The emails only seem damning if you don't understand what they are talking about, and the particular vernacular they employed while talking. They've all been debunked. If they weren't, Fox News would have received a Nobel prize by now. The only people perpetrating this "the emails!!! so bad!!!" stuff are people who either don't understand, or those with an axe to grind. Any credible scientist looking at them, impartially, would see they are not damning in the least. No fraud was talked about - the words and phrases like "tricks" and "make up" have non-fraudulent meanings in the context in which they were used, which is evident to anyone who knows the lingo of the industry. But meh.
It takes a bit more than hugging Muslims. The US would still have a history of screwing over governments in the middle east, and propping up Israel, which no amount of hugging would tempered. Until the US owns up to that - and seriously starts to put things right - people will still find fault. Shock. Horror.
But yes - I agree that should have been the domestic approach. Unfortunately the US government would have screwed it up.
If we remove the ability for those people to track us, doesn't that mean that those Sagans of dollars need to be put back in to the industry in order for our current "internet experience" to remain as it is? I'm not saying where we're currently at is great or all, but if it is that large amount of money, we'll notice the difference if it leaves.
Seatbelts are designed to keep you in the vehicle, and the airbags are designed to stop you smashing your soft body against all the hard stuff around you. This is basic physics. One without the other is dangerous, but without both it's even more dangerous. Tuck your hubris away and take a rational look at the situation.
An automatic car will be able to detect issues far better than a human. A computer will notice that a car's braking distance is gradually increasing before a human driver does. It will know when its turning isn't as sharp as it was before. It will know when fuel consumption is varying, or engine temperatures are slightly abnormal. People simply don't notice these things.
Volvo already have a car that can do just that. You get out, tell it to park, and it drives off, finds a space, and parks. It then lets you know via your phone where it is. You can then summon it back to you when you want. The payment issue is clearly trivial, as automatic toll booths have had that ability for years and years.
You don't know if the speed limit is there because of some money-grabbing scheme or because the road is poorly-maintained. It's not your choice to make - you might be endangering other people with your "I know best" attitude. The human in the car is more likely to mess up than the computer, so if anything it'd be the computer stepping in to save the day when you mess up, not the other way round.
So much ignorance. I think you'll find that the Google car's "vision" is far superior to humans. It can see farther than humans, with greater accuracy, and there are even radar units in production which can see *through* the cars in front. They have better perception of their surroundings, and can act far quicker than any human. They also don't mentally drift off, or perform worse after a hard day's work or a beer at lunch time. I have no idea why you think your vision is better than a computerised laser system aided by radar, or why you think your reaction times are faster than a computer, when both of those things are easily (and, indeed, have been) proven false. Oh yeah - hubris. Grow up - you are not the perfect being you seem to think you are, even if your ego tells you so.
No, an ad hominem is an attack on the person making a claim rather than the claim itself. Calling something FUD is clearly not an ad hominem as their position might actually be FUD, so not a fallacy.
How lucky Google is to have wonderful people like you pointing out things they've clearly never even considered. How lucky mankind is that such visionaries such as yourself are among us, educating experts in their fields with such insights they would have obviously otherwise missed. Please continue your priceless work - you are helping our species more and more every day.
Or:
They've already thought of that - funnily enough they know more about this than you, and are not blinded by hubris the way you seem to be.
You're a fool if you think, even for one second, there's any measurable difference between democrats or republicans. They both pander to the same electoral base, and the culture prevalent among them. The current political scene in the US is what Americans want - pretending that some change is just round the corner if only the right guy could step up is hoping for a miracle that will never happen. America has earned its current situation.
That is the perfect example of an ad hominem attack. Point out why their research is flawed, instead of who paid for the research. It's not unheard of for commissioned research to bite the commissioners in the ass when the actual findings do not gel with their expectations.
How are human rights supposed to improve in those countries if they are not involved in the process? Hint: They're not there to run the committees. This is diplomacy 101 stuff - you really should know this before lambasting the very process you seem to be calling for, doing nothing but showing your ignorance on the way.
Get a dictionary, you idiot. The two are not the same, hence there being different words with different meanings. I assume it helps your mind to conflate the two, when you are railing against people simply because their religious beliefs are different to yours, that it gives you some comfort that you're not actually a racist nutter, just simply trying to "help" the world. Unfortunately, you are a racist nutter, and you are damaging not only the world, but those around you, and those you purport to love. Grow up. Learn. Think.
Yeah - that's why those other countries have lower life expectancies. Oh, wait, no - they don't. You should look at the facts. Other countries are doing just fine with their healthcare systems - they spend far less than the US does on its system, and the outcomes are entirely comparable.
I'd assume most business packages have SLAs that consumer ones don't. That's what I've seen, anyway, when looking at what's available. And wait a minute - how does it help with capacity planning, when some home users use far more bandwidth up & down than some companies do? It seems a rather poor technique to me.
You don't seem to understand what the issue is. Just your iPhone seeing what wifi networks are out there is enough for you to be tracked. The only solution is to turn off wifi, or figure out how to get your device to not send its MAC address when looking for available networks. Being asked for permission to join a network doesn't affect this one bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Charlie Chaplin was British, fyi.
So 33.3% of something is 100% of something? Who knew...
That's not a camera on the top - Google uses LIDAR.
