Whether intentional or not, you have given a great example of using numbers to tell a lie. Now why don't you look into how dangerous Measles are for people who are not malnourished children to the point of being sickly. Since I live in a country that has ample supplies of cheap food, this disease is not a danger. But the news media and “medical experts" talk about how deadly it is everytime someone gets sick. That's why your arguments fail.
One of the things many in medicine are worried about is that anti-vax people are going to provide a host population and something like measles will mutate and go back to killing millions of people.
It is all the lies that the government and Pro-Vaxxers spew forth that make me trust that the vaccines are safe even less. Measles has never caused millions of deaths. It is basically like getting chicken pox. But then again, that is now made out to be a scary and deadly disease by the pro-vaxxers also, so no surprise there. Then add in the fact that the vaccine is not as effective as Merck tells you it is and you have another reason to avoid it. And I'm not talking subtly different, it's more like 45% effective when you are told it is 95% effective. Nice bunch of liars in the pro-vaxx camp!
People bought Google and Apple products knowing that there was telemetry and a walled garden. Nobody bought Windows 7
First of all, I never buy Windows. Pirating their OS is the only option as far as I am concerned. If they didn't manipulate the market to get themselves into a monopoly position I would have a different opinion. But I want to play the games that require powerful graphics cards and those work better on Windows. I do like that Steam is making it less of a requirement though.
believing that Microsoft would forcefully seize control of their computers and disable their manually-changed settings.
I fully believe that Microsoft will screw up my system. This is why I disable all updates. I have never trusted them and don't find that my system gets compromised from not being up to date on their updates. Safe computing goes a long way!
Apparently in your mind the only way to turn chemical energy into electricity is to fire a bullet.
Also, apparently in your mind, a person can swap out a bullet but not swap out an energy source. And the two can't be combined or paired. And there's not literally thousands of different ways to store energy, many easily managed by hand. And the amount of energy needed to run a fingerprint scanner for a split second trivial.
Nope, clearly it's an impossible task, let's all go make threats to any stores that want to carry smart guns and block all attempts to improve the technology!
I simply asked you how this technology would work. With any thought at all, you can see that even a small delay, less than a tenth of a second even, will put your aim off when firing. Instead you talked of this instant chemical to electrical energy conversion with no delay as if it's some sort of Star Trek episode. You have clearly shown that you don't know how to think. You have also shown that you are an ass hole by trying to put words in my mouth about threatening stores that carry smart guns. You are not worth talking to. Go to hell!
I'm seeing two main arguments put forward from those who are against smart tech: weapon reliability and the 2nd amendment. To the first, it is insufficient to argue that a weapon is not worth having if there is some (additional) probability of the weapon failing due to the tech. One major safety concern is children getting their hands on guns. Some argue that safes are a sufficient solution but if one truly wants a gun as a means of defense, I doubt keeping it locked away will allow it to provide much protection and reflecting that children do get their hands on them. Now, suppose the probability a child gets their hands on a loaded weapon resulting in death is 10% and the probability of the tech causes the gun to fail when needed for defense is 1%, then the benefits of the tech outweigh the cost. These numbers are arbitrary to make the point that an increased chance of failure is only part of the equation. It's like saying sometimes an airbag deploys in such a way as to cause extreme harm to the driver that otherwise wouldn't happen so we should remove all airbags from cars. Relatedly I would guess that there are many different kinds of smart tech incorporating very different levels of functionality and control of the weapon meaning that the rate of failure will also vary. Product variety is good and there will be those who want more tech, those that want some, but less, and those that do not want any.
The second concern is about the 2nd amendment but that's why we have the courts. If smart tech were to be mandated and it is indeed unconstitutional, as many argue, then guess what, the mandate will not be allowed and there is nothing to be worried about. I'm guessing NJ's law has not been tested because nobody has standing yet as there is no smart tech to mandate. Unfortunately, the law in NJ is still in place because it allows for this kind of divisiveness against developing the tech in the first place.
It can take years or even decades before a law is found to be unconstitutional and is repealed. You can't argue in court against a law unless you are caught by it. Several large cities just had their gun bans repealed that have been in place for a very long time. During that time, millions of people's lives are affected. They cannot do what they should be able to do and some of them, possibly thousands of people, are killed or arrested and put in prison. All of that due to an unconstitutional law.
