Yes, there can be high-functioning drug addicts with many drugs, especially opiates as you pointed out. It can vary greatly depending on the drug and how it is used. I didn't mean to imply it is not possible, just that there are, indeed, many cases where the high *is* a problem for the user and society, not just the seeking of it. A quick look at drunk driving or productivity/reasoning while on pot will show that. And I am not sure there is any high-functioning high with hallucinogens.
Plus, although there CAN be high functioning people on maintenance doses of opiates (and many other drugs), many of such people will still choose go beyond maintenance at times and into an "altered" (high) state which can be very destructive for themselves and those around them. And despite what you seem to dismiss, those "episodes" can cause fatal car crashes, loss of jobs, accidents, overdoses, saying things that hurt those who love you, forgetting to do important things, etc.
I am not a prohibitionist, but I also don't try to dismiss that there are serious issues surrounding all types of drug use which vary wildly depending on many factors.
>"I'm just mentioning it. Since people obviously think that "drug addiction" means "cocaine/heroine addiction".
That's because there isn't much of an altered-state "high" with nicotine or caffeine. Although they can be addictive (especially nicotine), being "on" them doesn't really alter perception, warp senses, and severely impair judgement, memory, motor skills, productivity, cognition, etc, like being high on alcohol, cocaine, heroine, marijuana, meth, LSD, PCP, etc.
With nicotine, there is just being compelled to continue to use it. Which, when obtained from tobacco, leads to health problems.
>"Feeling the high won't destroy your life. Feeling a constant need for getting high (addiction) will destroy your life."
Actually, for mind/reality-altering drugs (which excludes caffeine, nicotine, sugar, etc) the actual high *can* contribute to destroying lives. While high, judgement and functionality are so severely impaired that there is a huge risk of injury to one self and to others. And all the while, the person is completely unproductive- can't work, can't learn, can't do much of anything useful to society or for themselves.
So yes, the need for getting high does contribute to "destroying your life", and can be the longest part of the destruction, the actual high contributes too.
Sex is a hugely powerful motivator but few higher species will kill each other for mating. Most will carefully regulate their "fighting" to be mostly display and instinctively know when they are outmatched and stop aggression and retreat. It is not in the species' best interest for lots of their own kind to die in such activities.
>"loud rock shows can, in fact, be a nuisance to neighbors, as many of the people who put the shows on will admit. "
Of course they are. In fact, to many people (myself included), such noise in a residential area is not a "trivial crime" at all. But why is it necessary to go undercover? Isn't it easier to wait for a noise complaint, then sent units over to wherever it is and start issuing tickets??
>"Once they get some experience, young drivers are better than older drivers; because their vision, reflexes, and motor skills are superior, and the amount of additional improvement possible from additional experience tapers off."
And yet studies don't actually show that. Young drivers are still more "fearless" and "reckless" and more "distracted" than older drivers and have far more accidents. Now *"OLD"* drivers are a different story, because at that point reaction time starts to dwindle, memory fails, overall processing is slower, vision is more impaired, etc.
I am not going to try to set a point of "OLD" verses "older". But most 20-something drivers are still much worse, overall, than older 30, 40, or even 50 something drivers. If you don't believe me, ask any insurance agent.
While I agree that even a car's heads-up type display could be slightly distracting, there is a WORLD of difference between what the car offers (or a typical watch) and what Google Glass will offer. The car might show your speed and a few other pieces of non-captivating info. Glass will show video clips, text/articles to read, etc. Inotherwords, extremely distracting content.
I do agree with you that it is silly to try and list every possible thing that is to be banned.
I am not sure why that machine would START at $950! That is for a low end model!! Let's compare....
In late November I bought a Lenovo Thinkpad Twist for $1100. But that was with twice the memory, an SSD instead of HD, and the fastest mobile core i7 available. And the case looks nearly the same, it has the identical keyboard, and the identical trackpad and I think the same battery. What I bought was a new model, it was not clearance or anything and it is also classified as an "Ultrabook".
