trump administration that these searches started? No. It has nothing to do with the "Trump Administration" other than Trump hasn't stopped it yet. Let's hope he does, but I kinda doubt it.... Obama didn't start the searches either, and in the 8 years it was being done under HIS administration, were there any stories that were worded such as way? Of course not.
Hey, look another auto company shill! How about using common sense and pay attention when traveling at speeds that can easily kill you? But nah, snap chat your way to a darwin award all good
I am a real person who bought a real car and had real experiences which I accurately shared. Nobody else was involved and I have no stake in any outcome. Just because my experience doesn't align with your believes doesn't make trying to call me a liar or puppet acceptable. I also never use any form of social media and rarely even touch or even think about my phone while driving.
I expect you have ZERO experience with any form of car automation and just like to throw insults and pretend you are better than everyone else. Stop deluding yourself. Who is hiding behind being an "Anonymous Coward" and who is posting under a real login for 14 YEARS? And yet you label me as a "shill"?
You can't have it both ways. Really, you can't. Either the car is driving or the person is driving. Expecting that a person will let the car drive AND ALSO stay 100% ready to take over is just not reality. If you are not the one in control, then your mind will not focus on it. Driving is boring enough as it is, expecting someone to babysit a semi-autonomous car is way beyond what we can expect people to do.
Just as an example, 9 years ago when I got my fully loaded Infiniti G37S with technology package, it was one of the first vehicles to have laser-controlled intelligent cruise control. It can match speeds of the cars in front and actively adjust, even brake if necessary. And just that ONE feature of driving assistance sounded like it would be very useful. OMG no. I tried many times to use it and found that just fully automated speed control was enough to disengage me from being an active driver. I could not adapt to it and ultimately decided I would never use it again. It was simply unsafe! Regular cruise control- no problem, I have to pay attention and I bump the speed up and down manually with the thumb control and take other action when necessary. But as soon as that was taken away from me, it became nearly impossible to stay attentive, even though I still had to steer!
Now, maybe different brains work differently and some people can handle semi-automation, but I know I can't. So don't even TRY to give me a car that can sorta drive itself and expect ME to be the ultimate failsafe... that just isn't going to happen. And I expect I am far, FAR from alone in this.
Does this mean we can just finally go back to the "machines" we had before which worked perfectly? You get a punch card from the front desk, you walk to the booth and put it in a little holder, you flip the pages and punch holes it in and then pull it out and insert it into a counting machine YOURSELF that counts the votes AND stores the paper card in a locked bin for later auditing?
Simple, effective, cheap, perfect auditing, no way they can ruin privacy. We never needed "touchscreens" and those machines also only worked when the front desk scanned a "access card" to give you after recording your ID; which to me meant they had the ability to track EVERY VOTE AND TIE IT TO EACH PERSON, which is a clear violation of every voting law (voting is supposed to be PRIVATE).
>"Your data wouldn't have been given to criminals if they had invested that $500K in security."
Actually, according to the summary, they spent at least $2.6 MILLION dollars in just the last 2.75 years, alone. Imagine how much that money COULD have done if they had used it to hire a few good security engineers and made meaningful changes.
>"I agree completely. That is exactly the kind of website I hate with a fiery passion. People who design websites like that should die slowly from a painful disease."
Yeah, I hate websites like this:
Resource Limit Is Reached The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later.
>"Well, we finally got it - you can buy all the individual channels you want. Thing is, each one is now its own individual streaming service, with its own account and billing and app interface and media catalog. Give it another five to ten years and there'll be services that bundle these services for you, and then we can start complaining about how Cable 2.0 is charging us too much for packages we don't use when all we want is Hulu and Netflix."
The true end-game is a provider service that allows streaming and you pay for exactly what you watch and only that. Say, $0.50/hr for content. You directly reward ONLY companies that make EXACTLY what you like to watch, you pay for what you use and not what you don't, and it can all be served up by a service that has most everything available. The key here would be the cost per program or per time unit consumed.
The cable model is crap because we pay, for example, $75 a month to watch a few dozen shows/series on just a dozen of their 1,000 channels. I don't watch sports, but I am forced to pay ESPN extortion fees. I don't watch reality TV, daytime drama, news, weather, ethnic channels, etc, etc, etc, etc... and yet I have to pay for all of those, and they are all rewarded. Sure they cost lower because of VOLUME, because every is forced to pay for them, but there are so MANY of them that the bill skyrockets. And all these on cable ARE NOT COMMERCIAL FREE either!
