My parents are biological objects. The concept of family has procedural meaning to me: apparently you come out of a person, or you spend much of your life with people, I haven't figured out what it is meant to specify because I've seen people refer to these isolate and my personal experience is both.
Family is like every other people you meet on the street. They're mostly annoying people you don't want to deal with; a few you might bother to go back and talk to. These particular annoying people won't go away.
I find the whole thing creepy. When I walk into my parents' house, it's like a shrine to worship me. I can immediately see 43 pictures of myself from the door, framed in fancy gold and leather. If a girl I met at a bar walked into my house and saw something like that, she would probably call the police.
Naproxen Sodium comes in 100mg doses, blue tablets, with the standard directions of "Take one every 8 hours, you may take two for the first dose, do not exceed three per day." I've never seen it prescription, but this seems silly: you can just buy naproxin and take 5 of them at once instead of a prescription 500mg.
I hate acetominophen, and ibuprofen gives me headaches. Naproxin works best but I rarely take it because dosing NSAIDs is ridiculous. For naproxen you need 8 hour spaced 100mg doses, but usually you need 200mg on the first dose to get it to work. Don't take more than 300mg/day. How the fuck do I keep this running for 24 hours without overdosing? Fortunately the first dose usually solves the problem: the inflammation goes away, so the pain stops, and the irritation causing inflammation stops (i.e. inflammation causes pressure on inflamed tissue, so if the original irritant is gone the problem self-perpetuates), so the inflammation doesn't return, and the problem is fixed for real.
People don't understand drugs. They don't understand that drugs have a window of pharmacological effectiveness, where you need a dose of X to get the desired effect but T is toxic. There's T1 T2 T3 etc, some drugs are really short-window or complex: T1 may be less than X, and the drug may have constant side effects--prednizone does this, it makes a LOT of people psychotic at normal doses that aren't even high enough to function as a viable treatment for some of its use cases. T2 may be something like euphoria--methylphenedate and dexamphetamine both have a short window between "treats ADHD" and "euphoria" (getting you high), which is undesirable. T3 may be outright toxicity--kills your liver. There may be more or less.
That's not a technical description of course: the industry doesn't use those kinds of terms or talk about multiple toxicity levels T1 less than X less than T2 less than T3.... Normal side effects like anxiety, fatigue, etc. aren't usually called "toxic effects" but if something caused these effects without benefit it would be called a poison.
A drug that's stronger doesn't necessarily mean it's more dangerous. Phenylpiracetam for example is fucking awesome for treating ADHD, in my experience (it's experimental and unscheduled, I bought some, it works for me; I want Hopkins to do a study). Much higher effectiveness, stabilizes psychosis instead of causing it, and it takes a LOT more than an effective dose to start causing toxicity. Side effects are extremely mild. Compare this to just "stronger amphetamines": you would likely get more side effects, more toxicity, and less leeway between an effective dose and a toxic dose. You might be able to model a modified amphetamine that has side effects at higher doses but otherwise functions normally, and thus it would be more effective than dex and safer to use.
So a painkiller that's "5 times as potent" just tells me it will dull pain as well as 5 doses of codeine or whatever. Is it 5 times as addictive, i.e. Phenibut is 10 times as addictive as Valium (why the hell is it legal)? Does it destroy your kidneys? Is it prone to cause your heart to relax (uh)? What's the actual problem?
Not a shim. Think about how Microsoft Windows apps run with Wine: Wine implements WindowsAllocMemory() and such, and then they just load their library to supply that. So I'd write a Readline header, compile against it, and ship the binary. The target system has GPL readline--which I've never touched in producing the application--so it works.
Readline is GPL specifically to force software vendors to A) pay extra expense (labor, money, time) to write their own replacement; or B) release under GPL. RMS wants glibc to be GPL, but figured if he did that then people would just use freebsd libc instead.
Technically, I restrict myself to Comcast as well.
I can release my software to others and not send them gpl libreadline, and the system they run it on dynamically links it to libreadline. That's what I was getting at with getting out from under readline.
At most, the consequence here is that someone is unable to use the library in question because he does not agree with the terms.
I've acquired all Internet service providers in the US Northeastern region. At most, the consequence here is that someone is unable to get on the Internet because he doesn't agree with the terms. He is, of course, free to bulk purchase an OC48 at $40,000/mo from a tier 1 provider and start his own ISP.