The only thing better about this T431s is that it has a much higher res display (the Twist is "only" 1366x768). But the Twist's is a glass touchscreen and can "twist" and turn into a tablet- which is yet another premium feature. Oh, and it works wonderfully under Linux (Fedora 18/KDE at the moment).
Something is not right with the price of the T431.
I doubt anything thinks they are being targeted specifically by Google. But your sitting there saying that all data is anonymized is meaningless. You have no idea what exactly is being done with all the data. Many people that even work at organizations have no idea what they do with their data.
>"The author points out, rightly, that surveillance cameras are already everywhere"
Typical "justification". So because there are already cameras in many places, there is nothing wrong with having them everywhere, all the time, possibly recording and sharing everything, including audio.... even at your restaurant table.
>"that sticks in people's craws and makes them go irrationally berserk."
Typical again. So anyone that could possibly have a problem could only react by being "irrational" about it?
>"However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security,"
Could it get even more typical? Seems all the rage for a long time now to not give a damn about privacy or freedom. The vast majority of people are quick to trade privacy and freedom for convenience and the illusion of safety.
Difficult times are coming. Technology is never bad/evil, but what people DO with it can be. I hope people who are eager to strap on something like Google Glass think about how it might affect others around them. There are a lot of unanswered questions about moving into a world where everyone (and every company/government) knows everything about everyone at all times.
Why PlusFiveTroll is modded up is beyond me. There is a *HUGE* difference between wearing a rude headset and recording/sharing/analyzing/uploading everything seen and heard possibly 100% of the time with Big Brother vs. people taking out a cell phone and snapping a few photos or video clips every now and then.
Plus, I think you need to examine what you think it "private". Would it be OK for someone you don't know and didn't ask and possibly even wasn't aware of to record you in your back yard? In your car? At a picnic in a park? At your table in a restaurant? In a public bathroom? In your house sitting at a window?
I'm sorry, but I TOTALLY agree with the Bar owner's advance ban. It is one thing to give away your own privacy... and quite another to violate the privacy of everyone around you all the time. Times are changing for sure, but sometimes things move too quickly. People are already rude and discourteous enough with damn phones... this is going to be a thousand times worse.
>"although uncertainty about whether consumers will embrace the technology"
Personally, I think people are rude enough with their phones (and even tablets) as it sits now. I can't imagine it with a bunch of people with those stupid things on their heads. Now they can even look at you and still not be looking at you.
Then add the aspect that someone looking at you wearing one is "recording" or at least "analyzing" everything seen and heard and sharing it with Google or whomever is quite invasive. It is one thing to give away your own privacy... and quite another to violate the privacy of everyone around you all the time.
And please don't bother replying to this with crap like "but you are in public". It doesn't matter if you are in public or not. And quite frankly, sitting in a booth at a restaurant with a few friends, there is way more than a reasonable expectation that your conversations, your body expressions, what you are wearing and eating, etc are not shared with Big Brother or the entire world.
I will try to keep an open mind. But I doubt I would be comfortable with people using those around me. It is beyond spooky. And I can't imagine I am alone. So that might be the answer to the summary's question about if consumers will "embrace" the technology.
>"Representative Delus Johnson, who wants to end the watch and clock switchery altogether. In short, he says we should spring forward this one last time, without ever falling back. "
I have been saying this for many, many years. Go on daylight savings and then NEVER CHANGE AGAIN. Give us light when we can *USE* it in the winter.
The second best solution is to go on standard time and NEVER CHANGE AGAIN.
But remaining on this INCREDIBLY STUPID system of changing time twice a year is just INSANE. It does NOTHING to save energy. In fact, it does almost nothing positive at all. Yet it causes tons of lost productivity, sleep problems, irritation, confusion, and inconvenience.
Pidgin has a plugin for encryption, but when I tested it a few years ago it caused problems with long messages and pastes and such and so I stopped using it.
The killer features in Jitsi is the desktop sharing, encryption, and file transfer.