Paying $10 or $15 or $20 a month for a single streaming "channel" (content provider) doesn't help the situation much. Because with something like Disney, it might work out great for someone with kids, but suck horribly for someone who only wants to follow a single series or occasionally watch a single movie here or there. So yeah, we are right back into the cable situation when you have to get 5 streaming services each at $15/mo and tada- you are paying the same super-high $75 a month.... and that is whether you watch it or not.
So no, we haven't been really given what most people want- lower bills, retain the full selection, commercial-free, but most people haven't realized yet what will have to happen to make it possible- which is a pay-for-what-you-watch service.
>"If you're in the US, not sure that's an issue. Isn't CBS still free over the air??"
CBS has explicitly said they are NOT going to air the new Star Trek and have it ONLY on their streaming service. There are absolutely ZERO other shows most of us want from CBS, so this is likely to go over like a lead balloon. So they will have very little streaming revenue and zero ad revenue. I suspect they will give up and air it anyway after they discover people will not tolerate it and it ends up very popular on illegal file sharing.
>"Sure if you like to cook your images beyond what you saw in the camera you'll stick to Windows for Photoshop."
Or you will learn GIMP and do maybe 90% of the same thing, depending on your needs. If you are not a publisher or designer who needs CMYK, needs to edit using some of the super-duper filters/tools, or have to live in an Adobe-centric team, GIMP will get the job done just fine.
Amazon is just a seller, they didn't make the product, they might not have even sourced it (third-party seller just uses Amazon to collect the money and arrange shipping). So it is even less liability still than a car dealer, I would think it would be limited to returning the money paid during the transaction. It would be more like suing Ebay because someone bought something through it that caused damage. Or suing the credit card company because they enabled and was involved in the transaction.
Here is the real irony- there is a danger in Amazon issuing any type of recall, because that actually might shift MORE liability to them because then they are taking it on themselves to try and police what is or is not safe. It is a lot like if an ISP tries to filter data to prevent malware or violations copyright law, it could be construed that they are now responsible when they don't prevent malware or violations of copyright law.
At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own safety and do some research. And the company that MADE the glasses, if they were defective, should be held accountable and sued.
>"I will not voluntarily have something in my home that constantly spies on me and reports to somebody else. "
+1,000 !
I don't want a washing machine, toaster, dryer, security camera, doorbell, iron, refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, lock, toilet, garage door opener, thermostat, microwave oven, car, gun, or cat toy connected to the Internet to some "service". ESPECIALLY one that connects in a way I have absolutely no assurance that I can block or turn off. And that is an opinion coming from someone who LOVES technology- always has and always will. But I want things that *I ABSOLUTELY CONTROL* not some third party.
"IOT" is scary stuff, and not just based on theory, based on actual experience and fact. I don't want my stuff bricked by sloppy and botched forced "updates". I don't want my stuff changing without my consent into something that doesn't do what I bought it for in the first place. I don't want my stuff hacked. I don't want my stuff reporting my "preferences" or activities to some entity. I don't want my stuff to stop working when some company goes out of business or when my Internet connection goes down. I don't want my stuff suddenly telling me what I should not do- or worse, can't do.
>"What people like you seem to fail to understand is that if I can collect and store data on EVERYBODY then in the future if I happen to be pissed off at YOU for whatever reason, I can go back through all that data I've collected and find something you said or did which I can use against you. Because EVERYONE commits some crime or other. EVERYONE. Government should never have such power."
+1,000,000 insightful
Not just government, NOBODY should have that power. Not governments, not businesses, not individuals. NOBODY. There are so many laws and regulations on the books, it is nearly impossible for any normal person to be 100% legal all the time. And each year it just gets worse. And that is just law- it doesn't have to be something illegal, it can just be something embarrassing to then be used as a weapon to harm or corrupt.
And even if there is some saintly person out there who thinks they never did anything wrong or embarrasing, I have news for you:
1) Anything you do can be taken out of context. 2) With power over your computer, anything can be PLANTED to make it seem like you did or said or contemplated something you never did. 3) Nobody is that saintly anyway.
