I wonder how they managed to work out a deal with the publishers to make this work, if they already have. I was under the impression at least a couple publishers were displeased with Amazon's practices, that was supposedly part of the reason they were offering Apple a better deal than Amazon. I'd like to see this service succeed, though, so hopefully everyone who matters is or will be on board. Maybe one day, a monthly fee to Amazon will allow you access to all media, whether it's movies, books, games, or anything else you can get over the internet. I don't agree with everything Amazon does, but this idea is very appealing to me.
This was my first thought as well. I feel like UAVs in particular from this technology, they could designate several targets from the sky and fire a few rounds, taking out the targets with no collateral damage. It could help save soldiers' lives as well, imagine them being able to designate targets from behind cover and shoot without revealing more than their hands. The potential really is limitless, hopefully this technology can be applied to less specialized uses than long-range sniping. Imagine computer-assisted targeting for police so they can target an assailant's weapon instead of killing them in a situation that might normally end with a death.
But, it'll probably end up only being used to kill more effectively.
It's just something the author said because it's catchy. From an interview here:
The “three felonies a day” is really a figure of speech, hardly an exact count. People who are very active in certain fields likely commit more than three arguable federal felonies a day. People who are less active in life and in commerce probably commit fewer. I would imagine that lawyers, accountants, and securities dealers commit more, while fruit-stand vendors commit fewer. But my point was that an active member of our society goes about his or her busy workday not realizing the potential for committing arguable federal felonies in a wide variety of business and personal endeavors on a typical day.
So no, we don't really commit three felonies a day. I'm sure the book explains this, but apparently nobody has time to read a whole book anymore so the title became a "fact" that pops up on the internet from time to time.
My brother in law is a local cop where I live, and he says the same thing. Do not trust cops. They are just people, some of them are nice, but some of them are not and will enjoy slapping cuffs on you for next to nothing. His advice was along the lines of be respectful, don't talk back, don't ever physically resist them, and don't tell them anything unless you called them. They will get annoyed, but if you're not being outright disrespectful they will generally let it go. Most of the time, they'd rather be getting real criminals off the streets, anyway.
Can you explain to me what the medical problem is causing everyone to be obese? Oh you can't? Because there's nothing to actually say there's a medical reason for it other than a bunch of overweight people who insist they can't do anything about it. There are extremely rare conditions that can cause weight gain, but these are the minority cases. Most people have no reason for being obese, only excuses, and those aren't worth anything.
As for choosing to be 450lbs, obviously nobody wakes up one day and says, "Damn, I want to break couches when I sit down!" but every time you choose to drink a soda instead of water, or you choose to eat chips instead of an apple, or you choose to get McDonalds instead of damn near anything else, you are choosing to keep being unhealthy.
In a time where you can order a healthy balanced diet in powdered form over the internet, none of us has an excuse for eating so poorly. None of us ever had an excuse for failing to exercise just a little bit, we just make them up anyway.
Just to keep things in perspective, I come from a family of overweight and obese people, and I've put a great deal of effort into developing healthier habits than them to stay healthy. I fell off the wagon after college and gained weight rapidly, but got right back on it and the weight came back off. Your claim that to lose 22lb in 3 months is absurd unless you truly don't do anything, all day, as that much food would provide you with a mere hundred calories a day and that is no attempt at weight loss, that's trying to starve yourself to death. The fact that you'd make such a claim shows you've put literally no effort into finding out how to eat right and be healthy. You sound a lot like my aunt did, before she decided to stop eating fast food and start hitting the gym once a week. She's in her late fifties now, and she's gone from weighing close to 300lbs her entire adult life to weighing under 200 now, all in the last 6-7 years. She took inspiration from my cousins, who took inspiration from my mother, who took it from my father, all of whom have lost a lot of weight since deciding to stop being unhealthy. My parents' exercise consists of walking the beach a few nights a week when the weather is nice enough, and in New England that's not even that often, but it was enough to shed the pounds they've always had.
Stop making excuses, you're not convincing anyone, I've personally known too many people like you who made excuses all their lives until they decided they were done being unhealthy. Obesity is a new epidemic, not something humans have been grappling with for centuries. If you'd stop making excuses and actually put the effort in and try to put together a balanced diet while cutting out all the crap you usually eat you'd realize obese is not a natural state for anyone.