The emails only seem damning if you don't understand what they are talking about, and the particular vernacular they employed while talking. They've all been debunked. If they weren't, Fox News would have received a Nobel prize by now. The only people perpetrating this "the emails!!! so bad!!!" stuff are people who either don't understand, or those with an axe to grind. Any credible scientist looking at them, impartially, would see they are not damning in the least. No fraud was talked about - the words and phrases like "tricks" and "make up" have non-fraudulent meanings in the context in which they were used, which is evident to anyone who knows the lingo of the industry. But meh.
It takes a bit more than hugging Muslims. The US would still have a history of screwing over governments in the middle east, and propping up Israel, which no amount of hugging would tempered. Until the US owns up to that - and seriously starts to put things right - people will still find fault. Shock. Horror.
But yes - I agree that should have been the domestic approach. Unfortunately the US government would have screwed it up.
If we remove the ability for those people to track us, doesn't that mean that those Sagans of dollars need to be put back in to the industry in order for our current "internet experience" to remain as it is? I'm not saying where we're currently at is great or all, but if it is that large amount of money, we'll notice the difference if it leaves.
Seatbelts are designed to keep you in the vehicle, and the airbags are designed to stop you smashing your soft body against all the hard stuff around you. This is basic physics. One without the other is dangerous, but without both it's even more dangerous. Tuck your hubris away and take a rational look at the situation.
An automatic car will be able to detect issues far better than a human. A computer will notice that a car's braking distance is gradually increasing before a human driver does. It will know when its turning isn't as sharp as it was before. It will know when fuel consumption is varying, or engine temperatures are slightly abnormal. People simply don't notice these things.
Volvo already have a car that can do just that. You get out, tell it to park, and it drives off, finds a space, and parks. It then lets you know via your phone where it is. You can then summon it back to you when you want. The payment issue is clearly trivial, as automatic toll booths have had that ability for years and years.
You don't know if the speed limit is there because of some money-grabbing scheme or because the road is poorly-maintained. It's not your choice to make - you might be endangering other people with your "I know best" attitude. The human in the car is more likely to mess up than the computer, so if anything it'd be the computer stepping in to save the day when you mess up, not the other way round.
So much ignorance. I think you'll find that the Google car's "vision" is far superior to humans. It can see farther than humans, with greater accuracy, and there are even radar units in production which can see *through* the cars in front. They have better perception of their surroundings, and can act far quicker than any human. They also don't mentally drift off, or perform worse after a hard day's work or a beer at lunch time. I have no idea why you think your vision is better than a computerised laser system aided by radar, or why you think your reaction times are faster than a computer, when both of those things are easily (and, indeed, have been) proven false. Oh yeah - hubris. Grow up - you are not the perfect being you seem to think you are, even if your ego tells you so.
Automatic trains have been working for years, fyi.
No, an ad hominem is an attack on the person making a claim rather than the claim itself. Calling something FUD is clearly not an ad hominem as their position might actually be FUD, so not a fallacy.
How lucky Google is to have wonderful people like you pointing out things they've clearly never even considered. How lucky mankind is that such visionaries such as yourself are among us, educating experts in their fields with such insights they would have obviously otherwise missed. Please continue your priceless work - you are helping our species more and more every day.
Or:
They've already thought of that - funnily enough they know more about this than you, and are not blinded by hubris the way you seem to be.
You're a fool if you think, even for one second, there's any measurable difference between democrats or republicans. They both pander to the same electoral base, and the culture prevalent among them. The current political scene in the US is what Americans want - pretending that some change is just round the corner if only the right guy could step up is hoping for a miracle that will never happen. America has earned its current situation.
That is the perfect example of an ad hominem attack. Point out why their research is flawed, instead of who paid for the research. It's not unheard of for commissioned research to bite the commissioners in the ass when the actual findings do not gel with their expectations.
How are human rights supposed to improve in those countries if they are not involved in the process? Hint: They're not there to run the committees. This is diplomacy 101 stuff - you really should know this before lambasting the very process you seem to be calling for, doing nothing but showing your ignorance on the way.
The US government disagrees with you - they've stated no-one was hurt due to the releases.
Get a dictionary, you idiot. The two are not the same, hence there being different words with different meanings. I assume it helps your mind to conflate the two, when you are railing against people simply because their religious beliefs are different to yours, that it gives you some comfort that you're not actually a racist nutter, just simply trying to "help" the world. Unfortunately, you are a racist nutter, and you are damaging not only the world, but those around you, and those you purport to love. Grow up. Learn. Think.
He probably blames them on the left.
Yeah - that's why those other countries have lower life expectancies. Oh, wait, no - they don't. You should look at the facts. Other countries are doing just fine with their healthcare systems - they spend far less than the US does on its system, and the outcomes are entirely comparable.
I'd assume most business packages have SLAs that consumer ones don't. That's what I've seen, anyway, when looking at what's available. And wait a minute - how does it help with capacity planning, when some home users use far more bandwidth up & down than some companies do? It seems a rather poor technique to me.
Exactly - business connections are expensive because of the SLAs, not bandwidth.
You don't seem to understand what the issue is. Just your iPhone seeing what wifi networks are out there is enough for you to be tracked. The only solution is to turn off wifi, or figure out how to get your device to not send its MAC address when looking for available networks. Being asked for permission to join a network doesn't affect this one bit.
Most of those cameras are privately owned, and are governed by the Data Protection Act.