In the article, Stallman is trying to convince people that libraries should be GPL so that, eventually, it becomes prohibitively expensive to make useful software without making said software GPL. Imagine if the entire Windows API core library set was GPL. You can either A) create Wine; or B) make your app GPL.
Compare as well to food freedom: high fructose corn syrup is in damn near everything, and all milk in the US is pasteaurized. I havea $50,000 house. I could buy a $400,000 house on 10 acres of land and get/feed/annually breed a cow and milk said cow, or I could buy pasteurized milk.
That's Stallman freedom: If you're incredibly rich, you're free.
Actually, the GPL restricts you from making use of, say, a library in your software. If you link against the libreadline headers, then your software must be GPL. If you don't distribute readline and people have to get it themselves, your software still must be GPL.
I have often considered writing a readline-bsd header that only serves as a linkage target, allowing you to link to non-readline and then use readline.
I have always wondered about the large logical disconnect in the copyleft argument. My understanding is that the GNU GPL has always been touted as "Guaranteeing Your Freedom(TM)", yet there are blog posts explaining that the purpose of the GPL is to force others to provide their software under GPL terms.
My issue is thus: How do you reconcile that "Freedom" means "Forcing everyone to give everyone else free access to the products of their labor"? I feel that the overreaching goals, as expressed, are for "Free Software" to gain such a critical mass that it is impossible to provide "Software" without a prohibitive amount of effort, unless you provide that software under the specific licensing terms everyone else has forced upon you. In other words: the final goal is that I may not provide my software as a closed-source, licensed, non-GPL binary unless I write an entire operating system and supporting libraries, as all supporting libraries are GPL and force me to GPL my code or not produce code at all.
Is that not the opposite of freedom? That is, are you not technically free to write your own Microsoft Windows, since Microsoft will not give it to you; and in the same way, in the ideal GNU world, you are technically free to write your own Readline and LIBC and Libgtk and QT and audio libraries and small linker bits and compiler tool chain, since using any of the existing means using GPL software and releasing your software under GPL in turn?
It's not illegal per se to drive 0.05 BAC. If you run through a checkpoint and they stop you and test you and get 0.5, but have no strong case that you were "Swerving" and "unable to drive a straight line", they have no legal case against you. If you're driving drunk and they find you with a BAC of 0.02, they DUI you.
0.5 is not illegal per se; it is illegal if you're pulled over for driving weird. "You were driving too slow" and you blow 0.5 "You're driving drunk. Get out of the car. You're going to jail."
You did in fact move the goalposts. You started talking about a "drunk driving app" and mentioned being "too drunk" to drive as a use case, directly. You say now that it's "an easy sell", so congratulations: you are trying to market to your audience the idea of an app to help you understand when you can safely drive drunk. That's an acknowledgement.
You are now tacking on other things to move away from the original statement. Remember I took issue with one use case you directly advocated: Driving drunk. This is like if someone proposes that we move the age of consent to 14 because it makes sense that guys who are 17 will mess around with well-shaped 14 year olds, and then turn 18 and have a 3 week period where they can be arrested for feeling up a girl 3 years younger than them, and also because shapely 14 year olds are sexually mature and it is normal for 35 year old men to want to bang them. This is an excellent proposal with many merits, one of which is not (we presume) that 35 year old men get to bang 14 year olds--in fact that's stupid, and you're stupid for suggesting that's a good reason to do this, and in fact it's a good reason to put a clamp on the law such as "previous legal relationship" or "5 year age gap" or "existing legitimate peer group".
You now make perfunctory arguments in attempt to distract from the initial point that your proposed use cases directly and most strongly cited a "drunk driving app" that could tell you if you were "too drunk". Other use cases for an application as described are valid; but a "drunk driving app" is stupid and you're stupid for suggesting this as a use case--much less implying a primary use case.
I could go through the motion of explaining the concept of facts and opinions but I won't (it's one that's come up a lot lately, since it's required when explaining how to deal with the fact that Jehovah created the universe coming into conflict with the fact that there is no such thing as Jehovah and the universe is 14 billion years old).
An emotional disconnect is required to smile like that, yes. However acting is a different matter than lying: lying is typically a real-time intercourse in an objective reality different than that which you want to convey, and thus requires calculation and thought about the objective reality. Acting, in its highest form, is the creation of an objective reality and the performance of a simulated social function within that reality. To put it simply: Patrick Stewart does not lie and portray false emotions to be Jean-Luc Picard; rather, he and the rest of the cast have established a collection of facts describing an alternate universe, including the disposition of various characters, and he behaves in accordance with that set of facts. At the negotiation table, a deceptive negotiator must analyze the objective reality and figure out how to present his false facts without creating too many holes, and thus is performing a much different task.