I used hair because it was the easiest to pick on out of the examples in the post I was replying to. As for judging by appearances, while I understand it doesn't always seem fair, you'd be an idiot to think that something like spikey blue hair won't make some people think differently of you. That's the whole reason you have it. I'm sorry, but this is the world we live in. If I see a guy walk into a Chili's with an assault rifle, I'm going to think he's a psycho, and if I see a guy with spikey blue hair walk into a job interview, I'm going to think he doesn't care if he gets the job.
Is it fair? No, of course not. But if you choose to express yourself using hair dye and body art, you're turning yourself into art that others will interpret differently, and sometimes they'll interpret your blue spikey hair and tattoos in a way that means they don't want to hire you. It's become too common for people to think they can dress themselves up to stand out and not be judged for it, they're obviously trying to make an impression with their appearance, stop complaining when it works.
I don't think it is a matter of "more rights", any more than you get "more rights" when you turn 40 and enter that legally protected class in the US.
The big difference being that you can't stop yourself from aging, you can stop yourself from becoming obese. Short of rare (much more rare than obese folks want you to think) medical conditions, nobody has an excuse to be obese, you're not born that way and you're not naturally inclined to become that way without excessively unhealthy habits.
How people look doesn't really matter to most technical workers, but would you rather hire the ideal-weight handsome person, or the 450 pound ugly guy?
Without a doubt, the ideal-weight handsome guy, because the 450lb obese guy demonstrates simply by being obese he lacks basic self control, and likely doesn't have the discipline I desire from employees. If you look like you can't be bothered to give a damn about your own personal health, why would I expect you to give a damn about your arguably less important job? Not to mention as an employer I don't want the added risk of somebody overworking themselves and having a heart attack on the job, something which seems less likely in an individual who appears healthy.
Yes, employers discriminate, because otherwise they'd be forced to hire every yahoo that strolls in and their business would suffer for it. Some qualities shouldn't be subject to discrimination; ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and plenty more. But obesity? To be obese is, generally speaking, a choice. Most people don't want to accept that, but it's the truth, every day you choose not to start exercising and eating healthy is a day you choose to remain obese. A lot of people argue they don't have time to exercise or the money to eat healthy, but it doesn't take much searching to find helpful advice from folks who thought the same thing until they realized they were completely wrong.
If an employer tells you he's not going to hire you because they maintain a professional workplace and your hair is blue and spikey, you can either choose to do something about your hair or you can throw a fit and act like it's not reasonable to want your employees to give the impression they're employed when people walk in the door and either one is your right. The same with obesity, if somebody tells you your ass won't fit in their chairs so they can't hire you, you can either throw a fit and act like they should invest in all new office furniture to cater to you, or you can go get a bike and invest in your own health, come back and get the job looking (and feeling) like a new person.
It's already in the hands of the public, really. Someone used one as part of a demonstration at Defcon in 2010. What I imagine they don't want is to show the public how capable they are of collecting all the information they want without anyone else needing to know, like any business providing any sort of transparency report.
But don't pretend it'll help prevent piracy. Does anyone really expect someone to hold their head perfectly still and never look away from the screen to pirate a film? Of course not. Google Glass is invasive for a lot of reasons, but pirating movies in theaters is hardly a concern for them. It's easier to drop your cell phone in a cup holder pointed at the screen, and less obvious to boot. Not that I think many people are doing that, I suspect most decent cams come from theater employees.
I think you're confusing advertised speeds with actual. My city is not as densely populated as any of those this is being tested in, and the connection here slows to a crawl on weekends and weekday nights. If they really can offer this without it affecting the connection of the home, then their own claims of network congestion causing slowdowns must be completely false, or else further saturating any connection must cause an additional loss of speed. If they can simply offer more speed to a home to make up for it, there must not be any real cause for the slowdown we already experience at peak times.
First, they charged me for the connection to my house at a certain speed. Then, they throttled everything I'd want that speed for. Then, they charged Netflix for the connection to my house. Now, they're offering the connection to my house to other customers when it already can't keep up with my needs or come close to their advertised speeds. What am I even paying for? The joy of twice monthly hour long phone calls to resolve outages?
I bet they'll count this as "upgrading their infrastructure," just another fine example of the innovation they claim will come to an end if ISPs are better regulated.
That could be it, to be honest I don't think it was ever fully explained to her it's just something she laughs about around iPhone launches. It leads to amusing stories about people coming in looking for an iPhone and sales people trying to convince them they want an Android phone, some people don't care but some people get annoyed pretty quickly when you tell them they don't actually want what they think they do.