The people who voted on that law face no consequences for their actions. In fact they often try to re-word the law and pass it again in a slightly changed form to get around the unconstitutionality of it while still being unconstitutional in the end. How about the people who voted for a law that caused so much harm to so many people pay for their actions. Taking the rights away from millions of people is arguably much worse than killing a dozen people. So I say they get the death penalty for their actions. Anyone who votes for a law that is found to be unconstitutional goes directly to the target end of a firing squad. That would curtail these mass criminals we have in government.
Because when it "works" there it'll spread. Simple as that. The Feds could pass a NJ type law and claim that they aren't infringing, you're still ALLOWED to buy guns, it's just now there's only 4 models approved for sale and they're all $2k or more.
I will allow these politicians to pass such ridiculous laws when they have some skin in the game. Each politician that sponsors or votes on a law that is found to be unconstitutional goes immediately to the firing squad for termination. Too many laws are passed that affect millions of people in the country in detrimental ways. Then when the law is repealed due to being unconstitutional the just re-write it with new wording and try to pass it through with as small as changes as they can make. With some fear of their life ending they won't be so gung-ho on passing spying laws or gun ban laws for the city.
This is all about preventing current military grade weapons used by the federal government being stolen and used. We're not really talking about small time people either, this is likely about organized crime.
I could also imagine police officers would be happy if they didn't have to shoot a kid, just because he got hold of some other officers gun.. In fact ensuring that a gun can't be used against you must be very attractive to police officers...
Especially, if one day, the American public decides that it's not okay for police officers to shoot people at the first sign of conflict.
If they don't want to shoot at kids, then they should just stop shooting at kids. There are way too many unarmed young people or children that are shot by police. Perhaps the people that should not be allowed to carry guns are the ones in the blue uniforms.
I like this idea! Wirelessly link the gun to the vest of the officer. If the vest takes the impact from a bullet, then the gun will fire normally. That shows that the officer is facing a dangerous person and has the right to fire. If the officer fires the gun before the vest is hit by a bullet, the cops gun fires the bullet out backwards right into the officer's face. This way the murderous police don't even need to be charged with a crime by their buddies and cohorts in the corrupt system, they just end up dead as a direct result of their own actions.
It's funny how people are absolutely convinced that there's no way to store chemical energy - for the purposes of conversion to electricity for the fingerprint reader - in a manner that one can be sure will be available when they need to fire their gun, but they're absolutely confident in the ability to store chemical energy - for the purposes of creating expanding gases to propel the bullet out - in a manner that one can be sure will be available when they need to fire their gun.
If a bullet fails to fire, you simply rack the slide and load the next one in. So you would need clips full of this chemical to electricity pods to use each time you fire it. Are you thinking that each bullet will create the electricity to determine whether it should fire after the bullet has been fired?
No body was going to vaporize Endor! That is just where the Death Star was being built and where the shield generators were located. A little tiny moon with some furries on it would not be a big enough example to show the rest of the Empire to keep them in line with a demonstration of such awesome power. It's almost like you never even watch the movies.
Sometimes it seems Bennett needs to use a little bit of logical thinking before going off on his tirades. If T-Mobile can tell a video stream to downgrade, then they know what is going on. If you can go to any site at a slow pace, then that means any site not just streaming. Downloading mass amounts of bit torrent files will not count toward your cap if there is no cap. That is very different from watching tons of streaming and it not counting toward your cap. Not too many people can watch TV all day, 24 hours a day for months on end. But if you have unlimited data you can set up the computer to start the download and it will run day and night everyday until it is finished. One way will use up more data even if they are both restricted to the same maximum speed.
Absolutely anything that you would have to worry about an artificial intelligence doing that might be troublesome to our society, you would have to also need to reasonably worry about a malicious person doing exact the same thing, albeit perhaps only more slowly.
An artificial intelligence could make a million identical copies of itself. I don't see how a malicious person could do the exact same thing. Perhaps they could have a million children, but that is a stretch, and it would be way, way slower. They also would not be identical.
They just talk about it beforehand on Facebook, but none of the agents who are supposed to be monitoring them give a damn.
No, they give a damn. But if they warn people, then there won't be these huge mass deaths and their budget might get cut. Plus, they need the bombs and killings to go off so they can push to take away more freedoms and grant themselves more power. The real terrorists are in the government.
This would be like the small rooms with projections on the walls, floor, and ceiling often called a "cave". You do lose the parallax from having a different image for each eye with the helmet or cave approach.
I'm really shocked that more US fast food (crap food) places don't also server some form of booze...it would sure help things go down easier....
Well you're in luck then. Taco Bell has started serving beer, wine, and sangria at a couple of its stores. I expect they plan on expanding that to most of them. To me it seems like a copy off of Chipotle which already serves beer and margaritas at their stores.
I used to think my daughter was just getting into a picky eater phase. As a very young toddler she used to love lots of things. Olives, peas, potatoes, etc. She started getting picky and has only gotten worse. The new child eats almost everything we give her. I am ready to try the starving technique on the older one though or she may never eat anything but fruit, hot dogs, and McNuggets.
Wasn't about to try that stuff though. It would have kind of defeated the whole point of being in France.
You were there in France and you did not get a Royale with Chese? Man, you missed out.
Also, how long were you there. When you are there long enough you start to get sick of trying to translate all the menu items to figure out what you want to eat. We ate at "MacDough" only once, but it was still a part of the French experience.
Or what if you killed a crooked cop by stalking him at his house and sliding needles into his eyes for 10 hours until he died. I would say it was the moral thing to do and calling the "authorities" would be wrong.
Or what if it was a lying, cheating politician? Or a lawyer? Not one of the few good lawyers out there that fight against the corporations of the world, but one of the ones that deserve to be fed to the sharks?
You know what? I think I was mistaken on what is said to be infringing. The summary states that "Towle infringed upon DCâ(TM)s property rights when he produced unauthorized derivative works of the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television show and the 1989 motion picture." I thought that meant the 1966 show and 1989 movie were the unauthorized derivative works. I thought that seemed weird because I had never heard that the original show was unauthorized, but that's what it looked to be saying. Sorry about the confusion.
How do you see that implied. The 1966 TV show Batmobile is "the one" everyone thinks of as the original Batmobile. I never saw another one before that one. And every Batmobile made for the movies is a knock-off on that one. It certainly does not look anything like the comic version that I had to look up in a Google search and have never before seen in my life.
This judge is saying that a newly created car, that looks nothing like any car made before, is a derivative and a copy just because of the name. So then every elephantmobile would be a copy of the first elephantmobile. Even if it looked completely different, the fact that it has any elephant appearance at all would make it a copy. So then, wouldn't Hello Kitty be a copy of Catwoman?
And you get the experts to help make the estimate. Then they say it is too long and cut it down to 1/3rd the time estimated. And the project ends up going way over what was estimated.
I have stopped caring about the estimates. The boss can make his fantasy timelines all he wants. Sometimes, when it is a small project I come in on time. Other times the project ends up going over. It ends up cutting into the next project, which has a firm stop date, so they don't give even the original amount of time estimated for that project even though that was already estimated to be too low. So that project goes over also. I don't even look at the schedule. If you use unicorn farts for your estimates then I don't play your game. If you want to get rid of me for that, your projects will be even later while you spend time looking for new people to hire and train. Plus, I would be better off finding a new job anyway since pay increases much more with a job hop rather than staying loyal to a company.
From the article itself, (I know, I am not supposed to read the article), the traction control is mandated to be turned off when testing the emissions. So you already have a need to check that emissions testing is being done. Once that flag is set in the code other areas can use it and they may not even be aware of the ethical dilemma that arises. Perhaps someone was told to lower the fuel flow when the test_mode flag was on. Why would they feel that something does not "smell quite right" in that case? Someone else turned the flag on with a code change several years previously. There is plenty of other things being changed or turned off when in test_mode, so adjusting the fuel flow can fit right in with that. Unless they realized that test_mode was used to determine that emissions testing was being performed (it could be used for other tests also) and that the changes they are making will cheat the emissions test they might not even realize that something is wrong with what they are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether intentional or not, you have given a great example of using numbers to tell a lie. Now why don't you look into how dangerous Measles are for people who are not malnourished children to the point of being sickly. Since I live in a country that has ample supplies of cheap food, this disease is not a danger. But the news media and “medical experts" talk about how deadly it is everytime someone gets sick. That's why your arguments fail.
One of the things many in medicine are worried about is that anti-vax people are going to provide a host population and something like measles will mutate and go back to killing millions of people.
It is all the lies that the government and Pro-Vaxxers spew forth that make me trust that the vaccines are safe even less. Measles has never caused millions of deaths. It is basically like getting chicken pox. But then again, that is now made out to be a scary and deadly disease by the pro-vaxxers also, so no surprise there. Then add in the fact that the vaccine is not as effective as Merck tells you it is and you have another reason to avoid it. And I'm not talking subtly different, it's more like 45% effective when you are told it is 95% effective. Nice bunch of liars in the pro-vaxx camp!
People bought Google and Apple products knowing that there was telemetry and a walled garden. Nobody bought Windows 7
First of all, I never buy Windows. Pirating their OS is the only option as far as I am concerned. If they didn't manipulate the market to get themselves into a monopoly position I would have a different opinion. But I want to play the games that require powerful graphics cards and those work better on Windows. I do like that Steam is making it less of a requirement though.
believing that Microsoft would forcefully seize control of their computers and disable their manually-changed settings.
I fully believe that Microsoft will screw up my system. This is why I disable all updates. I have never trusted them and don't find that my system gets compromised from not being up to date on their updates. Safe computing goes a long way!
Curvature of the earth would not matter so much when the burst takes place above the surface. Then you get a bigger range of land destruction.
Apparently in your mind the only way to turn chemical energy into electricity is to fire a bullet. Also, apparently in your mind, a person can swap out a bullet but not swap out an energy source. And the two can't be combined or paired. And there's not literally thousands of different ways to store energy, many easily managed by hand. And the amount of energy needed to run a fingerprint scanner for a split second trivial.
Nope, clearly it's an impossible task, let's all go make threats to any stores that want to carry smart guns and block all attempts to improve the technology!
I simply asked you how this technology would work. With any thought at all, you can see that even a small delay, less than a tenth of a second even, will put your aim off when firing. Instead you talked of this instant chemical to electrical energy conversion with no delay as if it's some sort of Star Trek episode. You have clearly shown that you don't know how to think. You have also shown that you are an ass hole by trying to put words in my mouth about threatening stores that carry smart guns. You are not worth talking to. Go to hell!
I'm seeing two main arguments put forward from those who are against smart tech: weapon reliability and the 2nd amendment. To the first, it is insufficient to argue that a weapon is not worth having if there is some (additional) probability of the weapon failing due to the tech. One major safety concern is children getting their hands on guns. Some argue that safes are a sufficient solution but if one truly wants a gun as a means of defense, I doubt keeping it locked away will allow it to provide much protection and reflecting that children do get their hands on them. Now, suppose the probability a child gets their hands on a loaded weapon resulting in death is 10% and the probability of the tech causes the gun to fail when needed for defense is 1%, then the benefits of the tech outweigh the cost. These numbers are arbitrary to make the point that an increased chance of failure is only part of the equation. It's like saying sometimes an airbag deploys in such a way as to cause extreme harm to the driver that otherwise wouldn't happen so we should remove all airbags from cars. Relatedly I would guess that there are many different kinds of smart tech incorporating very different levels of functionality and control of the weapon meaning that the rate of failure will also vary. Product variety is good and there will be those who want more tech, those that want some, but less, and those that do not want any. The second concern is about the 2nd amendment but that's why we have the courts. If smart tech were to be mandated and it is indeed unconstitutional, as many argue, then guess what, the mandate will not be allowed and there is nothing to be worried about. I'm guessing NJ's law has not been tested because nobody has standing yet as there is no smart tech to mandate. Unfortunately, the law in NJ is still in place because it allows for this kind of divisiveness against developing the tech in the first place.
It can take years or even decades before a law is found to be unconstitutional and is repealed. You can't argue in court against a law unless you are caught by it. Several large cities just had their gun bans repealed that have been in place for a very long time. During that time, millions of people's lives are affected. They cannot do what they should be able to do and some of them, possibly thousands of people, are killed or arrested and put in prison. All of that due to an unconstitutional law.
The people who voted on that law face no consequences for their actions. In fact they often try to re-word the law and pass it again in a slightly changed form to get around the unconstitutionality of it while still being unconstitutional in the end. How about the people who voted for a law that caused so much harm to so many people pay for their actions. Taking the rights away from millions of people is arguably much worse than killing a dozen people. So I say they get the death penalty for their actions. Anyone who votes for a law that is found to be unconstitutional goes directly to the target end of a firing squad. That would curtail these mass criminals we have in government.
Because when it "works" there it'll spread. Simple as that. The Feds could pass a NJ type law and claim that they aren't infringing, you're still ALLOWED to buy guns, it's just now there's only 4 models approved for sale and they're all $2k or more.
I will allow these politicians to pass such ridiculous laws when they have some skin in the game. Each politician that sponsors or votes on a law that is found to be unconstitutional goes immediately to the firing squad for termination. Too many laws are passed that affect millions of people in the country in detrimental ways. Then when the law is repealed due to being unconstitutional the just re-write it with new wording and try to pass it through with as small as changes as they can make. With some fear of their life ending they won't be so gung-ho on passing spying laws or gun ban laws for the city.
This is all about preventing current military grade weapons used by the federal government being stolen and used. We're not really talking about small time people either, this is likely about organized crime.
I could also imagine police officers would be happy if they didn't have to shoot a kid, just because he got hold of some other officers gun.. In fact ensuring that a gun can't be used against you must be very attractive to police officers... Especially, if one day, the American public decides that it's not okay for police officers to shoot people at the first sign of conflict.
If they don't want to shoot at kids, then they should just stop shooting at kids. There are way too many unarmed young people or children that are shot by police. Perhaps the people that should not be allowed to carry guns are the ones in the blue uniforms.
I like this idea! Wirelessly link the gun to the vest of the officer. If the vest takes the impact from a bullet, then the gun will fire normally. That shows that the officer is facing a dangerous person and has the right to fire. If the officer fires the gun before the vest is hit by a bullet, the cops gun fires the bullet out backwards right into the officer's face. This way the murderous police don't even need to be charged with a crime by their buddies and cohorts in the corrupt system, they just end up dead as a direct result of their own actions.
It's funny how people are absolutely convinced that there's no way to store chemical energy - for the purposes of conversion to electricity for the fingerprint reader - in a manner that one can be sure will be available when they need to fire their gun, but they're absolutely confident in the ability to store chemical energy - for the purposes of creating expanding gases to propel the bullet out - in a manner that one can be sure will be available when they need to fire their gun.
If a bullet fails to fire, you simply rack the slide and load the next one in. So you would need clips full of this chemical to electricity pods to use each time you fire it. Are you thinking that each bullet will create the electricity to determine whether it should fire after the bullet has been fired?
No body was going to vaporize Endor! That is just where the Death Star was being built and where the shield generators were located. A little tiny moon with some furries on it would not be a big enough example to show the rest of the Empire to keep them in line with a demonstration of such awesome power. It's almost like you never even watch the movies.
Sometimes it seems Bennett needs to use a little bit of logical thinking before going off on his tirades. If T-Mobile can tell a video stream to downgrade, then they know what is going on. If you can go to any site at a slow pace, then that means any site not just streaming. Downloading mass amounts of bit torrent files will not count toward your cap if there is no cap. That is very different from watching tons of streaming and it not counting toward your cap. Not too many people can watch TV all day, 24 hours a day for months on end. But if you have unlimited data you can set up the computer to start the download and it will run day and night everyday until it is finished. One way will use up more data even if they are both restricted to the same maximum speed.
Absolutely anything that you would have to worry about an artificial intelligence doing that might be troublesome to our society, you would have to also need to reasonably worry about a malicious person doing exact the same thing, albeit perhaps only more slowly.
An artificial intelligence could make a million identical copies of itself. I don't see how a malicious person could do the exact same thing. Perhaps they could have a million children, but that is a stretch, and it would be way, way slower. They also would not be identical.
They just talk about it beforehand on Facebook, but none of the agents who are supposed to be monitoring them give a damn.
No, they give a damn. But if they warn people, then there won't be these huge mass deaths and their budget might get cut. Plus, they need the bombs and killings to go off so they can push to take away more freedoms and grant themselves more power. The real terrorists are in the government.
I know that an X-Wing banking into a turn makes no sense in terms of real space flight.
If you don't bank into the turn, the pilot will be thrown into he side window and smack his head!
This would be like the small rooms with projections on the walls, floor, and ceiling often called a "cave". You do lose the parallax from having a different image for each eye with the helmet or cave approach.
I'm really shocked that more US fast food (crap food) places don't also server some form of booze...it would sure help things go down easier....
Well you're in luck then. Taco Bell has started serving beer, wine, and sangria at a couple of its stores. I expect they plan on expanding that to most of them. To me it seems like a copy off of Chipotle which already serves beer and margaritas at their stores.
I used to think my daughter was just getting into a picky eater phase. As a very young toddler she used to love lots of things. Olives, peas, potatoes, etc. She started getting picky and has only gotten worse. The new child eats almost everything we give her. I am ready to try the starving technique on the older one though or she may never eat anything but fruit, hot dogs, and McNuggets.
Wasn't about to try that stuff though. It would have kind of defeated the whole point of being in France.
You were there in France and you did not get a Royale with Chese? Man, you missed out.
Also, how long were you there. When you are there long enough you start to get sick of trying to translate all the menu items to figure out what you want to eat. We ate at "MacDough" only once, but it was still a part of the French experience.
Then you just keep warterboading him until he drowns. It isn't that complicated folks!
Or what if you killed a crooked cop by stalking him at his house and sliding needles into his eyes for 10 hours until he died. I would say it was the moral thing to do and calling the "authorities" would be wrong.
Or what if it was a lying, cheating politician? Or a lawyer? Not one of the few good lawyers out there that fight against the corporations of the world, but one of the ones that deserve to be fed to the sharks?
Or just use the excell form that are out there with all the math embedded in the forms already. They work great and work in open office as well.
You know what? I think I was mistaken on what is said to be infringing. The summary states that "Towle infringed upon DCâ(TM)s property rights when he produced unauthorized derivative works of the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television show and the 1989 motion picture." I thought that meant the 1966 show and 1989 movie were the unauthorized derivative works. I thought that seemed weird because I had never heard that the original show was unauthorized, but that's what it looked to be saying. Sorry about the confusion.
How do you see that implied. The 1966 TV show Batmobile is "the one" everyone thinks of as the original Batmobile. I never saw another one before that one. And every Batmobile made for the movies is a knock-off on that one. It certainly does not look anything like the comic version that I had to look up in a Google search and have never before seen in my life.
This judge is saying that a newly created car, that looks nothing like any car made before, is a derivative and a copy just because of the name. So then every elephantmobile would be a copy of the first elephantmobile. Even if it looked completely different, the fact that it has any elephant appearance at all would make it a copy. So then, wouldn't Hello Kitty be a copy of Catwoman?
And you get the experts to help make the estimate. Then they say it is too long and cut it down to 1/3rd the time estimated. And the project ends up going way over what was estimated.
I have stopped caring about the estimates. The boss can make his fantasy timelines all he wants. Sometimes, when it is a small project I come in on time. Other times the project ends up going over. It ends up cutting into the next project, which has a firm stop date, so they don't give even the original amount of time estimated for that project even though that was already estimated to be too low. So that project goes over also. I don't even look at the schedule. If you use unicorn farts for your estimates then I don't play your game. If you want to get rid of me for that, your projects will be even later while you spend time looking for new people to hire and train. Plus, I would be better off finding a new job anyway since pay increases much more with a job hop rather than staying loyal to a company.
From the article itself, (I know, I am not supposed to read the article), the traction control is mandated to be turned off when testing the emissions. So you already have a need to check that emissions testing is being done. Once that flag is set in the code other areas can use it and they may not even be aware of the ethical dilemma that arises. Perhaps someone was told to lower the fuel flow when the test_mode flag was on. Why would they feel that something does not "smell quite right" in that case? Someone else turned the flag on with a code change several years previously. There is plenty of other things being changed or turned off when in test_mode, so adjusting the fuel flow can fit right in with that. Unless they realized that test_mode was used to determine that emissions testing was being performed (it could be used for other tests also) and that the changes they are making will cheat the emissions test they might not even realize that something is wrong with what they are doing.