Approaches like that already exist in other areas.
For example, you generally cannot simply show up for a sex change operation. You have to go through (often) several years worth of consultations and evaluations, before you will be allowed to proceed.
Similar situation also exists for people that have "extra phantom limbs" (they feel that one of their legs doesn't belong to them and should be removed, for instance). Depending on where they are, they will also have an option to consultations, therapy and, eventually, removal of the limb. Alternative can be a person that will go and sit on the railway tracks in order to have his leg cut off by a train. I think you can imagine how well that can work out.
In my opinion you do have a right to do anything you want with your body. But in some cases (like in other areas of your life) you don't actually know what you want and may make a different choice if you are well informed and have the support of your environment that helps you research all the options that may be open to you.
I don't think that's the discussion that we're having here.
If you feel that you should take your own life, I believe that you are well within your rights to do so. The discussion here is about the people who are attempting to end their lives on a whim, for a lack of a better term. And when they do, they realize that they made a mistake.
Examples that you are giving are also, potentially, mistakes. But they are reversible or correctable. Or in some cases, just life. Suicide attempts, that result in death are not reversible or correctable.
That doesn't really work all that well for lefties.
I'm a left-handed person and I always wore watches on my left hand. First of all it didn't cause me any problems to do so. Second of all it would be awkward to operate the watch on the right hand, since button-placement is ergonomically better suited for wearing watch on the left hand and operating it with the right one.
Try winding a "legacy" analog watch with your left hand, while wearing it on the right one. You can, but it's damn uncomfortable.
The only alternative is then to wear the watch with wrong-side-up, which isn't any better:-)
I read somewhere, a long time ago, that wristwatches became "popular" during first world war. The reason was that watches were needed for executing coordinated attacks along the front. Wristwatches allowed you to check time, without letting go of your weapon.
This also accounts for wristwatches being worn on the left hand. It allowed you to aim your rifle while being able to look at the watch along the arm that supported it.
Now you're changing your argument. Before you were saying that it's much easier to found a company in US than it is in Europe. Now you're saying that it's easy to do it Europe but that it's not profitable.
It would be fairly interesting to see you back that up, since based on your argument no one in their right capitalistic mind would run their business in Europe. And let's not forget that a fair amount of US-based businesses are currently using EU as a tax shelter, since their profits can be better protected there than in US. I'll give you Apple and Amazon as examples here.
You can choose which company you work for, and you can found your own company. Both of those are a lot easier in the US than in Europe.
Exactly how difficult do you think it is to found your own company in Europe? In my country all that you need is a bit of starting cash (a few thousand Euros) and you're up and running in a day.
And as for choosing a company to work for, I can assure you it's like pretty much anywhere else. If you're qualified, you'll get a job pretty quickly. How good a job that will be will depend on the current economic situation, but that's also like anywhere else.
Large part of the problem here is that if you're accused, you can get ruined.
I know all about, and I'm all for, the concept of innocent until proven guilty. But ask yourself this: how would your immediate surroundings react if you were charged with kiddie porn charges? Chances are you would be in trial process for months, maybe years.
How would your boss react? School or kindergarten your kids go to? Your friends, acquaintances? Even spouse.
While child exploitation is extremely vile, the prejudice surrounding any suspect that is potentially involved, may be just as bad. And potentially is an important word here.
Analogously, cell phones are a throwback to old crank phones because you have to charge them before you use them. We used to have perfectly good powered land lines. Cell phones with their short battery lives and constant attention are for eclectic hobbyists I'm sure.
Not quite. You cannot carry landline phones around with you. And also your example is not correct. cranking was not used to power the phone, but to make the ringer ring. And I don't think you will find many people that are actually happy with current battery capabilities of todays' smarphones and that a lot of people would say that cell phones of 10 years ago were much, much better in that regard.
What kind of safety risks are there supposed to be in driverless trains, as opposed to the ones with drivers?
I'm asking especially, since driverless trains are not a new concept. And I've yet to see (I may have missed them) headlines for accidents that happened due to the fact that the train didn't have a driver.
You are correct. I am claiming that those societies were not, or are not, civil. At least not quite civil yet.
Idea that we live together in groups, is that group offers benefits to a person, to which they otherwise wouldn't have access. Even in feudal times peasants paid certain amount of their income the benefits that they gained. Such as protection.
And to say that the principle, by which groups take care of individuals that are unable to do so by themselves, exists only for the last 100 years is in the very least extremely narrow in definition.
"Older" orders, such as even today in Africa, place a premium on society, usually in more narrow circles, taking care of individuals, such as elderly. The only difference is that today this kind of approach is referenced in taxes and social security that provides support to everyone. It's a simple extrapolation of the old concept, applied to larger societies.
Granted, the actual implementation doesn't always work as it's supposed to. There are countries where such systems are either inefficient, corrupt or both. But where it does work, it works great for everyone and not just for people that have money.
And I have to say that so far I have only ever heard people complain about these systems when they were healthy. Pretty much never, when they had to go into a complicated surgery.
There is no "copay" or "insurance you choose to buy into".
I'm sorry, but you also don't know what you're talking about. Even though I wish it wasn't true, such system does exist in more than one country, besides the US. I live in one such country. We had it since the abolition of socialism (20+ years ago) and currently there are a lot of discussions going on that it should be abolished.
You must have missed the "unable to pay" part in the sentence that you quoted.
One of the things of a civil society is and has to be the fact that it will take care of those who cannot care for themselves. Otherwise we can go back to living in our own individual caves.
And before you say something snippy, not that i said "those who cannot" and not those who will not take care of themselves.
The point is that mentalities in the two countries are very different. One country is focusing on "everyone has a chance to be king of the world." which leads to people trampling one over another to reach that coveted position. At the same time pretty much no one gets there. On the other hand in Sweden community based (or government, if you prefer) approach, with healthy dose of transparency and oversight, offers better infrastructure and overall experience for the people who then use said infrastructure.
It is true that taxes in Sweden are much higher than they are in the US. But people there enjoy greater quality of life, with less stress than they do in the US.
Disclaimer: I'm not from either of the two countries, but I've visited both frequently.
I am one of (maybe rare) customers for these solutions.
I'm in my late 30's now and have been and still am a gamer. My work requires me to travel around a lot internationally and I decided several years ago that I won't have a desktop PC anymore. So, whenever I'm purchasing a new laptop, I'm always looking for a best performance-to-weight ratio. 6 years ago that didn't go well at all and I ended up with a 17" monster that worked nicely, but was a bitch to carry around. Three years ago I scaled down to a 15" laptop that had decent performance, was much lighter than what I had before, but kept overheating and shutting down if I was running anything a bit more demanding. Half a year ago it was time for me to switch over again. Now I was actively looking at ultrabooks. But at the time I still didn't find anything that would quite persuade me. Form factor was extremely attractive, but performance was not quite up to what I wanted and needed. I was especially turned off by the lack of RAM that I could fit into most of them. So i went for a next generation of my 15" laptop, which in itself slimmed down over the years and is now a quite attractive thing (in my opinion). I especially like the concept of switchable graphics, which in theory allows for long hours of work on the go and good gaming experience when power is available. I say in theory, because I had countless issues with Intel graphics drivers and problems that they caused with sleep mode.
In any case, these developments keep convincing me, that desktop is something that I most likely won't be using anymore. And will be more than happy to have a very decent, if not the slimmest, laptop to carry around.
Look, the fact is that the lost opportunities are self inflicted.
Wow... That is such a crazy load of bull.
I am personally acquainted with someone who, at one time in his life, didn't want to employ women. He changed around since then, but if you were a woman, at that point in his life, you would have no chance of getting a job with him, if there was an equally qualified man available for the position.
And I'm aware of enough of second-hand stories to be able to spot a trend.
I am strongly against quotas that force gender-equality (as I am against most all other quotas), but it's difficult to change mindsets in the short term.
Haha... That's funny. Especially since the whole argument here was that you do not have a way with which you could prevent someone from infringing on your right to privacy. And we do.
All the while you're simply saying that there's nothing that can be done about invasive surveillance, since other individuals are going to take that right from you. And your only counter argument is that if government (chosen by the will of the people, if I may add) is the one protecting you, that has to suck.
And you better get over it, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on if you don't like being recorded;
That very much depends on where you live. In most of EU there are strict privacy laws that prohibit recording and surveillance in public without an obvious and explicit warning. And yes, that is also a case for things like surveillance cameras on highways, in public and private buildings, in places of business and so on. Also in case of such behavior (recording) you have to be able to get in touch with someone who has additional information about the scope of what is being recorded.
It is true that personal photo-taking or video recording is exempt from these regulations. However with activities that we're discussing (drones and Google glass-like devices) this is kind of moot. So there is a good chance extra regulation will be put in place. Usually regulation here goes in direction that if there is personal information about you somewhere, over which you have no control, distribution of that information is prohibited unless you give your explicit consent.
So I would not be too surprised if Glass owners and drone operators would have to have large signs attached to their devices (and/or themselves) saying that video surveillance is happening and where we can contact them:-)
So, you see, there are things that can be done and we do have some legal legs to stand on.
Slashdot Mirror
ALT+F4 ? And even for the Metro apps there is the well-known X in the upper-right corner.
Absolutely.
Approaches like that already exist in other areas.
For example, you generally cannot simply show up for a sex change operation. You have to go through (often) several years worth of consultations and evaluations, before you will be allowed to proceed.
Similar situation also exists for people that have "extra phantom limbs" (they feel that one of their legs doesn't belong to them and should be removed, for instance). Depending on where they are, they will also have an option to consultations, therapy and, eventually, removal of the limb. Alternative can be a person that will go and sit on the railway tracks in order to have his leg cut off by a train. I think you can imagine how well that can work out.
In my opinion you do have a right to do anything you want with your body. But in some cases (like in other areas of your life) you don't actually know what you want and may make a different choice if you are well informed and have the support of your environment that helps you research all the options that may be open to you.
I don't think that's the discussion that we're having here.
If you feel that you should take your own life, I believe that you are well within your rights to do so. The discussion here is about the people who are attempting to end their lives on a whim, for a lack of a better term. And when they do, they realize that they made a mistake.
Examples that you are giving are also, potentially, mistakes. But they are reversible or correctable. Or in some cases, just life. Suicide attempts, that result in death are not reversible or correctable.
In other words, you're saying that about a quarter of population HAS, at some point, been thinking about killing themselves?
I don't see that as a small number.
I don't understand what your point is.
I'm left handed and I've always carried my watch on the left hand.
That doesn't really work all that well for lefties.
:-)
I'm a left-handed person and I always wore watches on my left hand. First of all it didn't cause me any problems to do so. Second of all it would be awkward to operate the watch on the right hand, since button-placement is ergonomically better suited for wearing watch on the left hand and operating it with the right one. Try winding a "legacy" analog watch with your left hand, while wearing it on the right one. You can, but it's damn uncomfortable.
The only alternative is then to wear the watch with wrong-side-up, which isn't any better
I read somewhere, a long time ago, that wristwatches became "popular" during first world war. The reason was that watches were needed for executing coordinated attacks along the front. Wristwatches allowed you to check time, without letting go of your weapon. This also accounts for wristwatches being worn on the left hand. It allowed you to aim your rifle while being able to look at the watch along the arm that supported it.
Now you're changing your argument. Before you were saying that it's much easier to found a company in US than it is in Europe. Now you're saying that it's easy to do it Europe but that it's not profitable. It would be fairly interesting to see you back that up, since based on your argument no one in their right capitalistic mind would run their business in Europe. And let's not forget that a fair amount of US-based businesses are currently using EU as a tax shelter, since their profits can be better protected there than in US. I'll give you Apple and Amazon as examples here.
You can choose which company you work for, and you can found your own company. Both of those are a lot easier in the US than in Europe.
Exactly how difficult do you think it is to found your own company in Europe? In my country all that you need is a bit of starting cash (a few thousand Euros) and you're up and running in a day.
And as for choosing a company to work for, I can assure you it's like pretty much anywhere else. If you're qualified, you'll get a job pretty quickly. How good a job that will be will depend on the current economic situation, but that's also like anywhere else.
They are. But sex part has never been too emphasized.
How will HBO put boobs in this? Will there be fembots in it? :-)
Would this apply to your tax and health records then?
Large part of the problem here is that if you're accused, you can get ruined.
I know all about, and I'm all for, the concept of innocent until proven guilty. But ask yourself this: how would your immediate surroundings react if you were charged with kiddie porn charges? Chances are you would be in trial process for months, maybe years.
How would your boss react? School or kindergarten your kids go to? Your friends, acquaintances? Even spouse.
While child exploitation is extremely vile, the prejudice surrounding any suspect that is potentially involved, may be just as bad. And potentially is an important word here.
Analogously, cell phones are a throwback to old crank phones because you have to charge them before you use them. We used to have perfectly good powered land lines. Cell phones with their short battery lives and constant attention are for eclectic hobbyists I'm sure.
Not quite. You cannot carry landline phones around with you. And also your example is not correct. cranking was not used to power the phone, but to make the ringer ring. And I don't think you will find many people that are actually happy with current battery capabilities of todays' smarphones and that a lot of people would say that cell phones of 10 years ago were much, much better in that regard.
Not just Virgin. If the plane has video monitors, then almost all airlines in Europe, Middle East and Asia have this.
What kind of safety risks are there supposed to be in driverless trains, as opposed to the ones with drivers? I'm asking especially, since driverless trains are not a new concept. And I've yet to see (I may have missed them) headlines for accidents that happened due to the fact that the train didn't have a driver.
Driverless subways exits in other cities for a while now. And this is definitely one of those things, where you can automate a lot out of a system.
You are correct. I am claiming that those societies were not, or are not, civil. At least not quite civil yet.
Idea that we live together in groups, is that group offers benefits to a person, to which they otherwise wouldn't have access. Even in feudal times peasants paid certain amount of their income the benefits that they gained. Such as protection.
And to say that the principle, by which groups take care of individuals that are unable to do so by themselves, exists only for the last 100 years is in the very least extremely narrow in definition.
"Older" orders, such as even today in Africa, place a premium on society, usually in more narrow circles, taking care of individuals, such as elderly. The only difference is that today this kind of approach is referenced in taxes and social security that provides support to everyone. It's a simple extrapolation of the old concept, applied to larger societies.
Granted, the actual implementation doesn't always work as it's supposed to. There are countries where such systems are either inefficient, corrupt or both. But where it does work, it works great for everyone and not just for people that have money.
And I have to say that so far I have only ever heard people complain about these systems when they were healthy. Pretty much never, when they had to go into a complicated surgery.
There is no "copay" or "insurance you choose to buy into".
I'm sorry, but you also don't know what you're talking about. Even though I wish it wasn't true, such system does exist in more than one country, besides the US. I live in one such country. We had it since the abolition of socialism (20+ years ago) and currently there are a lot of discussions going on that it should be abolished.
You must have missed the "unable to pay" part in the sentence that you quoted.
One of the things of a civil society is and has to be the fact that it will take care of those who cannot care for themselves. Otherwise we can go back to living in our own individual caves.
And before you say something snippy, not that i said "those who cannot" and not those who will not take care of themselves.
That's not a valid argument/question.
The point is that mentalities in the two countries are very different. One country is focusing on "everyone has a chance to be king of the world." which leads to people trampling one over another to reach that coveted position. At the same time pretty much no one gets there. On the other hand in Sweden community based (or government, if you prefer) approach, with healthy dose of transparency and oversight, offers better infrastructure and overall experience for the people who then use said infrastructure.
It is true that taxes in Sweden are much higher than they are in the US. But people there enjoy greater quality of life, with less stress than they do in the US.
Disclaimer: I'm not from either of the two countries, but I've visited both frequently.
I am one of (maybe rare) customers for these solutions.
I'm in my late 30's now and have been and still am a gamer. My work requires me to travel around a lot internationally and I decided several years ago that I won't have a desktop PC anymore. So, whenever I'm purchasing a new laptop, I'm always looking for a best performance-to-weight ratio. 6 years ago that didn't go well at all and I ended up with a 17" monster that worked nicely, but was a bitch to carry around. Three years ago I scaled down to a 15" laptop that had decent performance, was much lighter than what I had before, but kept overheating and shutting down if I was running anything a bit more demanding.
Half a year ago it was time for me to switch over again. Now I was actively looking at ultrabooks. But at the time I still didn't find anything that would quite persuade me. Form factor was extremely attractive, but performance was not quite up to what I wanted and needed. I was especially turned off by the lack of RAM that I could fit into most of them. So i went for a next generation of my 15" laptop, which in itself slimmed down over the years and is now a quite attractive thing (in my opinion).
I especially like the concept of switchable graphics, which in theory allows for long hours of work on the go and good gaming experience when power is available. I say in theory, because I had countless issues with Intel graphics drivers and problems that they caused with sleep mode.
In any case, these developments keep convincing me, that desktop is something that I most likely won't be using anymore. And will be more than happy to have a very decent, if not the slimmest, laptop to carry around.
Look, the fact is that the lost opportunities are self inflicted.
Wow... That is such a crazy load of bull.
I am personally acquainted with someone who, at one time in his life, didn't want to employ women. He changed around since then, but if you were a woman, at that point in his life, you would have no chance of getting a job with him, if there was an equally qualified man available for the position.
And I'm aware of enough of second-hand stories to be able to spot a trend.
I am strongly against quotas that force gender-equality (as I am against most all other quotas), but it's difficult to change mindsets in the short term.
Haha... That's funny. Especially since the whole argument here was that you do not have a way with which you could prevent someone from infringing on your right to privacy. And we do.
All the while you're simply saying that there's nothing that can be done about invasive surveillance, since other individuals are going to take that right from you. And your only counter argument is that if government (chosen by the will of the people, if I may add) is the one protecting you, that has to suck.
And you better get over it, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on if you don't like being recorded;
That very much depends on where you live. In most of EU there are strict privacy laws that prohibit recording and surveillance in public without an obvious and explicit warning. And yes, that is also a case for things like surveillance cameras on highways, in public and private buildings, in places of business and so on. Also in case of such behavior (recording) you have to be able to get in touch with someone who has additional information about the scope of what is being recorded.
It is true that personal photo-taking or video recording is exempt from these regulations. However with activities that we're discussing (drones and Google glass-like devices) this is kind of moot. So there is a good chance extra regulation will be put in place.
Usually regulation here goes in direction that if there is personal information about you somewhere, over which you have no control, distribution of that information is prohibited unless you give your explicit consent.
So I would not be too surprised if Glass owners and drone operators would have to have large signs attached to their devices (and/or themselves) saying that video surveillance is happening and where we can contact them :-)
So, you see, there are things that can be done and we do have some legal legs to stand on.