I'm with a woman who does sales for VZW, she's explained to me that they actively push Android phones much more than iPhones because Verizon typically makes more on the Android phones. They don't actively discourage iPhone sales, but they run more promotions for Android and there are more Android related bonuses (or just additional quotas) for the sales people. It's partly because there are new Android phones out all the time and they run specials for a lot of new phones, but even during the months when new iPhones launch there are no incentives for sales people to sell iPhones while there are incentives for them to sell Android. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, if VZW makes more on other phones it makes sense for them to push them more, but it's part of the reason people who aren't really committed to one or the other will walk out with an Android phone. I wouldn't say they bought Android phones by mistake, though. We use both around here, if I'm being honest the iOS products run more smoothly but the Android products allow far more freedom, so I tend to think they each have an audience that suits them.
How did it fall apart? I think his point was it's up to the parents to keep the Oreos out of reach, much like how the government should do something to prevent this behavior by Verizon.
And we don't just expect these organizations to behave like toddlers with no impulse control, we watch it happen regularly, and we certainly do need to rethink how we handle their criminal behavior. As for them not being run by sociopaths, isn't it already established that sociopaths are ideal candidates for upper management positions like CEO? If they had morals like good people, we wouldn't need to regulate the crap out of them, they'd feel bad screwing us all over.
Combine it with this and dreams start to come true, scan yourself in first for added realism and then move on to scan in women you want to have virtual sex with! Obviously they'd need some method of simulating the nude version of a woman, as it's unlikely you'll find many willing to undress for a 3D scanning, but the future of cyber sex could be amazing. Amazingly invasive, too, but wouldn't it be worth it?
Imagine, in just a few short years, I could be banging your wife!
Seriously. I can think of more than a handful of Larpers who would kill to have one of these set up before or after an event so we can have figures made of ourselves in costume. Maybe offer a 1-inch figure for DnD!
Right, so, electricity. It doesn't stop being electricity when it comes from solar panels or diesel generators, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Clearly, they were getting carried away suggesting you'll be able to connect to the internet without any electricity.
Agreed. With the recent headline about people using "Find my iPhone" to track down criminals, this headline made me immediately think somebody had their phone stolen so they loaded up their gun and went criminal hunting. Headline should read, "Police act reasonably, suspect not so much."
The article you link to has nothing to do with the Solar Roadways project, it's just another link to the same story about glow in the dark roads that was already posted in the summary. Thanks for trying, though.
I'm not defending Solar Roadways, mind you, as much as I'd love to see this being used and working perfectly as intended across the world, I don't really think it's going to happen any time soon.
Totally right. What makes anyone think someone who is well trained in the use of a firearm and required to practice with it regularly so they're prepared to use it as they are likely to need to in the line of duty might be more responsible than a guy who passed a background check keeps his gun in his closet for months or years at a time? And with all those incidents of criminals using firearms acquired from police on a daily basis, it's a wonder we haven't taken their guns away already!
Seriously, though, this is a stupid argument. Obviously the police won't and shouldn't be required to use them until the technology is reliable enough that it won't fail more than the officers do. For everyone else, I'd wager the failure rate is much higher than that, when you consider the problems a smart gun may solve. Just to throw out some wacky numbers because I don't know the real ones, if there are 100 incidents where a non-police firearm saves a life a year, and one accidental death a smart gun could have prevented, then the failure rate for the smart gun should be lower then one percent to justify it's use. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but you get the idea.
Now, if you want to make all of the training the police go through (for as long as you have a gun, not some one-time class) a requirement of owning a gun, then you can compare police having firearms to everyone else having firearms. And before some guy jumps out to say "I train more than them," it isn't that I don't believe some people can be trusted as much as police (maybe more) with firearms, it's that these laws apply to everyone.
The usual problem people have with corporate personhood is more of a campaign finance issue than anything, and it's obvious that's the problem here, but there were arguments against it before anyone made a big deal of that. I think some of the arguments were based more around the idea of corporations being equal to people and less with the legal ramifications, but there have always been legitimate concerns. Corporate personhood is used to shift blame around, and as we've seen recently in GM's case, it can help people avoid jail time for murder. It's helped con men get away with ruining lives, charging for goods and services then closing up shop and disappearing. The only reason we need it now is that the laws aren't written to apply to corporations, they're written to apply to people. Without corporate personhood, contract law can't be enforced when it involves one or more corporations, because the laws just aren't worded that way. Basically, corporate personhood let us avoid rewriting other laws specifically so they can be applied correctly to corporations, it was the easy way to do things but that doesn't make it the right way.
