I will never understand this line of reasoning. A big American corporation did this terrible thing in the past, and so somehow it's now ok if British company does the same thing? Weren't you just saying that it was wrong for them to do it? It seems like you started your argument by stating that you are definitely on the wrong side of it.
So I have to take responsibility for a secret program, which I always suspected but I could never prove existed? And if one of us does do something like Snowden or Manning, he's called a traitor and charged as a criminal? But this is my fault individually?! I have absolutely no control over it whatsoever.
I suppose it depends how you look at it. I think that as long as you do it in order to get food you aren't doing it for entertainment, even though you could have gotten the food another way. It's not like you're traveling to Africa to shoot a lion in a pen for a trophy.
I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but every time I wear something on my head for more than an hour or so I get a headache. This goes for glasses, headphones, earbuds and all kinds of hats. So I will probably never use this kind of device (at least not a lot).
It's more like this decade's tablet. You can tell it's coming, but that doesn't mean a poor innovator like Google can just slap something together and throw it out there. It's going to have to be done by someone who actually knows that they're doing.
The problem with comparing two things over time is that things like cancer rates and cellphone use are changing all the time. So any comparison made this way is bound to show a positive or negative correlation. That's why controlled experimentation is such in important part of the scientific method.
The articles about this keep saying that "recent international research has shown there may be a link" without providing the source of that data! I can't find it anywhere, all the studies I can find show no evidence of a link. What the hell are these assholes talking about?! Why don't these journalists think this is an important piece of information to include with their articles?
I don't care if a bunch of nuts half a world away banned wifi for their elementary students. I but do care if they had a good reason to do it!
Deleted my account only a few years ago after finally accepting that the only thing I got from having a facebook account was the occasional depressing reminder that other people my age that I knew were having lots of fun/relationships with one another while I stayed at home playing video games.
This has got to be one of the most depressing things I've read in a while. Have you considered getting therapy for your social anxiety? It doesn't sound like you're very happy with your life the way it is.
There was never an abundance of teenagers on Facebook. It was initially for college students, and it branched out to older users. It has never been a good tool for young people living with their parents (for obvious reasons).
Windows sucks but why would cramming a shitty OEM version of Android make things better?
Any movement away from a Microsoft dominated software market is probably a step in the right direction. As for the question of whether anyone will use these features, I will withhold judgment until I can actually see them.
I'm not going to "start" my kids on games. That's such a strange idea. They're going to play however they want to play (within reason), that's what play is for!
Apple has 40% market share in smartphones in the US, but it looks a lot higher when you're just walking around (especially in a big city). I'd assume that's because iPhone users are more likely to be using their phone at any given time.
Psychopathy means pathology of the psyche. Nothing more, nothing less.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
from Wikipedia:
Psychopathy is defined as either an aspect of personality or as a personality disorder, characterized by enduring dissocial or antisocial behavior, a diminished capacity for empathy or remorse, and poor behavioral controls or fearless dominance. There are various definitions which are only partly overlapping and sometimes appear contradictory.
There is little point in arguing over definitions, much less so if you are trying to turn the conventional usage on it's head. Based on the context:
I'm not convinced that "software developer" is an appropriate job for a raving psychopath.
It is clear the person he was replying to (you?) was using the conventional meaning, not the archaic one you listed above.
Many people working in professional fields suffer from mental illness. Just because someone has a mental illness doesn't mean they can only flip burgers or pick up trash. Also, based on the tone of your comment it seems likely you should seek treatment as well, since you sound more like a "raving psychopath" than the person you are replying to.
I see this phenomenon a lot. Corporate executives tend to be unimaginative when they envision new technology, they look at a job someone is doing and try to imagine ways technology can replace the person. Sometimes they do it backwards, the take a new technology and ask "what existing product can we replace with this or add this to?"
Then you get idiotic products like driverless cars. Most of the design decisions that went into cars had a lot to do with the fact they were going to have a human driver, could you imagine if they'd just said "we have buggies and carriages that work well, so we'll keep them and just automate the horse?" Or with google glass: "we've got a way of putting a screen on someone's head, maybe we can replace the screen on the iPhone with it?" No, the iPhone works much better the way it is, you can't just shoe-horn a new tech into an existing device because it sounds cool. That's putting the carriage before the horse.
On top of that, a lot of executives and politicians are so out of touch with the actual details technology development, they end up proposing things right out of The Jetsons because that's all the more they could bother with doing research before they decide to spend millions or billions of dollars on some project.
Maybe you don't understand the historical context here. During WW2 the various allied forces were able to gain an advantage by breaking NAZI codes and the codes used by the Japanese Imperial forces. By having advanced knowledge of enemy movements, allied forces were able to defeat enemies with superior forces. Specifically, they were able to destroy the Japanese surface fleet, and the German u-boat fleet.
Intelligence acts as a force multiplier. And after the war, governments took notice of the important role it played. It's fun to talk about hostile organizations like they don't exist or they threat they pose is overstated. But the reality is they do exist, and signals intelligence is an important part of any strategy to combat them. It's naive to suggest that the US government could be stable in the long term without it.
That said, it would also be foolish to operate this program without oversight and transparency. As I said, an obvious potential for abuse exists and has been overlooked.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like you'd be better off with a pair of 27" monitors for programming.