Sociopaths (not psychopaths) lack human empathy in the base state. Deceptive people calling up emotions from other thoughts display symptoms of disconnected body language--sociopaths may smile falsely, or they may smile for too long, or at the wrong time (too early, too late, when not appropriate), or not consistently to a set of opinions and ideals; the deceptive become as sociopaths and suffer many of the same faults. As you have asserted, certain people can do it better than others; however they either suffer the formerly mentioned problems (conflicting messages) or they may suffer simpler problems such as a poorly imitated smile (a fake smile trying to pretend to be a real smile by squeezing the eyes awkwardly), and even both (a poorly over-faked smile with the rest of the body failing to follow the context as well).
Yes, I did just walk on your turf as an actor while claiming that it doesn't apply as a deceptive negotiator. I'll also add that negotiation and diplomacy are not about deception; lies and deceit are things a negotiator must look for in others, not skills to develop in oneself.
No, I'm asserting that your assertion that it is not possible to discern the CEO's motives--or probable motives--is false.
We have a justice system based on a poor and unreliable method of examining facts for flaws and applicability to law: we try to weed out the bullshit and establish true facts, then apply those facts to law and form opinions on if this violation of the law is within scope and meaning and requires severe, lenient, or no punishment. This already says that sometimes we make judgments in this way.
We also have the scientific study of how to do this in particular when mapping peoples' behaviors to motives. 7% of communication is verbal, 38% vocal, 55% non-vocal, and thus the analysis of tone of voice and body language supply 93% of communication. That 93% of the message is ripe for deeper study. Is that smile real? A real smile involves the zygomatic major muscle and the orbicularis oculi muscle; false smiles consistently fail to actuate the orbicularis oculi muscle group correctly if at all. What was that pause? Was it a careful consideration and reconstruction? Was it smooth or abrupt, indicating cautious thought (to avoid assclowning yourself) or stress and difficulty (faced with peril, confusion... new facts, holes in your story, a point of deception you've momentarily forgotten how to carry)? Does your body language indicate confidence and belief in what you say, nervousness in your stature, nervous deception, or the smooth delivery of carefully instrumented lies?
These are scientific things that have been deeply studied and examined. They lend credibility to a position: there is a possibility that he is lying; he may be covering his motives; his motives appear firmly as what he states; it is beyond reasonably significant error that his motives are directly opposed to his words. Analysis with verbal context can reveal so many things unsaid, showing interest in certain points but less in others, or interest of a different kind opposed to what is stated. These bits of information will tell us when we are being lied to--and, in many cases, even what the unsaid truth is.
The long and short of it is that someone, somewhere, watching this guy on TV, listening to his voice on the radio, watching him in court, has enough information to definitively say whether it's unlikely, somewhat likely, or EXTREMELY likely that his motives are to avoid fracking up his land rather than to avoid an ugly water tower forever. In the latter two cases, you would be making a very poor decision taking his words at face value; in the very latter case, if pressed, you absolutely should act on the assumption that his motives are what's inferred, in opposition to what is stated. It's as if somebody handed you a bottle marked "Poison" and told you it was water and good to drink: there is plain evidence otherwise and, should it turn out to be water, you are not the fool for deciding immediately that it is poison.
I clarified that when I said "too drunk or tired" that I (personally) would never use the drunk feature.
And there you go again: asserting that there should be a feature to allow some people to drive drunk.
Counterpoint to your specific clarification:
The only app I'd want is a drunk driving app.
As well:
Not that someone drunk enough to fail would care before driving, but that it would be detectable.
The app on their headgear won't do anything about it, of course, besides alert them that they're drunk. If they don't care, they likely won't even have the app installed; if it is installed, they likely will ignore it. So we're back to telling people if it's okay for them to drive despite feeling slightly sloshed, as long as they can keep their eyes open.
You're doing a good job of moving the goalposts carefully and slowly--and in multiple directions--but it doesn't work when the Internet has such a long memory.
The thing about billionaires is it's customary and well and proper to let them speak longer and have their say.
Billionaires have the ability to create very physically real impedance for you. Being a billionaire makes you a celebrity. Being a billionaire means you can get on TV because you're rich, powerful, the CEO of Exxon, and so on. Being a billionaire means you can make up a whole bunch of data about how a water tower would provide exactly this sort of thing well enough put over there, with all those poor people, and meanwhile provide a passive system to improve their water flow and make them all better off, and assassinate the political careers of those assholes who want to stick that fugly thing near your property.