I meant to add a ">" when quoting your original line in my reply... sorry about that:) I can't tell you how many times I wish I could correct things after they are posted.
Anyway, in some ways it is a lot like people complaining about "the rich" using loopholes to lower their taxes. It isn't their fault the loopholes are there (at least I believe it isn't), and they would be stupid NOT to use them. Or people complaining about a President not winning the popular vote- that isn't the rules of the game, the electoral college is. There is nothing unethical or wrong about playing the games by the rules.
Slashdot Mirror
>"The idea of getting from one city to another at 700 MPH without having to suffer through an airport and all that jazz is revolutionary"
And you REALLY think that if hyperloop takes off and gets big that their ports won't be exactly like airports? Dream on. Security Theater will be there just as much, complete with nonsense measures, nude scanning, baggage limitations, prohibited items, etc, etc. Dealing with expensive parking. Dealing with "secure vs. non-secure zones." Dealing with lost/damaged baggage and pickups. Why would that not happen with hyperloop?
I just want to know why we in the USA can't have a $500 note. It is not like $100 is worth that much anymore. Yeesh.
> Hm, now I'm trying to think why it wouldn't be kosher...
LOL! Typos can be so wonderful sometimes
+1
Xylitol works. So simple. So inexpensive. So gentile. So effective. Here is a great product called "Squiggle" that I highly recommend:
https://www.amazon.com/Squigle...
https://www.amazon.com/Squigle...
Brush with it (at least twice a day) and when done spit it all out but DO NOT RINSE. There is nothing harmful or toxic in it to humans. The harmful bacteria will eat the Xylitol and simply die because they can't process/digest it.
Yay! Zillions of more juicy Email addresses and phone numbers to collect and spam! Robots will sweep up all that data and hammer the "contacts" to death.
This is just the start. Web sites are already ruining older and slower computers with unnecessary animation, auto-scrolling, video, huge photo resizing locally, etc, etc. They totally zap precious battery life on mobile devices. They decimate any type of multiuser machines. They gobble data needlessly for those on metered or limited connections.
I am not opposed to mining in the browser as a concept, but I am opposed to it being done without the user having some reasonable control over resources. This is a bad trend that could evolve into something much worse.
Browsers need to give users more control over CPU usage, more control to place limits, to identify tight loops and auto-throttle, etc.
>"Yeah, that's not a 'loaded question' at all..."
Well of course it is, in a similar (but even more apparent) way that the other question was worded. Trying to get people to realize just how incredibly hostile and prejudice the "survey" was.
>"When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could,""
Sorry, that is a loaded question because it is not what mainstream USA Libertarianism is. It seems very popular for many to label Libertarianism that way, however. But it would be like me asking this to determine if they would agree with the Democrat party:
"Would you like to live in a society where everything you do is regulated and controlled by the government, especially at the Federal level, where government redistributes income aggressively, and the Constitution is flexible and interpreted any way the wind blows?"
First, most USA Libertarians will say that the Federal Government should be limited exactly as it says in the Constitution. But there are more things the Fed is supposed to do (per the Constitution) than just provide defense and police. And except for radical Libertarians (extremists, just like you have in all parties), most also support LIMITED government to do things like prevent monopolies, provide for patents, regulate scarce resources (like airwaves/radio frequencies), etc.
>"Gonna go with ICE and DHS being under the Executive branch of the government, of which Trump is the titular head?"
And was it during the Trump administration that these searches started? No. It has nothing to do with the "Trump Administration" other than Trump hasn't stopped it yet. Let's hope he does, but I kinda doubt it.... Obama didn't start the searches either, and in the 8 years it was being done under HIS administration, were there any stories that were worded such as way? Of course not.
Hey, look another auto company shill! How about using common sense and pay attention when traveling at speeds that can easily kill you? But nah, snap chat your way to a darwin award all good
I am a real person who bought a real car and had real experiences which I accurately shared. Nobody else was involved and I have no stake in any outcome. Just because my experience doesn't align with your believes doesn't make trying to call me a liar or puppet acceptable. I also never use any form of social media and rarely even touch or even think about my phone while driving.
I expect you have ZERO experience with any form of car automation and just like to throw insults and pretend you are better than everyone else. Stop deluding yourself. Who is hiding behind being an "Anonymous Coward" and who is posting under a real login for 14 YEARS? And yet you label me as a "shill"?