Of those, Pidgin supports file transfer yet it doesn't every work in Yahoo:( And encryption I addressed above. I would love to see both fixed and add that desktop sharing thing.... especially if that also worked on Android too.
Actually your point is not clear at all. The topic is about what "marriage" is. All you are doing is just dragging in a bunch of highly emotionally charged and totally unrelated examples of different subject matter. It is a word, it is not a place, or a restriction, or a banning.
Marriage, for thousands of years has been defined by this primary example in Webster's:
"The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc"
There is nothing discriminatory or hateful about such a definition... it is just what it is, and based primarily on biology. Some people want to change the term to remove gender. Others think it should not be changed to remove gender. In neither case does that preclude having a legal coupling called something else. Doesn't bother me either way... but I *understand* the positions of other people who might be offended by changing what the word "marriage" means.
Yes, there are bigots out there, quite a few, actually (and unfortunately). But being anti-gay-"marriage" does not automatically make someone anti-gay or a bigot. If one think otherwise, then I believe that person has a very narrow view, is overly judgmental, and maybe even be a bigot him/herself (Websters: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices")
Slashdot Mirror
No, what I said certainly is not total bull****.
Yes, there can be high-functioning drug addicts with many drugs, especially opiates as you pointed out. It can vary greatly depending on the drug and how it is used. I didn't mean to imply it is not possible, just that there are, indeed, many cases where the high *is* a problem for the user and society, not just the seeking of it. A quick look at drunk driving or productivity/reasoning while on pot will show that. And I am not sure there is any high-functioning high with hallucinogens.
Plus, although there CAN be high functioning people on maintenance doses of opiates (and many other drugs), many of such people will still choose go beyond maintenance at times and into an "altered" (high) state which can be very destructive for themselves and those around them. And despite what you seem to dismiss, those "episodes" can cause fatal car crashes, loss of jobs, accidents, overdoses, saying things that hurt those who love you, forgetting to do important things, etc.
I am not a prohibitionist, but I also don't try to dismiss that there are serious issues surrounding all types of drug use which vary wildly depending on many factors.
>"I'm just mentioning it. Since people obviously think that "drug addiction" means "cocaine/heroine addiction".
That's because there isn't much of an altered-state "high" with nicotine or caffeine. Although they can be addictive (especially nicotine), being "on" them doesn't really alter perception, warp senses, and severely impair judgement, memory, motor skills, productivity, cognition, etc, like being high on alcohol, cocaine, heroine, marijuana, meth, LSD, PCP, etc.
With nicotine, there is just being compelled to continue to use it. Which, when obtained from tobacco, leads to health problems.
>"Feeling the high won't destroy your life. Feeling a constant need for getting high (addiction) will destroy your life."
Actually, for mind/reality-altering drugs (which excludes caffeine, nicotine, sugar, etc) the actual high *can* contribute to destroying lives. While high, judgement and functionality are so severely impaired that there is a huge risk of injury to one self and to others. And all the while, the person is completely unproductive- can't work, can't learn, can't do much of anything useful to society or for themselves.
So yes, the need for getting high does contribute to "destroying your life", and can be the longest part of the destruction, the actual high contributes too.
Sex is a hugely powerful motivator but few higher species will kill each other for mating. Most will carefully regulate their "fighting" to be mostly display and instinctively know when they are outmatched and stop aggression and retreat. It is not in the species' best interest for lots of their own kind to die in such activities.
Sorry, this will NOT directly replace all you can do with X11. Not by a long shot.
>"With our iPhone in hand â" or any smartphone, really "
Oh really? Thanks for the concession! So there is nothing super magical about the iPhone then??? Just... wow!
>"loud rock shows can, in fact, be a nuisance to neighbors, as many of the people who put the shows on will admit. "
Of course they are. In fact, to many people (myself included), such noise in a residential area is not a "trivial crime" at all. But why is it necessary to go undercover? Isn't it easier to wait for a noise complaint, then sent units over to wherever it is and start issuing tickets??