In short: billionaires have little to no power; but they have an extremely high amount of influence. Because of this they must be managed more carefully. Poor people should be kept informed--but a huge mass of poor people have influence and should be kept satisfied. Rich people have that kind of influence immediately, and so rich people should immediately be kept satisfied. Failing to satisfy either of these stakeholders creates trouble.
Tres Roeder has two books out: "Managing Project Stakeholders" and "A Sixth Sense for Project Management". They are both so critical for understanding the whole of this that I cannot say to read one first over the other: Managing Project Stakeholders will give you a technical sense about what I'm babbling on above; but A Sixth Sense for Project Management will explain somewhat the finer points of diplomacy and negotiation, and thus why you need to placate the rich in this way instead of some other way.
He actually doesn't want the water tower near his ranch because it's an ugly eyesore, and construction will be a temporary inconvenience. You can frack all you want if you're quiet.
I usually just tell the MPAA I have a cousin who works at Monsanto. Considering they show up at farmers' houses with guns to talk about how it would be in your... ahem... best interest to grow their new line of soy, it's best to stay away.
A proposal by Samsung to the five largest U.S. carriers would have made the LoJack software, developed by Canada's Absolute Software, a standard component on many of its Android phones in the U.S.
Steal phone.
Power off phone/remove battery.
Take phone home, boot into bootloader.
Install Cyanogenmod.
Only nerds do this. But when criminals find that their phones are stolen, they will resort to Google. It's think up a new way to make hundreds of dollars at a time, get a job, or figure out a quick way to get around this Lobe-Jacks software. There is no expedient to which a man will not go to avoid the labor of thinking, thus someone will think "there has got to be something online to un-kill this phones".
I've seen ghetto retards do the most complicated shit they don't even understand. "No NO!!! Fool! You gots ta gets in da bootloader! Try volume! Gimme dat! Wut... hold on shits... oh power and volum, datz did it...okay so puts the cable... run dat, yeah... yeah try dat, da phone... okay now you reboot it! Okay so you copied the file on da card right? Okay hit install, on the menu!"
They scream and strain, but they eventually get it done, with little enough effort.
"I'm going to rape your wife in the ass" my intention isn't to threaten your wife with violence and sexual assault, so the cops should chastise you for making false police reports.
Of course that's ludicrous.
What's even more ludicrous is when you clarify "unsafe" as meaning "too drunk", and then claim that's not what you meant. Clearly, you directly and specifically clarified "unsafe" to include multiple meanings including "too tired" and "too drunk", of which one of these meanings you ascribed to "unsafe" in this particular context to be "too drunk". You did not clarify it to include meanings such as "bleeding to death" or "so horny you could drive with your penis", so those cannot be said to be your intent in context. But in context you did deliberately specify that the utility was to include people who are operating a vehicle when "too drunk", perhaps to realize that they're "too drunk". The modifier "too" indicates that if they were less drunk--still drunk, but not so much--then they could safely drive while somewhat drunk.
By your own rules set forth, you have specified that there should be tools to help people know when it's okay to drive drunk, and that this is dependent on precisely how drunk they are. You gave explanations which suggested it's okay to drive drunk if you can keep your head up and eyes straight, although we can safely assume this wasn't a precise definition. The only thing we can strongly derive is that you indicated it should be fine to drive when drunk, or alternately that a person may not know they're drunk. Maybe they don't know that alcohol makes them drunk.
Deceive? The context was "(too tired, too drunk)". You gave a list of conditions, one of the specific conditions was "too drunk". When a list is given as such to specify a condition ("unsafe" = ["too tired","too drunk"]) , you can substitute the condition ("unsafe") for any single element of the list ("too drunk") and produce a valid statement.
In other words, your entire list of statements is validly as follows:
[I want ] An app that detects eyelid dilation, eye movements per minute, and eye movement speed could
set off warnings when a driver is too tired.
[I want ] An app that detects eyelid dilation, eye movements per minute, and eye movement speed could set off warnings when a driver is too drunk.
One of these actually says you want something that a driver can use when they're driving drunk to tell them they're too drunk to drive.
Slashdot Mirror
My parents are biological objects. The concept of family has procedural meaning to me: apparently you come out of a person, or you spend much of your life with people, I haven't figured out what it is meant to specify because I've seen people refer to these isolate and my personal experience is both.
Family is like every other people you meet on the street. They're mostly annoying people you don't want to deal with; a few you might bother to go back and talk to. These particular annoying people won't go away.
I find the whole thing creepy. When I walk into my parents' house, it's like a shrine to worship me. I can immediately see 43 pictures of myself from the door, framed in fancy gold and leather. If a girl I met at a bar walked into my house and saw something like that, she would probably call the police.
Naproxen Sodium comes in 100mg doses, blue tablets, with the standard directions of "Take one every 8 hours, you may take two for the first dose, do not exceed three per day." I've never seen it prescription, but this seems silly: you can just buy naproxin and take 5 of them at once instead of a prescription 500mg.
Body builders abuse pain drugs so they can rep harder. It's stupid.
I hate acetominophen, and ibuprofen gives me headaches. Naproxin works best but I rarely take it because dosing NSAIDs is ridiculous. For naproxen you need 8 hour spaced 100mg doses, but usually you need 200mg on the first dose to get it to work. Don't take more than 300mg/day. How the fuck do I keep this running for 24 hours without overdosing? Fortunately the first dose usually solves the problem: the inflammation goes away, so the pain stops, and the irritation causing inflammation stops (i.e. inflammation causes pressure on inflamed tissue, so if the original irritant is gone the problem self-perpetuates), so the inflammation doesn't return, and the problem is fixed for real.
People don't understand drugs. They don't understand that drugs have a window of pharmacological effectiveness, where you need a dose of X to get the desired effect but T is toxic. There's T1 T2 T3 etc, some drugs are really short-window or complex: T1 may be less than X, and the drug may have constant side effects--prednizone does this, it makes a LOT of people psychotic at normal doses that aren't even high enough to function as a viable treatment for some of its use cases. T2 may be something like euphoria--methylphenedate and dexamphetamine both have a short window between "treats ADHD" and "euphoria" (getting you high), which is undesirable. T3 may be outright toxicity--kills your liver. There may be more or less.
That's not a technical description of course: the industry doesn't use those kinds of terms or talk about multiple toxicity levels T1 less than X less than T2 less than T3.... Normal side effects like anxiety, fatigue, etc. aren't usually called "toxic effects" but if something caused these effects without benefit it would be called a poison.
A drug that's stronger doesn't necessarily mean it's more dangerous. Phenylpiracetam for example is fucking awesome for treating ADHD, in my experience (it's experimental and unscheduled, I bought some, it works for me; I want Hopkins to do a study). Much higher effectiveness, stabilizes psychosis instead of causing it, and it takes a LOT more than an effective dose to start causing toxicity. Side effects are extremely mild. Compare this to just "stronger amphetamines": you would likely get more side effects, more toxicity, and less leeway between an effective dose and a toxic dose. You might be able to model a modified amphetamine that has side effects at higher doses but otherwise functions normally, and thus it would be more effective than dex and safer to use.
So a painkiller that's "5 times as potent" just tells me it will dull pain as well as 5 doses of codeine or whatever. Is it 5 times as addictive, i.e. Phenibut is 10 times as addictive as Valium (why the hell is it legal)? Does it destroy your kidneys? Is it prone to cause your heart to relax (uh)? What's the actual problem?
Not a shim. Think about how Microsoft Windows apps run with Wine: Wine implements WindowsAllocMemory() and such, and then they just load their library to supply that. So I'd write a Readline header, compile against it, and ship the binary. The target system has GPL readline--which I've never touched in producing the application--so it works.
Readline is GPL specifically to force software vendors to A) pay extra expense (labor, money, time) to write their own replacement; or B) release under GPL. RMS wants glibc to be GPL, but figured if he did that then people would just use freebsd libc instead.
Technically, I restrict myself to Comcast as well.
I can release my software to others and not send them gpl libreadline, and the system they run it on dynamically links it to libreadline. That's what I was getting at with getting out from under readline.
At most, the consequence here is that someone is unable to use the library in question because he does not agree with the terms.
I've acquired all Internet service providers in the US Northeastern region. At most, the consequence here is that someone is unable to get on the Internet because he doesn't agree with the terms. He is, of course, free to bulk purchase an OC48 at $40,000/mo from a tier 1 provider and start his own ISP.
In the article, Stallman is trying to convince people that libraries should be GPL so that, eventually, it becomes prohibitively expensive to make useful software without making said software GPL. Imagine if the entire Windows API core library set was GPL. You can either A) create Wine; or B) make your app GPL.
Compare as well to food freedom: high fructose corn syrup is in damn near everything, and all milk in the US is pasteaurized. I havea $50,000 house. I could buy a $400,000 house on 10 acres of land and get/feed/annually breed a cow and milk said cow, or I could buy pasteurized milk.
That's Stallman freedom: If you're incredibly rich, you're free.
Actually, the GPL restricts you from making use of, say, a library in your software. If you link against the libreadline headers, then your software must be GPL. If you don't distribute readline and people have to get it themselves, your software still must be GPL.
I have often considered writing a readline-bsd header that only serves as a linkage target, allowing you to link to non-readline and then use readline.
Stallman has already advocated coercion: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
I have always wondered about the large logical disconnect in the copyleft argument. My understanding is that the GNU GPL has always been touted as "Guaranteeing Your Freedom(TM)", yet there are blog posts explaining that the purpose of the GPL is to force others to provide their software under GPL terms.
My issue is thus: How do you reconcile that "Freedom" means "Forcing everyone to give everyone else free access to the products of their labor"? I feel that the overreaching goals, as expressed, are for "Free Software" to gain such a critical mass that it is impossible to provide "Software" without a prohibitive amount of effort, unless you provide that software under the specific licensing terms everyone else has forced upon you. In other words: the final goal is that I may not provide my software as a closed-source, licensed, non-GPL binary unless I write an entire operating system and supporting libraries, as all supporting libraries are GPL and force me to GPL my code or not produce code at all.
Is that not the opposite of freedom? That is, are you not technically free to write your own Microsoft Windows, since Microsoft will not give it to you; and in the same way, in the ideal GNU world, you are technically free to write your own Readline and LIBC and Libgtk and QT and audio libraries and small linker bits and compiler tool chain, since using any of the existing means using GPL software and releasing your software under GPL in turn?
It's not illegal per se to drive 0.05 BAC. If you run through a checkpoint and they stop you and test you and get 0.5, but have no strong case that you were "Swerving" and "unable to drive a straight line", they have no legal case against you. If you're driving drunk and they find you with a BAC of 0.02, they DUI you.
0.5 is not illegal per se; it is illegal if you're pulled over for driving weird. "You were driving too slow" and you blow 0.5 "You're driving drunk. Get out of the car. You're going to jail."
You did in fact move the goalposts. You started talking about a "drunk driving app" and mentioned being "too drunk" to drive as a use case, directly. You say now that it's "an easy sell", so congratulations: you are trying to market to your audience the idea of an app to help you understand when you can safely drive drunk. That's an acknowledgement.
You are now tacking on other things to move away from the original statement. Remember I took issue with one use case you directly advocated: Driving drunk. This is like if someone proposes that we move the age of consent to 14 because it makes sense that guys who are 17 will mess around with well-shaped 14 year olds, and then turn 18 and have a 3 week period where they can be arrested for feeling up a girl 3 years younger than them, and also because shapely 14 year olds are sexually mature and it is normal for 35 year old men to want to bang them. This is an excellent proposal with many merits, one of which is not (we presume) that 35 year old men get to bang 14 year olds--in fact that's stupid, and you're stupid for suggesting that's a good reason to do this, and in fact it's a good reason to put a clamp on the law such as "previous legal relationship" or "5 year age gap" or "existing legitimate peer group".
You now make perfunctory arguments in attempt to distract from the initial point that your proposed use cases directly and most strongly cited a "drunk driving app" that could tell you if you were "too drunk". Other use cases for an application as described are valid; but a "drunk driving app" is stupid and you're stupid for suggesting this as a use case--much less implying a primary use case.
I could go through the motion of explaining the concept of facts and opinions but I won't (it's one that's come up a lot lately, since it's required when explaining how to deal with the fact that Jehovah created the universe coming into conflict with the fact that there is no such thing as Jehovah and the universe is 14 billion years old).
An emotional disconnect is required to smile like that, yes. However acting is a different matter than lying: lying is typically a real-time intercourse in an objective reality different than that which you want to convey, and thus requires calculation and thought about the objective reality. Acting, in its highest form, is the creation of an objective reality and the performance of a simulated social function within that reality. To put it simply: Patrick Stewart does not lie and portray false emotions to be Jean-Luc Picard; rather, he and the rest of the cast have established a collection of facts describing an alternate universe, including the disposition of various characters, and he behaves in accordance with that set of facts. At the negotiation table, a deceptive negotiator must analyze the objective reality and figure out how to present his false facts without creating too many holes, and thus is performing a much different task.