Problems with corporate personhood long predate the "Occupy" movement, and if you've done any of the research you suggest he does you know that. I'm not saying I have a better idea in mind, rewriting laws to apply to corporations wouldn't be easy, even deciding which ones to change would be a challenge. But you're a fool to think there are no real problems with corporate personhood, especially replying to a post that perfectly describes the result of the most commonly cited problem with corporate personhood; their influence in government.
And before you spout some BS about how people can collectively donate as much as corporations, no, most of us can't. Here's a quick explanation of the situation: The people who decide how much money they will pay us have already decided how much they're going to need for lobbying efforts, and when we spend money fighting against them, they spend more fighting against us, and then pay cuts cover it. Like I said, this is more of a campaign finance issue than a corporate personhood issue, but every individual problem with corporate personhood appears to be a problem with the laws being applied. This is because we've opted for corporate personhood instead of rewriting the laws. The trouble is all we really do is swap the word "person" with "corporation" and that isn't enough, not by a long shot.
I spent four years studying and working full time, passed rigorous tests and would surely pass a background check. Why doesn't my government guarantee nobody who hasn't can work the same job as me?
I understand why there are regulations cab drivers must follow, but there is no argument beyond the safety issues, and those can be resolved without appeasing the drivers' desire to keep regulations as strict as they are. The fact that regulations exist does not mean they need to persist in their current form. As it is, you are taking a chance getting into any normal cab, bad things can and do happen. Do I think Uber should be required to vet drivers to some extent? Sure do! Does anybody think that's all these guys are after?
I want to believe they just want people to be safer, but I can't. Cab drivers get up in arms about everything that might dent their industry; where I live they complain about the buses, when I go to Vegas the complain about the monorail (for literally whole car rides), in NYC they flip out at every red light for costing them time, and now in London they are threatening to gridlock the city and deliberately cause chaos. If safety or serving citizens were any concern of theirs at all, this wouldn't even be considered.
See my above replies. I graduated almost ten years ago with a degree in computer engineering, I spent over two of those years unemployed and have spent more time working in retail and a hotel and I did in IT. I've never been fired, only laid off, and I am always willing to work overtime. Convince me I just don't want to work hard, go on, try it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how they managed to work out a deal with the publishers to make this work, if they already have. I was under the impression at least a couple publishers were displeased with Amazon's practices, that was supposedly part of the reason they were offering Apple a better deal than Amazon. I'd like to see this service succeed, though, so hopefully everyone who matters is or will be on board. Maybe one day, a monthly fee to Amazon will allow you access to all media, whether it's movies, books, games, or anything else you can get over the internet. I don't agree with everything Amazon does, but this idea is very appealing to me.
This was my first thought as well. I feel like UAVs in particular from this technology, they could designate several targets from the sky and fire a few rounds, taking out the targets with no collateral damage. It could help save soldiers' lives as well, imagine them being able to designate targets from behind cover and shoot without revealing more than their hands. The potential really is limitless, hopefully this technology can be applied to less specialized uses than long-range sniping. Imagine computer-assisted targeting for police so they can target an assailant's weapon instead of killing them in a situation that might normally end with a death.
But, it'll probably end up only being used to kill more effectively.
The “three felonies a day” is really a figure of speech, hardly an exact count. People who are very active in certain fields likely commit more than three arguable federal felonies a day. People who are less active in life and in commerce probably commit fewer. I would imagine that lawyers, accountants, and securities dealers commit more, while fruit-stand vendors commit fewer. But my point was that an active member of our society goes about his or her busy workday not realizing the potential for committing arguable federal felonies in a wide variety of business and personal endeavors on a typical day.
So no, we don't really commit three felonies a day. I'm sure the book explains this, but apparently nobody has time to read a whole book anymore so the title became a "fact" that pops up on the internet from time to time.
My brother in law is a local cop where I live, and he says the same thing. Do not trust cops. They are just people, some of them are nice, but some of them are not and will enjoy slapping cuffs on you for next to nothing. His advice was along the lines of be respectful, don't talk back, don't ever physically resist them, and don't tell them anything unless you called them. They will get annoyed, but if you're not being outright disrespectful they will generally let it go. Most of the time, they'd rather be getting real criminals off the streets, anyway.
Can you explain to me what the medical problem is causing everyone to be obese? Oh you can't? Because there's nothing to actually say there's a medical reason for it other than a bunch of overweight people who insist they can't do anything about it. There are extremely rare conditions that can cause weight gain, but these are the minority cases. Most people have no reason for being obese, only excuses, and those aren't worth anything.
As for choosing to be 450lbs, obviously nobody wakes up one day and says, "Damn, I want to break couches when I sit down!" but every time you choose to drink a soda instead of water, or you choose to eat chips instead of an apple, or you choose to get McDonalds instead of damn near anything else, you are choosing to keep being unhealthy.
In a time where you can order a healthy balanced diet in powdered form over the internet, none of us has an excuse for eating so poorly. None of us ever had an excuse for failing to exercise just a little bit, we just make them up anyway.
Just to keep things in perspective, I come from a family of overweight and obese people, and I've put a great deal of effort into developing healthier habits than them to stay healthy. I fell off the wagon after college and gained weight rapidly, but got right back on it and the weight came back off. Your claim that to lose 22lb in 3 months is absurd unless you truly don't do anything, all day, as that much food would provide you with a mere hundred calories a day and that is no attempt at weight loss, that's trying to starve yourself to death. The fact that you'd make such a claim shows you've put literally no effort into finding out how to eat right and be healthy. You sound a lot like my aunt did, before she decided to stop eating fast food and start hitting the gym once a week. She's in her late fifties now, and she's gone from weighing close to 300lbs her entire adult life to weighing under 200 now, all in the last 6-7 years. She took inspiration from my cousins, who took inspiration from my mother, who took it from my father, all of whom have lost a lot of weight since deciding to stop being unhealthy. My parents' exercise consists of walking the beach a few nights a week when the weather is nice enough, and in New England that's not even that often, but it was enough to shed the pounds they've always had.
Stop making excuses, you're not convincing anyone, I've personally known too many people like you who made excuses all their lives until they decided they were done being unhealthy. Obesity is a new epidemic, not something humans have been grappling with for centuries. If you'd stop making excuses and actually put the effort in and try to put together a balanced diet while cutting out all the crap you usually eat you'd realize obese is not a natural state for anyone.
I used hair because it was the easiest to pick on out of the examples in the post I was replying to. As for judging by appearances, while I understand it doesn't always seem fair, you'd be an idiot to think that something like spikey blue hair won't make some people think differently of you. That's the whole reason you have it. I'm sorry, but this is the world we live in. If I see a guy walk into a Chili's with an assault rifle, I'm going to think he's a psycho, and if I see a guy with spikey blue hair walk into a job interview, I'm going to think he doesn't care if he gets the job.
Is it fair? No, of course not. But if you choose to express yourself using hair dye and body art, you're turning yourself into art that others will interpret differently, and sometimes they'll interpret your blue spikey hair and tattoos in a way that means they don't want to hire you. It's become too common for people to think they can dress themselves up to stand out and not be judged for it, they're obviously trying to make an impression with their appearance, stop complaining when it works.
I don't think it is a matter of "more rights", any more than you get "more rights" when you turn 40 and enter that legally protected class in the US.
The big difference being that you can't stop yourself from aging, you can stop yourself from becoming obese. Short of rare (much more rare than obese folks want you to think) medical conditions, nobody has an excuse to be obese, you're not born that way and you're not naturally inclined to become that way without excessively unhealthy habits.
How people look doesn't really matter to most technical workers, but would you rather hire the ideal-weight handsome person, or the 450 pound ugly guy?
Without a doubt, the ideal-weight handsome guy, because the 450lb obese guy demonstrates simply by being obese he lacks basic self control, and likely doesn't have the discipline I desire from employees. If you look like you can't be bothered to give a damn about your own personal health, why would I expect you to give a damn about your arguably less important job? Not to mention as an employer I don't want the added risk of somebody overworking themselves and having a heart attack on the job, something which seems less likely in an individual who appears healthy.
Yes, employers discriminate, because otherwise they'd be forced to hire every yahoo that strolls in and their business would suffer for it. Some qualities shouldn't be subject to discrimination; ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and plenty more. But obesity? To be obese is, generally speaking, a choice. Most people don't want to accept that, but it's the truth, every day you choose not to start exercising and eating healthy is a day you choose to remain obese. A lot of people argue they don't have time to exercise or the money to eat healthy, but it doesn't take much searching to find helpful advice from folks who thought the same thing until they realized they were completely wrong.
If an employer tells you he's not going to hire you because they maintain a professional workplace and your hair is blue and spikey, you can either choose to do something about your hair or you can throw a fit and act like it's not reasonable to want your employees to give the impression they're employed when people walk in the door and either one is your right. The same with obesity, if somebody tells you your ass won't fit in their chairs so they can't hire you, you can either throw a fit and act like they should invest in all new office furniture to cater to you, or you can go get a bike and invest in your own health, come back and get the job looking (and feeling) like a new person.
It's already in the hands of the public, really. Someone used one as part of a demonstration at Defcon in 2010. What I imagine they don't want is to show the public how capable they are of collecting all the information they want without anyone else needing to know, like any business providing any sort of transparency report.
But don't pretend it'll help prevent piracy. Does anyone really expect someone to hold their head perfectly still and never look away from the screen to pirate a film? Of course not. Google Glass is invasive for a lot of reasons, but pirating movies in theaters is hardly a concern for them. It's easier to drop your cell phone in a cup holder pointed at the screen, and less obvious to boot. Not that I think many people are doing that, I suspect most decent cams come from theater employees.
I think you're confusing advertised speeds with actual. My city is not as densely populated as any of those this is being tested in, and the connection here slows to a crawl on weekends and weekday nights. If they really can offer this without it affecting the connection of the home, then their own claims of network congestion causing slowdowns must be completely false, or else further saturating any connection must cause an additional loss of speed. If they can simply offer more speed to a home to make up for it, there must not be any real cause for the slowdown we already experience at peak times.
First, they charged me for the connection to my house at a certain speed. Then, they throttled everything I'd want that speed for. Then, they charged Netflix for the connection to my house. Now, they're offering the connection to my house to other customers when it already can't keep up with my needs or come close to their advertised speeds. What am I even paying for? The joy of twice monthly hour long phone calls to resolve outages?
I bet they'll count this as "upgrading their infrastructure," just another fine example of the innovation they claim will come to an end if ISPs are better regulated.
That could be it, to be honest I don't think it was ever fully explained to her it's just something she laughs about around iPhone launches. It leads to amusing stories about people coming in looking for an iPhone and sales people trying to convince them they want an Android phone, some people don't care but some people get annoyed pretty quickly when you tell them they don't actually want what they think they do.
I'm with a woman who does sales for VZW, she's explained to me that they actively push Android phones much more than iPhones because Verizon typically makes more on the Android phones. They don't actively discourage iPhone sales, but they run more promotions for Android and there are more Android related bonuses (or just additional quotas) for the sales people. It's partly because there are new Android phones out all the time and they run specials for a lot of new phones, but even during the months when new iPhones launch there are no incentives for sales people to sell iPhones while there are incentives for them to sell Android. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, if VZW makes more on other phones it makes sense for them to push them more, but it's part of the reason people who aren't really committed to one or the other will walk out with an Android phone. I wouldn't say they bought Android phones by mistake, though. We use both around here, if I'm being honest the iOS products run more smoothly but the Android products allow far more freedom, so I tend to think they each have an audience that suits them.
How did it fall apart? I think his point was it's up to the parents to keep the Oreos out of reach, much like how the government should do something to prevent this behavior by Verizon.
And we don't just expect these organizations to behave like toddlers with no impulse control, we watch it happen regularly, and we certainly do need to rethink how we handle their criminal behavior. As for them not being run by sociopaths, isn't it already established that sociopaths are ideal candidates for upper management positions like CEO? If they had morals like good people, we wouldn't need to regulate the crap out of them, they'd feel bad screwing us all over.
Combine it with this and dreams start to come true, scan yourself in first for added realism and then move on to scan in women you want to have virtual sex with! Obviously they'd need some method of simulating the nude version of a woman, as it's unlikely you'll find many willing to undress for a 3D scanning, but the future of cyber sex could be amazing. Amazingly invasive, too, but wouldn't it be worth it?
Imagine, in just a few short years, I could be banging your wife!
Seriously. I can think of more than a handful of Larpers who would kill to have one of these set up before or after an event so we can have figures made of ourselves in costume. Maybe offer a 1-inch figure for DnD!
But the Chinese might be spying on you!
Hah, gave myself a good chuckle with that one.
Right, so, electricity. It doesn't stop being electricity when it comes from solar panels or diesel generators, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Clearly, they were getting carried away suggesting you'll be able to connect to the internet without any electricity.
Agreed. With the recent headline about people using "Find my iPhone" to track down criminals, this headline made me immediately think somebody had their phone stolen so they loaded up their gun and went criminal hunting. Headline should read, "Police act reasonably, suspect not so much."
The article you link to has nothing to do with the Solar Roadways project, it's just another link to the same story about glow in the dark roads that was already posted in the summary. Thanks for trying, though.
I'm not defending Solar Roadways, mind you, as much as I'd love to see this being used and working perfectly as intended across the world, I don't really think it's going to happen any time soon.
Seriously, though, this is a stupid argument. Obviously the police won't and shouldn't be required to use them until the technology is reliable enough that it won't fail more than the officers do. For everyone else, I'd wager the failure rate is much higher than that, when you consider the problems a smart gun may solve. Just to throw out some wacky numbers because I don't know the real ones, if there are 100 incidents where a non-police firearm saves a life a year, and one accidental death a smart gun could have prevented, then the failure rate for the smart gun should be lower then one percent to justify it's use. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but you get the idea.
Now, if you want to make all of the training the police go through (for as long as you have a gun, not some one-time class) a requirement of owning a gun, then you can compare police having firearms to everyone else having firearms. And before some guy jumps out to say "I train more than them," it isn't that I don't believe some people can be trusted as much as police (maybe more) with firearms, it's that these laws apply to everyone.
The usual problem people have with corporate personhood is more of a campaign finance issue than anything, and it's obvious that's the problem here, but there were arguments against it before anyone made a big deal of that. I think some of the arguments were based more around the idea of corporations being equal to people and less with the legal ramifications, but there have always been legitimate concerns. Corporate personhood is used to shift blame around, and as we've seen recently in GM's case, it can help people avoid jail time for murder. It's helped con men get away with ruining lives, charging for goods and services then closing up shop and disappearing. The only reason we need it now is that the laws aren't written to apply to corporations, they're written to apply to people. Without corporate personhood, contract law can't be enforced when it involves one or more corporations, because the laws just aren't worded that way. Basically, corporate personhood let us avoid rewriting other laws specifically so they can be applied correctly to corporations, it was the easy way to do things but that doesn't make it the right way.
Problems with corporate personhood long predate the "Occupy" movement, and if you've done any of the research you suggest he does you know that. I'm not saying I have a better idea in mind, rewriting laws to apply to corporations wouldn't be easy, even deciding which ones to change would be a challenge. But you're a fool to think there are no real problems with corporate personhood, especially replying to a post that perfectly describes the result of the most commonly cited problem with corporate personhood; their influence in government.
And before you spout some BS about how people can collectively donate as much as corporations, no, most of us can't. Here's a quick explanation of the situation: The people who decide how much money they will pay us have already decided how much they're going to need for lobbying efforts, and when we spend money fighting against them, they spend more fighting against us, and then pay cuts cover it. Like I said, this is more of a campaign finance issue than a corporate personhood issue, but every individual problem with corporate personhood appears to be a problem with the laws being applied. This is because we've opted for corporate personhood instead of rewriting the laws. The trouble is all we really do is swap the word "person" with "corporation" and that isn't enough, not by a long shot.
I spent four years studying and working full time, passed rigorous tests and would surely pass a background check. Why doesn't my government guarantee nobody who hasn't can work the same job as me?
I understand why there are regulations cab drivers must follow, but there is no argument beyond the safety issues, and those can be resolved without appeasing the drivers' desire to keep regulations as strict as they are. The fact that regulations exist does not mean they need to persist in their current form. As it is, you are taking a chance getting into any normal cab, bad things can and do happen. Do I think Uber should be required to vet drivers to some extent? Sure do! Does anybody think that's all these guys are after?
I want to believe they just want people to be safer, but I can't. Cab drivers get up in arms about everything that might dent their industry; where I live they complain about the buses, when I go to Vegas the complain about the monorail (for literally whole car rides), in NYC they flip out at every red light for costing them time, and now in London they are threatening to gridlock the city and deliberately cause chaos. If safety or serving citizens were any concern of theirs at all, this wouldn't even be considered.
See my above replies. I graduated almost ten years ago with a degree in computer engineering, I spent over two of those years unemployed and have spent more time working in retail and a hotel and I did in IT. I've never been fired, only laid off, and I am always willing to work overtime. Convince me I just don't want to work hard, go on, try it.