>"Sounds like scare tactics to promote an app to me. What data will it be slurping up?"
It required no permissions at all, interestingly.
You can't have it both ways. Really, you can't. Either the car is driving or the person is driving. Expecting that a person will let the car drive AND ALSO stay 100% ready to take over is just not reality. If you are not the one in control, then your mind will not focus on it. Driving is boring enough as it is, expecting someone to babysit a semi-autonomous car is way beyond what we can expect people to do.
Just as an example, 9 years ago when I got my fully loaded Infiniti G37S with technology package, it was one of the first vehicles to have laser-controlled intelligent cruise control. It can match speeds of the cars in front and actively adjust, even brake if necessary. And just that ONE feature of driving assistance sounded like it would be very useful. OMG no. I tried many times to use it and found that just fully automated speed control was enough to disengage me from being an active driver. I could not adapt to it and ultimately decided I would never use it again. It was simply unsafe! Regular cruise control- no problem, I have to pay attention and I bump the speed up and down manually with the thumb control and take other action when necessary. But as soon as that was taken away from me, it became nearly impossible to stay attentive, even though I still had to steer!
Now, maybe different brains work differently and some people can handle semi-automation, but I know I can't. So don't even TRY to give me a car that can sorta drive itself and expect ME to be the ultimate failsafe... that just isn't going to happen. And I expect I am far, FAR from alone in this.
Does this mean we can just finally go back to the "machines" we had before which worked perfectly? You get a punch card from the front desk, you walk to the booth and put it in a little holder, you flip the pages and punch holes it in and then pull it out and insert it into a counting machine YOURSELF that counts the votes AND stores the paper card in a locked bin for later auditing?
Simple, effective, cheap, perfect auditing, no way they can ruin privacy. We never needed "touchscreens" and those machines also only worked when the front desk scanned a "access card" to give you after recording your ID; which to me meant they had the ability to track EVERY VOTE AND TIE IT TO EACH PERSON, which is a clear violation of every voting law (voting is supposed to be PRIVATE).
>"Your data wouldn't have been given to criminals if they had invested that $500K in security."
Actually, according to the summary, they spent at least $2.6 MILLION dollars in just the last 2.75 years, alone. Imagine how much that money COULD have done if they had used it to hire a few good security engineers and made meaningful changes.
>"I agree completely. That is exactly the kind of website I hate with a fiery passion. People who design websites like that should die slowly from a painful disease."
Yeah, I hate websites like this:
Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later.
'cause that is all I get!
Thanks for the clarification. I only knew what was happening in the USA, didn't know it was going to be FAR more reasonable for people elsewhere.
>"Well, we finally got it - you can buy all the individual channels you want. Thing is, each one is now its own individual streaming service, with its own account and billing and app interface and media catalog. Give it another five to ten years and there'll be services that bundle these services for you, and then we can start complaining about how Cable 2.0 is charging us too much for packages we don't use when all we want is Hulu and Netflix."
The true end-game is a provider service that allows streaming and you pay for exactly what you watch and only that. Say, $0.50/hr for content. You directly reward ONLY companies that make EXACTLY what you like to watch, you pay for what you use and not what you don't, and it can all be served up by a service that has most everything available. The key here would be the cost per program or per time unit consumed.
The cable model is crap because we pay, for example, $75 a month to watch a few dozen shows/series on just a dozen of their 1,000 channels. I don't watch sports, but I am forced to pay ESPN extortion fees. I don't watch reality TV, daytime drama, news, weather, ethnic channels, etc, etc, etc, etc... and yet I have to pay for all of those, and they are all rewarded. Sure they cost lower because of VOLUME, because every is forced to pay for them, but there are so MANY of them that the bill skyrockets. And all these on cable ARE NOT COMMERCIAL FREE either!
Paying $10 or $15 or $20 a month for a single streaming "channel" (content provider) doesn't help the situation much. Because with something like Disney, it might work out great for someone with kids, but suck horribly for someone who only wants to follow a single series or occasionally watch a single movie here or there. So yeah, we are right back into the cable situation when you have to get 5 streaming services each at $15/mo and tada- you are paying the same super-high $75 a month.... and that is whether you watch it or not.
So no, we haven't been really given what most people want- lower bills, retain the full selection, commercial-free, but most people haven't realized yet what will have to happen to make it possible- which is a pay-for-what-you-watch service.
>"If you're in the US, not sure that's an issue. Isn't CBS still free over the air??"
CBS has explicitly said they are NOT going to air the new Star Trek and have it ONLY on their streaming service. There are absolutely ZERO other shows most of us want from CBS, so this is likely to go over like a lead balloon. So they will have very little streaming revenue and zero ad revenue. I suspect they will give up and air it anyway after they discover people will not tolerate it and it ends up very popular on illegal file sharing.
I don't disagree with anything you said. But GIMP is still very, very useful and can still do most of what most people need.
>"Unless it takes 10 Linux desktops to replace each Mac, the math doesn't seem to work..."
It does if you are looking at price :)
>"Sure if you like to cook your images beyond what you saw in the camera you'll stick to Windows for Photoshop."
Or you will learn GIMP and do maybe 90% of the same thing, depending on your needs. If you are not a publisher or designer who needs CMYK, needs to edit using some of the super-duper filters/tools, or have to live in an Adobe-centric team, GIMP will get the job done just fine.
Yep
Amazon is just a seller, they didn't make the product, they might not have even sourced it (third-party seller just uses Amazon to collect the money and arrange shipping). So it is even less liability still than a car dealer, I would think it would be limited to returning the money paid during the transaction. It would be more like suing Ebay because someone bought something through it that caused damage. Or suing the credit card company because they enabled and was involved in the transaction.
Here is the real irony- there is a danger in Amazon issuing any type of recall, because that actually might shift MORE liability to them because then they are taking it on themselves to try and police what is or is not safe. It is a lot like if an ISP tries to filter data to prevent malware or violations copyright law, it could be construed that they are now responsible when they don't prevent malware or violations of copyright law.
At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own safety and do some research. And the company that MADE the glasses, if they were defective, should be held accountable and sued.
>"I will not voluntarily have something in my home that constantly spies on me and reports to somebody else. "
+1,000 !
I don't want a washing machine, toaster, dryer, security camera, doorbell, iron, refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, lock, toilet, garage door opener, thermostat, microwave oven, car, gun, or cat toy connected to the Internet to some "service". ESPECIALLY one that connects in a way I have absolutely no assurance that I can block or turn off. And that is an opinion coming from someone who LOVES technology- always has and always will. But I want things that *I ABSOLUTELY CONTROL* not some third party.
"IOT" is scary stuff, and not just based on theory, based on actual experience and fact. I don't want my stuff bricked by sloppy and botched forced "updates". I don't want my stuff changing without my consent into something that doesn't do what I bought it for in the first place. I don't want my stuff hacked. I don't want my stuff reporting my "preferences" or activities to some entity. I don't want my stuff to stop working when some company goes out of business or when my Internet connection goes down. I don't want my stuff suddenly telling me what I should not do- or worse, can't do.
Do you?
>"What people like you seem to fail to understand is that if I can collect and store data on EVERYBODY then in the future if I happen to be pissed off at YOU for whatever reason, I can go back through all that data I've collected and find something you said or did which I can use against you. Because EVERYONE commits some crime or other. EVERYONE. Government should never have such power."
+1,000,000 insightful
Not just government, NOBODY should have that power. Not governments, not businesses, not individuals. NOBODY. There are so many laws and regulations on the books, it is nearly impossible for any normal person to be 100% legal all the time. And each year it just gets worse. And that is just law- it doesn't have to be something illegal, it can just be something embarrassing to then be used as a weapon to harm or corrupt.
And even if there is some saintly person out there who thinks they never did anything wrong or embarrasing, I have news for you:
1) Anything you do can be taken out of context.
2) With power over your computer, anything can be PLANTED to make it seem like you did or said or contemplated something you never did.
3) Nobody is that saintly anyway.
I meant to add a ">" when quoting your original line in my reply... sorry about that :) I can't tell you how many times I wish I could correct things after they are posted.
Anyway, in some ways it is a lot like people complaining about "the rich" using loopholes to lower their taxes. It isn't their fault the loopholes are there (at least I believe it isn't), and they would be stupid NOT to use them. Or people complaining about a President not winning the popular vote- that isn't the rules of the game, the electoral college is. There is nothing unethical or wrong about playing the games by the rules.