>"Once they get some experience, young drivers are better than older drivers; because their vision, reflexes, and motor skills are superior, and the amount of additional improvement possible from additional experience tapers off."
And yet studies don't actually show that. Young drivers are still more "fearless" and "reckless" and more "distracted" than older drivers and have far more accidents. Now *"OLD"* drivers are a different story, because at that point reaction time starts to dwindle, memory fails, overall processing is slower, vision is more impaired, etc.
I am not going to try to set a point of "OLD" verses "older". But most 20-something drivers are still much worse, overall, than older 30, 40, or even 50 something drivers. If you don't believe me, ask any insurance agent.
While I agree that even a car's heads-up type display could be slightly distracting, there is a WORLD of difference between what the car offers (or a typical watch) and what Google Glass will offer. The car might show your speed and a few other pieces of non-captivating info. Glass will show video clips, text/articles to read, etc. Inotherwords, extremely distracting content.
I do agree with you that it is silly to try and list every possible thing that is to be banned.
Although this sounds interesting, what would be more useful for me would be OpenOffice/LibreOffice on Android.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/libreoffice-for-android-frustratingly-close-to-release/
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Android
http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/11985/is-libreoffice-4-available-for-android/
I think Chrome and Android have already merged. Chrome is the default browser in Android Linux, now.
Oh, perhaps they meant "Chrome OS" Linux?
I am not sure why that machine would START at $950! That is for a low end model!! Let's compare....
In late November I bought a Lenovo Thinkpad Twist for $1100. But that was with twice the memory, an SSD instead of HD, and the fastest mobile core i7 available. And the case looks nearly the same, it has the identical keyboard, and the identical trackpad and I think the same battery. What I bought was a new model, it was not clearance or anything and it is also classified as an "Ultrabook".
The only thing better about this T431s is that it has a much higher res display (the Twist is "only" 1366x768). But the Twist's is a glass touchscreen and can "twist" and turn into a tablet- which is yet another premium feature. Oh, and it works wonderfully under Linux (Fedora 18/KDE at the moment).
Something is not right with the price of the T431.
I doubt anything thinks they are being targeted specifically by Google. But your sitting there saying that all data is anonymized is meaningless. You have no idea what exactly is being done with all the data. Many people that even work at organizations have no idea what they do with their data.
And today's data is tomorrow's information.
Yes indeed I did :) But my rant is still valid, just not at that direction.
I can't believe anyone would mod that up. That is the oldest one in the book "if you have nothing to hide". Here are some things to thing about:
* If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me
* Other people define what is "right" or "wrong" and that definition changes all the time
* Someone else might do something wrong with my information
* Pieces of information, taken out of context, can lead people to wrong conclusions
* Scanning information, you can always FIND something that might be wrong or abused
* You can be at the wrong place at the wrong time and still have done nothing wrong
* You can't possibly know what way some information might be used against you at the time it is collected
* Computers don't "forget" and you can't control how long some system will hold information about you
* Once information is collected, you don't know who that company might share it with, nor why, nor how often
* The only "safe" information, is the information not collected or offered
>"The author points out, rightly, that surveillance cameras are already everywhere"
Typical "justification". So because there are already cameras in many places, there is nothing wrong with having them everywhere, all the time, possibly recording and sharing everything, including audio.... even at your restaurant table.
>"that sticks in people's craws and makes them go irrationally berserk."
Typical again. So anyone that could possibly have a problem could only react by being "irrational" about it?
>"However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security,"
Could it get even more typical? Seems all the rage for a long time now to not give a damn about privacy or freedom. The vast majority of people are quick to trade privacy and freedom for convenience and the illusion of safety.
Difficult times are coming. Technology is never bad/evil, but what people DO with it can be. I hope people who are eager to strap on something like Google Glass think about how it might affect others around them. There are a lot of unanswered questions about moving into a world where everyone (and every company/government) knows everything about everyone at all times.
>" In a separate post Halse Rogers answer the question: Does this fragment the Linux graphics driver space?""