Maybe if we can improve the state of the art in software development by then it won't end up accidentally killing a bunch of people.
I will never understand this line of reasoning. A big American corporation did this terrible thing in the past, and so somehow it's now ok if British company does the same thing? Weren't you just saying that it was wrong for them to do it? It seems like you started your argument by stating that you are definitely on the wrong side of it.
So I have to take responsibility for a secret program, which I always suspected but I could never prove existed? And if one of us does do something like Snowden or Manning, he's called a traitor and charged as a criminal? But this is my fault individually?! I have absolutely no control over it whatsoever.
Labor force participation has been down in recent years, but it's still higher than it was 50 years ago.
I suppose it depends how you look at it. I think that as long as you do it in order to get food you aren't doing it for entertainment, even though you could have gotten the food another way. It's not like you're traveling to Africa to shoot a lion in a pen for a trophy.
I hate people who assume most hunters hunt for sport. Every hunter I've ever known hunts for food.
I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but every time I wear something on my head for more than an hour or so I get a headache. This goes for glasses, headphones, earbuds and all kinds of hats. So I will probably never use this kind of device (at least not a lot).
It's more like this decade's tablet. You can tell it's coming, but that doesn't mean a poor innovator like Google can just slap something together and throw it out there. It's going to have to be done by someone who actually knows that they're doing.
The problem with comparing two things over time is that things like cancer rates and cellphone use are changing all the time. So any comparison made this way is bound to show a positive or negative correlation. That's why controlled experimentation is such in important part of the scientific method.
The articles about this keep saying that "recent international research has shown there may be a link" without providing the source of that data! I can't find it anywhere, all the studies I can find show no evidence of a link. What the hell are these assholes talking about?! Why don't these journalists think this is an important piece of information to include with their articles?
I don't care if a bunch of nuts half a world away banned wifi for their elementary students. I but do care if they had a good reason to do it!
This has got to be one of the most depressing things I've read in a while. Have you considered getting therapy for your social anxiety? It doesn't sound like you're very happy with your life the way it is.
There was never an abundance of teenagers on Facebook. It was initially for college students, and it branched out to older users. It has never been a good tool for young people living with their parents (for obvious reasons).
Any movement away from a Microsoft dominated software market is probably a step in the right direction. As for the question of whether anyone will use these features, I will withhold judgment until I can actually see them.
I'm not going to "start" my kids on games. That's such a strange idea. They're going to play however they want to play (within reason), that's what play is for!
Oh no! It looks like my entire argument has been rendered moot by the single grammatical error you found!
Apple has 40% market share in smartphones in the US, but it looks a lot higher when you're just walking around (especially in a big city). I'd assume that's because iPhone users are more likely to be using their phone at any given time.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
from Wikipedia:
There is little point in arguing over definitions, much less so if you are trying to turn the conventional usage on it's head. Based on the context:
It is clear the person he was replying to (you?) was using the conventional meaning, not the archaic one you listed above.
Many people working in professional fields suffer from mental illness. Just because someone has a mental illness doesn't mean they can only flip burgers or pick up trash. Also, based on the tone of your comment it seems likely you should seek treatment as well, since you sound more like a "raving psychopath" than the person you are replying to.
I see this phenomenon a lot. Corporate executives tend to be unimaginative when they envision new technology, they look at a job someone is doing and try to imagine ways technology can replace the person. Sometimes they do it backwards, the take a new technology and ask "what existing product can we replace with this or add this to?"
Then you get idiotic products like driverless cars. Most of the design decisions that went into cars had a lot to do with the fact they were going to have a human driver, could you imagine if they'd just said "we have buggies and carriages that work well, so we'll keep them and just automate the horse?" Or with google glass: "we've got a way of putting a screen on someone's head, maybe we can replace the screen on the iPhone with it?" No, the iPhone works much better the way it is, you can't just shoe-horn a new tech into an existing device because it sounds cool. That's putting the carriage before the horse.
On top of that, a lot of executives and politicians are so out of touch with the actual details technology development, they end up proposing things right out of The Jetsons because that's all the more they could bother with doing research before they decide to spend millions or billions of dollars on some project.
Why not just slap her in the face? She'd probably like that better. . .
That's listed under "iPhone."
Of course they do, industrial espionage is within their original scope of operations so they've been doing it all along.
Talking on a cellphone in public should be a federal crime. In fact, let's give up all our freedoms in order to avoid minor annoyances!
Maybe you don't understand the historical context here. During WW2 the various allied forces were able to gain an advantage by breaking NAZI codes and the codes used by the Japanese Imperial forces. By having advanced knowledge of enemy movements, allied forces were able to defeat enemies with superior forces. Specifically, they were able to destroy the Japanese surface fleet, and the German u-boat fleet.
Intelligence acts as a force multiplier. And after the war, governments took notice of the important role it played. It's fun to talk about hostile organizations like they don't exist or they threat they pose is overstated. But the reality is they do exist, and signals intelligence is an important part of any strategy to combat them. It's naive to suggest that the US government could be stable in the long term without it.
That said, it would also be foolish to operate this program without oversight and transparency. As I said, an obvious potential for abuse exists and has been overlooked.