Sociopaths (not psychopaths) lack human empathy in the base state. Deceptive people calling up emotions from other thoughts display symptoms of disconnected body language--sociopaths may smile falsely, or they may smile for too long, or at the wrong time (too early, too late, when not appropriate), or not consistently to a set of opinions and ideals; the deceptive become as sociopaths and suffer many of the same faults. As you have asserted, certain people can do it better than others; however they either suffer the formerly mentioned problems (conflicting messages) or they may suffer simpler problems such as a poorly imitated smile (a fake smile trying to pretend to be a real smile by squeezing the eyes awkwardly), and even both (a poorly over-faked smile with the rest of the body failing to follow the context as well).
Yes, I did just walk on your turf as an actor while claiming that it doesn't apply as a deceptive negotiator. I'll also add that negotiation and diplomacy are not about deception; lies and deceit are things a negotiator must look for in others, not skills to develop in oneself.
Why not? There are huge books on vi, awk, sed, perl, python, Microsoft Word, postfix, git...
No, I'm asserting that your assertion that it is not possible to discern the CEO's motives--or probable motives--is false.
We have a justice system based on a poor and unreliable method of examining facts for flaws and applicability to law: we try to weed out the bullshit and establish true facts, then apply those facts to law and form opinions on if this violation of the law is within scope and meaning and requires severe, lenient, or no punishment. This already says that sometimes we make judgments in this way.
We also have the scientific study of how to do this in particular when mapping peoples' behaviors to motives. 7% of communication is verbal, 38% vocal, 55% non-vocal, and thus the analysis of tone of voice and body language supply 93% of communication. That 93% of the message is ripe for deeper study. Is that smile real? A real smile involves the zygomatic major muscle and the orbicularis oculi muscle; false smiles consistently fail to actuate the orbicularis oculi muscle group correctly if at all. What was that pause? Was it a careful consideration and reconstruction? Was it smooth or abrupt, indicating cautious thought (to avoid assclowning yourself) or stress and difficulty (faced with peril, confusion... new facts, holes in your story, a point of deception you've momentarily forgotten how to carry)? Does your body language indicate confidence and belief in what you say, nervousness in your stature, nervous deception, or the smooth delivery of carefully instrumented lies?
These are scientific things that have been deeply studied and examined. They lend credibility to a position: there is a possibility that he is lying; he may be covering his motives; his motives appear firmly as what he states; it is beyond reasonably significant error that his motives are directly opposed to his words. Analysis with verbal context can reveal so many things unsaid, showing interest in certain points but less in others, or interest of a different kind opposed to what is stated. These bits of information will tell us when we are being lied to--and, in many cases, even what the unsaid truth is.
The long and short of it is that someone, somewhere, watching this guy on TV, listening to his voice on the radio, watching him in court, has enough information to definitively say whether it's unlikely, somewhat likely, or EXTREMELY likely that his motives are to avoid fracking up his land rather than to avoid an ugly water tower forever. In the latter two cases, you would be making a very poor decision taking his words at face value; in the very latter case, if pressed, you absolutely should act on the assumption that his motives are what's inferred, in opposition to what is stated. It's as if somebody handed you a bottle marked "Poison" and told you it was water and good to drink: there is plain evidence otherwise and, should it turn out to be water, you are not the fool for deciding immediately that it is poison.
I clarified that when I said "too drunk or tired" that I (personally) would never use the drunk feature.
And there you go again: asserting that there should be a feature to allow some people to drive drunk.
Counterpoint to your specific clarification:
The only app I'd want is a drunk driving app.
As well:
Not that someone drunk enough to fail would care before driving, but that it would be detectable.
The app on their headgear won't do anything about it, of course, besides alert them that they're drunk. If they don't care, they likely won't even have the app installed; if it is installed, they likely will ignore it. So we're back to telling people if it's okay for them to drive despite feeling slightly sloshed, as long as they can keep their eyes open.
You're doing a good job of moving the goalposts carefully and slowly--and in multiple directions--but it doesn't work when the Internet has such a long memory.
Cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt.
The thing about billionaires is it's customary and well and proper to let them speak longer and have their say.
Billionaires have the ability to create very physically real impedance for you. Being a billionaire makes you a celebrity. Being a billionaire means you can get on TV because you're rich, powerful, the CEO of Exxon, and so on. Being a billionaire means you can make up a whole bunch of data about how a water tower would provide exactly this sort of thing well enough put over there, with all those poor people, and meanwhile provide a passive system to improve their water flow and make them all better off, and assassinate the political careers of those assholes who want to stick that fugly thing near your property.
In short: billionaires have little to no power; but they have an extremely high amount of influence. Because of this they must be managed more carefully. Poor people should be kept informed--but a huge mass of poor people have influence and should be kept satisfied. Rich people have that kind of influence immediately, and so rich people should immediately be kept satisfied. Failing to satisfy either of these stakeholders creates trouble.
Tres Roeder has two books out: "Managing Project Stakeholders" and "A Sixth Sense for Project Management". They are both so critical for understanding the whole of this that I cannot say to read one first over the other: Managing Project Stakeholders will give you a technical sense about what I'm babbling on above; but A Sixth Sense for Project Management will explain somewhat the finer points of diplomacy and negotiation, and thus why you need to placate the rich in this way instead of some other way.
Actually the analysis of pattern behavior and hidden motives is a very scientific field with high applicability to commercial dealings at all levels.
He actually doesn't want the water tower near his ranch because it's an ugly eyesore, and construction will be a temporary inconvenience. You can frack all you want if you're quiet.
I usually just tell the MPAA I have a cousin who works at Monsanto. Considering they show up at farmers' houses with guns to talk about how it would be in your ... ahem ... best interest to grow their new line of soy, it's best to stay away.
A proposal by Samsung to the five largest U.S. carriers would have made the LoJack software, developed by Canada's Absolute Software, a standard component on many of its Android phones in the U.S.
Steal phone.
Power off phone/remove battery.
Take phone home, boot into bootloader.
Install Cyanogenmod.
Only nerds do this. But when criminals find that their phones are stolen, they will resort to Google. It's think up a new way to make hundreds of dollars at a time, get a job, or figure out a quick way to get around this Lobe-Jacks software. There is no expedient to which a man will not go to avoid the labor of thinking, thus someone will think "there has got to be something online to un-kill this phones".
I've seen ghetto retards do the most complicated shit they don't even understand. "No NO!!! Fool! You gots ta gets in da bootloader! Try volume! Gimme dat! Wut... hold on shits... oh power and volum, datz did it...okay so puts the cable... run dat, yeah... yeah try dat, da phone... okay now you reboot it! Okay so you copied the file on da card right? Okay hit install, on the menu!"
They scream and strain, but they eventually get it done, with little enough effort.
"I'm going to rape your wife in the ass" my intention isn't to threaten your wife with violence and sexual assault, so the cops should chastise you for making false police reports.
Of course that's ludicrous.
What's even more ludicrous is when you clarify "unsafe" as meaning "too drunk", and then claim that's not what you meant. Clearly, you directly and specifically clarified "unsafe" to include multiple meanings including "too tired" and "too drunk", of which one of these meanings you ascribed to "unsafe" in this particular context to be "too drunk". You did not clarify it to include meanings such as "bleeding to death" or "so horny you could drive with your penis", so those cannot be said to be your intent in context. But in context you did deliberately specify that the utility was to include people who are operating a vehicle when "too drunk", perhaps to realize that they're "too drunk". The modifier "too" indicates that if they were less drunk--still drunk, but not so much--then they could safely drive while somewhat drunk.
By your own rules set forth, you have specified that there should be tools to help people know when it's okay to drive drunk, and that this is dependent on precisely how drunk they are. You gave explanations which suggested it's okay to drive drunk if you can keep your head up and eyes straight, although we can safely assume this wasn't a precise definition. The only thing we can strongly derive is that you indicated it should be fine to drive when drunk, or alternately that a person may not know they're drunk. Maybe they don't know that alcohol makes them drunk.
Deceive? The context was "(too tired, too drunk)". You gave a list of conditions, one of the specific conditions was "too drunk". When a list is given as such to specify a condition ("unsafe" = ["too tired","too drunk"]) , you can substitute the condition ("unsafe") for any single element of the list ("too drunk") and produce a valid statement.
In other words, your entire list of statements is validly as follows:
[I want ] An app that detects eyelid dilation, eye movements per minute, and eye movement speed could set off warnings when a driver is too tired.
[I want ] An app that detects eyelid dilation, eye movements per minute, and eye movement speed could set off warnings when a driver is too drunk.
One of these actually says you want something that a driver can use when they're driving drunk to tell them they're too drunk to drive.
Language motherfucker, do you has it?