Yes. That is why we should work on X12 and ignore anything else :)
>"What do you do when your daughter wants the girl to be the hero"
Sorry, you can't without a sex change operation. But you can help her be the heroine!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heroine
I may have misread what he posted, but I was far from entering rage mode :)
Why PlusFiveTroll is modded up is beyond me. There is a *HUGE* difference between wearing a rude headset and recording/sharing/analyzing/uploading everything seen and heard possibly 100% of the time with Big Brother vs. people taking out a cell phone and snapping a few photos or video clips every now and then.
Plus, I think you need to examine what you think it "private". Would it be OK for someone you don't know and didn't ask and possibly even wasn't aware of to record you in your back yard? In your car? At a picnic in a park? At your table in a restaurant? In a public bathroom? In your house sitting at a window?
I'm sorry, but I TOTALLY agree with the Bar owner's advance ban. It is one thing to give away your own privacy... and quite another to violate the privacy of everyone around you all the time. Times are changing for sure, but sometimes things move too quickly. People are already rude and discourteous enough with damn phones... this is going to be a thousand times worse.
Except people won't because they are too busy and absorbed in their virtual world to interact with people around them.
>"although uncertainty about whether consumers will embrace the technology"
Personally, I think people are rude enough with their phones (and even tablets) as it sits now. I can't imagine it with a bunch of people with those stupid things on their heads. Now they can even look at you and still not be looking at you.
Then add the aspect that someone looking at you wearing one is "recording" or at least "analyzing" everything seen and heard and sharing it with Google or whomever is quite invasive. It is one thing to give away your own privacy... and quite another to violate the privacy of everyone around you all the time.
And please don't bother replying to this with crap like "but you are in public". It doesn't matter if you are in public or not. And quite frankly, sitting in a booth at a restaurant with a few friends, there is way more than a reasonable expectation that your conversations, your body expressions, what you are wearing and eating, etc are not shared with Big Brother or the entire world.
I will try to keep an open mind. But I doubt I would be comfortable with people using those around me. It is beyond spooky. And I can't imagine I am alone. So that might be the answer to the summary's question about if consumers will "embrace" the technology.
>"Representative Delus Johnson, who wants to end the watch and clock switchery altogether. In short, he says we should spring forward this one last time, without ever falling back. "
I have been saying this for many, many years. Go on daylight savings and then NEVER CHANGE AGAIN. Give us light when we can *USE* it in the winter.
The second best solution is to go on standard time and NEVER CHANGE AGAIN.
But remaining on this INCREDIBLY STUPID system of changing time twice a year is just INSANE. It does NOTHING to save energy. In fact, it does almost nothing positive at all. Yet it causes tons of lost productivity, sleep problems, irritation, confusion, and inconvenience.
Pidgin has a plugin for encryption, but when I tested it a few years ago it caused problems with long messages and pastes and such and so I stopped using it.
The killer features in Jitsi is the desktop sharing, encryption, and file transfer.
Of those, Pidgin supports file transfer yet it doesn't every work in Yahoo :( And encryption I addressed above. I would love to see both fixed and add that desktop sharing thing.... especially if that also worked on Android too.
Actually your point is not clear at all. The topic is about what "marriage" is. All you are doing is just dragging in a bunch of highly emotionally charged and totally unrelated examples of different subject matter. It is a word, it is not a place, or a restriction, or a banning.
Marriage, for thousands of years has been defined by this primary example in Webster's:
"The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc"
There is nothing discriminatory or hateful about such a definition... it is just what it is, and based primarily on biology. Some people want to change the term to remove gender. Others think it should not be changed to remove gender. In neither case does that preclude having a legal coupling called something else. Doesn't bother me either way... but I *understand* the positions of other people who might be offended by changing what the word "marriage" means.
Yes, there are bigots out there, quite a few, actually (and unfortunately). But being anti-gay-"marriage" does not automatically make someone anti-gay or a bigot. If one think otherwise, then I believe that person has a very narrow view, is overly judgmental, and maybe even be a bigot him/herself (Websters: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices")