I am too cheap and not trendy enough to get a headset, but upon reading the new law I discovered a hilarious loophole I use all the time! It is not illegal to talk on speakerphone, so just turn speakerphone on and chat away as you hold it in front of you.
The difference between a cell phone conversation and passenger conversation is due to the fact that the passenger is in the vehicle and knows what the traffic conditions are like, and they help the driver by reminding them of where to take an exit and pointing out hazards"
Passengers do probably have a small assistant role in the car like "hey would you change the cd?" ect... but that doesn't fully explain the deficit.
Reaction times and ability to stay in the lane are altered, something the passenger has little to do with. The big reason there is less of an affect on driving ability from passengers is that social rules of phone conversations and in person conversations place a different demand on the drivers.
Next time you are talking on the phone, try not talking for maybe 10 seconds. Now try it in the car with a passenger. Notice that in the phone conversation the silence is very awkward and jarring? While in person it feels more or less normal. This illustrates that the different social demands of different types of conversation. It's not that they help by actively doing much, it's that they can shut up and let you drive because they are also aware of the need to perform the task at hand!
My guess is submitter was trying to make the case that reading emotion states is some sort of mind reading which is some sort of 'brain scan'. Yeah, I don't buy it either.
Even presuming that one could reliably detect stress or heightened emotional states via this technology, what is rate of correlation between that and committing terrorist acts? I don't know about anybody else but I know alot of people who are terrified of flying and exhibit alot of stress in the airport. Enough false positives and this technology is not only ineffective but also a tremendous burden in price, personnel, and inconvenience.
Incompetent terrorists are likely to be unable to orchestrate highly damaging attacks. They are also more likely to be caught by other less invasive and more effective techniques of law enforcement.
The administration also says the immunity is warranted because the lawsuits threaten to expose government secrets.
This was why immunity should NOT be warranted! And before you start screaming national security, exactly what kind of information that could be brought out in a civil case which would damage national security? Methods? Competent terrorists aren't going to be caught by dragnet style filtering anyway unless its technical prowess is far beyond what most experts agree is currently possible.
This is either protecting corporate cronies, protecting themselves, or most likely both.
The terrorists also used a tool of communication known as "spoken language" to transmit information to other terrorists.
Telescreens are now being installed in your house to make sure that you do not transmit terrorist information when using the aforementioned tool in your home.
All drugs have possible side effects, that doesn't make them bad. I find it interesting that you have cherry picked the worst side effects for your post while omitting the far more common lesser side effects. The things you have listed are very uncommon events statistically speaking. I suggest people who have been spooked by this anti-psychoactive medication rant look up the side effects of damn near every medication on the market. Almost all medical treatments carry an inherent risk, doctors who have acted competently and in good faith deserve no punishment for doing their jobs.
Remember how complex the task of navigating the world in any sort of functional manner is. As evidence look at how successful AI is in navigating across a room with furniture. For all its flaws, the mind has an amazing capacity to navigate it's environment and accomplish goals, even if you don't agree with said goals. Every brain is a marvel, even as screwed up as we are.
A totally honest man doesn't exist. Remember in DnD (2nd edition I believe, wow i'm a nerd but at least I was young) when one of the suggested methods of destroying an artifact item was to have it crushed under the heel of an honest man? I believe one of the other ones was to throw it into the center of the sun.
There is no doubt that functional imaging such as fMRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fmri) PET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography) and MEG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography) have been a tremendous boon to the field of neuroscience. But seeing localized activity in the brain and then drawing a conclusion about the mechanisms of behavior is the wrong way to interpret the data. I hate Psychology Today for pulling this crap all the time, activity in the brain is simply data to be interpreted, not a conclusion in itself. This is like when a segment of DNA is implicated in some sort of behavior or developmental trait, and we see the headlines "X gene discovered!!!". The question is simply too complex to answer with that kind of analysis.
We cannot view the brain as a simple modular system, which merely needs a circuit diagram drawn to discover its mysteries. Functional specialization no doubt exists, but in an interconnected and complex way that resists simple explanations of "oh, this part of the brain lit up during this therefore this". Localization alone tells us little, it is only in complement with studies of neurotransmitter mechanisms, single cell recordings, computational theories, and numerous other techniques of brain exploration that any real answers are going to be found. THOMAS doesn't explain anything, its just a piece in the puzzle.
Oh come off it! The amount of possible environmental damage of such a small release is easily offset by the potential gain in knowledge. I really hope that my humor detector is broken or something because if you are serious this kind of nonsense gives environmentalism a bad name.
not now, but eventually, the quality of video recording in phones will be getting pretty decent. Am I going to get arrested for bringing in a phone with video recording capability? What if I txt during the movie? At what point do the house lights go up and the police barge in?
Modern advertising/branding isn't about actively convincing you anymore. It's about creating a pervasive environment of exposure in which you become familiar with a brand/product/logo whatever. In the store people are then more likely to subconsciously reach for Tide or Tylenol (despite the fact that generics are composed of essentially the same active ingredients) because they are familiar.
Nobody pays much attention to TV commercials anymore, and haven't for some time. Have advertisers markedly decreased their buying of TV commercial time? No, because you don't have to pay attention for it to work.
"Janella Spears doesnt think shes a sucker or an easy mark."
"They said President Bush and FBI Director "Robert Muller" (their spelling) were in on the deal and needed her help."
"When Spears began to doubt the scam, she got letters from the President of Nigeria, FBI Director Mueller, and President Bush. Terrorists could get the money if she did not help, Bushâ(TM)s letter said. Spears continued to send funds."
"Most of the missives were rife with misspellings."
Priceless!...okay i'm going to hell...
Never had a chance to use this quote before!
on
Googling Security
·
· Score: 1
"Water, taken in moderation, cannot hurt anybody"
--Mark Twain
This is less important as a potential cure through transplant than a proof of concept that if you can alter genetically alter the production of immune cells at the level of bone marrow you can suppress HIV indefinitely without drugs.
But at least they are discussing it. Although in all likeliness this will just result in more gov kowtow'ing to business interests, there at least exists the possibility that some progress may be made.
Better to have it happen in the open and in the presence of the opposing side than snuck 150 pages deep in a friendly named/scary inside bill rushed through congress.
Rather than limit our fundamental constitutional rights, how about people get off their asses and pay some attention to their kids?
NEWS FLASH, your kids are going to discover "dirty" words. There is no way you can prevent it minus homeschooling, not allowing them unsupervised contact with other human beings for their entire lives, and keeping them away from the public library (To kill a mocking bird and all those other filthy Pulitzer winning books ya'know). Since there is no conscionable way to prevent your children from learning "dirty" words, how about teaching them that there are some words people find offensive, and that in many social contexts they are not acceptable and that you would prefer if they did not say them. If you are truly concerned with the language of your children that is a far more effective method of preventing them from swearing than trying to hide an elephant with a tea towel.
Screw rationality, cause that would actually require some parenting, lets trade in our first amendment rights instead!
Social networking can encourage employees to build relationships with colleagues across a firm
Employee from dept A: Dude I drank so much jager last night i'm sossoooo hungover!
Employee from dept B: Yea well at least you got some from those skanks over in dept C!!1! letz duck out for an early lunch at flingers, hair of the dog man
Employee from dept A: Oh %@#$ you better untag any photo's my wife might see them!
...then why the hell did you buy one? iPhone isn't made for people who want to tinker, its made for my mom and dad. This is like buying a minivan and then bemoaning that you can't start supercharge it to 400hp.
Slashdot Mirror
I am too cheap and not trendy enough to get a headset, but upon reading the new law I discovered a hilarious loophole I use all the time! It is not illegal to talk on speakerphone, so just turn speakerphone on and chat away as you hold it in front of you.
The difference between a cell phone conversation and passenger conversation is due to the fact that the passenger is in the vehicle and knows what the traffic conditions are like, and they help the driver by reminding them of where to take an exit and pointing out hazards"
Passengers do probably have a small assistant role in the car like "hey would you change the cd?" ect... but that doesn't fully explain the deficit.
Reaction times and ability to stay in the lane are altered, something the passenger has little to do with. The big reason there is less of an affect on driving ability from passengers is that social rules of phone conversations and in person conversations place a different demand on the drivers.
Next time you are talking on the phone, try not talking for maybe 10 seconds. Now try it in the car with a passenger. Notice that in the phone conversation the silence is very awkward and jarring? While in person it feels more or less normal. This illustrates that the different social demands of different types of conversation. It's not that they help by actively doing much, it's that they can shut up and let you drive because they are also aware of the need to perform the task at hand!
My guess is submitter was trying to make the case that reading emotion states is some sort of mind reading which is some sort of 'brain scan'. Yeah, I don't buy it either.
Even presuming that one could reliably detect stress or heightened emotional states via this technology, what is rate of correlation between that and committing terrorist acts? I don't know about anybody else but I know alot of people who are terrified of flying and exhibit alot of stress in the airport. Enough false positives and this technology is not only ineffective but also a tremendous burden in price, personnel, and inconvenience.
Incompetent terrorists are likely to be unable to orchestrate highly damaging attacks. They are also more likely to be caught by other less invasive and more effective techniques of law enforcement.
The administration also says the immunity is warranted because the lawsuits threaten to expose government secrets.
This was why immunity should NOT be warranted! And before you start screaming national security, exactly what kind of information that could be brought out in a civil case which would damage national security? Methods? Competent terrorists aren't going to be caught by dragnet style filtering anyway unless its technical prowess is far beyond what most experts agree is currently possible.
This is either protecting corporate cronies, protecting themselves, or most likely both.
The terrorists also used a tool of communication known as "spoken language" to transmit information to other terrorists.
Telescreens are now being installed in your house to make sure that you do not transmit terrorist information when using the aforementioned tool in your home.
All drugs have possible side effects, that doesn't make them bad. I find it interesting that you have cherry picked the worst side effects for your post while omitting the far more common lesser side effects. The things you have listed are very uncommon events statistically speaking. I suggest people who have been spooked by this anti-psychoactive medication rant look up the side effects of damn near every medication on the market. Almost all medical treatments carry an inherent risk, doctors who have acted competently and in good faith deserve no punishment for doing their jobs.
CSI: Stone Age -- coming soon to clog an airwave near you!!
After whacking down a mole, they continue to pop up!
Remember how complex the task of navigating the world in any sort of functional manner is. As evidence look at how successful AI is in navigating across a room with furniture. For all its flaws, the mind has an amazing capacity to navigate it's environment and accomplish goals, even if you don't agree with said goals. Every brain is a marvel, even as screwed up as we are.
A totally honest man doesn't exist. Remember in DnD (2nd edition I believe, wow i'm a nerd but at least I was young) when one of the suggested methods of destroying an artifact item was to have it crushed under the heel of an honest man? I believe one of the other ones was to throw it into the center of the sun.
There is no doubt that functional imaging such as fMRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fmri) PET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography) and MEG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography) have been a tremendous boon to the field of neuroscience. But seeing localized activity in the brain and then drawing a conclusion about the mechanisms of behavior is the wrong way to interpret the data. I hate Psychology Today for pulling this crap all the time, activity in the brain is simply data to be interpreted, not a conclusion in itself. This is like when a segment of DNA is implicated in some sort of behavior or developmental trait, and we see the headlines "X gene discovered!!!". The question is simply too complex to answer with that kind of analysis.
We cannot view the brain as a simple modular system, which merely needs a circuit diagram drawn to discover its mysteries. Functional specialization no doubt exists, but in an interconnected and complex way that resists simple explanations of "oh, this part of the brain lit up during this therefore this". Localization alone tells us little, it is only in complement with studies of neurotransmitter mechanisms, single cell recordings, computational theories, and numerous other techniques of brain exploration that any real answers are going to be found. THOMAS doesn't explain anything, its just a piece in the puzzle.
Oh come off it! The amount of possible environmental damage of such a small release is easily offset by the potential gain in knowledge. I really hope that my humor detector is broken or something because if you are serious this kind of nonsense gives environmentalism a bad name.
not now, but eventually, the quality of video recording in phones will be getting pretty decent. Am I going to get arrested for bringing in a phone with video recording capability? What if I txt during the movie? At what point do the house lights go up and the police barge in?
Modern advertising/branding isn't about actively convincing you anymore. It's about creating a pervasive environment of exposure in which you become familiar with a brand/product/logo whatever. In the store people are then more likely to subconsciously reach for Tide or Tylenol (despite the fact that generics are composed of essentially the same active ingredients) because they are familiar.
Nobody pays much attention to TV commercials anymore, and haven't for some time. Have advertisers markedly decreased their buying of TV commercial time? No, because you don't have to pay attention for it to work.
There's some comedy gold in there, a few tidbits!
...okay i'm going to hell...
"Janella Spears doesnt think shes a sucker or an easy mark."
"They said President Bush and FBI Director "Robert Muller" (their spelling) were in on the deal and needed her help."
"When Spears began to doubt the scam, she got letters from the President of Nigeria, FBI Director Mueller, and President Bush. Terrorists could get the money if she did not help, Bushâ(TM)s letter said. Spears continued to send funds."
"Most of the missives were rife with misspellings."
Priceless!
"Water, taken in moderation, cannot hurt anybody" --Mark Twain
This is less important as a potential cure through transplant than a proof of concept that if you can alter genetically alter the production of immune cells at the level of bone marrow you can suppress HIV indefinitely without drugs.
But at least they are discussing it. Although in all likeliness this will just result in more gov kowtow'ing to business interests, there at least exists the possibility that some progress may be made. Better to have it happen in the open and in the presence of the opposing side than snuck 150 pages deep in a friendly named/scary inside bill rushed through congress.
No insight here just want to add another RIP George. You will be missed! Such a rational profane hilarious man is few and far between.
Rather than limit our fundamental constitutional rights, how about people get off their asses and pay some attention to their kids?
NEWS FLASH, your kids are going to discover "dirty" words. There is no way you can prevent it minus homeschooling, not allowing them unsupervised contact with other human beings for their entire lives, and keeping them away from the public library (To kill a mocking bird and all those other filthy Pulitzer winning books ya'know). Since there is no conscionable way to prevent your children from learning "dirty" words, how about teaching them that there are some words people find offensive, and that in many social contexts they are not acceptable and that you would prefer if they did not say them. If you are truly concerned with the language of your children that is a far more effective method of preventing them from swearing than trying to hide an elephant with a tea towel.
Screw rationality, cause that would actually require some parenting, lets trade in our first amendment rights instead!
Social networking can encourage employees to build relationships with colleagues across a firm
Employee from dept A: Dude I drank so much jager last night i'm sossoooo hungover!
Employee from dept B: Yea well at least you got some from those skanks over in dept C!!1! letz duck out for an early lunch at flingers, hair of the dog man
Employee from dept A: Oh %@#$ you better untag any photo's my wife might see them!
Employee from dept B: lolz
...then why the hell did you buy one? iPhone isn't made for people who want to tinker, its made for my mom and dad. This is like buying a minivan and then bemoaning that you can't start supercharge it to 400hp.
In an effort to be politically correct, I propose we rename whitespace: allcolorslivingtogetherinharmonyspace