The forced upgrade scheme has been happening for a long time in a lot of hardware, software, and general business models.
However, no one is really being forced to upgrade right now... some people still run Windows 2000, I imagine. Some people still run old versions of Mac OS. Especially if you build your own computer:)
Interesting post - I agree. I enjoy using linux... I'm not a huge fan of the command line. Yeah, it's kinda geeky I guess, but I like graphical text editors better than Vi, I like using YAST and not the command line to edit my preferences and hardware, and I like using NetworkManager instead of ifup (unless I absolutely have to configure two IPs for a nic or something like that).
It'd be akin to me firmly disputing that a DOS word processor is far superior to any sort of modern word processor.
May as well just get a black and white screen and forget all this color nonsense.
I do admit that the command line is helpful at times, though.
... is not to make sure that you are actually physically unable to do anything wrong. If I throw a school computer out the window, I should get punished for that. You can argue all you want that they should have... bolted it to the floor or shouldn't have allowed windows to be put in the school, but that's stupid; I'm liable for my bad actions. Period.
If there's a rule that I'm not allowed to visit a porn site, and I find one that ISN'T blocked and go there, that's MY problem. Yeah, they should block it now, but I should still be punished.
Yes, to some extent, creativity is good. When creativity leads to illegal or immoral behavior, punishment takes place. If you're creative enough to find out how to do such and such, you're probably intelligent enough to know the rules regarding it, too.
I have little sympathy for those who break rules and then complain that it wasn't their fault, they shouldn't have been able to break them. If you want to help someone's security, tell them about it, don't do it and then tell them you were trying to help them AFTER you get caught. Which it seems a lot of hackers try to do these days.
I don't know why this seems so hard to accept. On one hand, there are some die-hard Mac people that seem to refuse to accept that Macs have problems, and refuse to accept that PC's are sometimes actually worth money.
And on the other hand, there are anti-mac people that are excited about this sort of news. That's stupid, too.
But really, the anti-MS and anti-PC and anti-Mac stuff gets really old after a while. Macs have problems, PCs have problems, MS software has problems; I have to say that with this particular instance, Apple supporters seem much more worried about admitting that there is a problem than PC supporters or MS users.
Modding something flamebait for pointing out an inconsistency in how problems with company X are accepted is... hmmm. Silly.
Interestingly, while it seems that a lot of people think this is bad (well, it seems to me that Microsoft responding to its competitors is often talked about in a bad light), it's actually good. It's competition in the market. It makes for better programs when there are two competing programs. I'm glad to see Microsoft is pushing forward with IE8 so soon after IE7, personally.
And yes, I run Linux on my laptop and run Firefox on both my laptop and my desktop. I also don't hate Microsoft.
There's a difference between a life threatening disease at birth and a sprained wrist when you're 25.
I didn't tell you to go think about it a bit; I mentioned thinking about what we spend money on specifically in reference to social security/retirement to make a point that many people have begun thinking that it's everyone else's job to look out for them in things like that.
In the case of infant health care, on one hand, there are such things as parents and insurance. Parenting and families are more "old ideas" that people have decided they typically don't like, I guess. *gasp* PARENTS are responsible for their kids' education, not the government?
So, back to the topic, what about those that truly need medical care and don't have the money? Well, there ARE charitable foundations for those sorts of things, and I honestly wouldn't be hugely opposed to that sort of government spending, capitalistic as
II am. But the problem comes when people start claiming that their lack of marijuana or their broken fingernail or whatever is a life threatening disease and, worse, whatever department in the government that processes the request actually listens to them and gives them $10,000 to fix their nail.
Obviously I'm exaggerating.
I might be wrong, too, but I don't think many people are upset that their tax dollars go to help "people like you." i do think people are upset when their tax dollars go to help those that extort the system horribly and simply don't want to actually work or don't want to actually set aside money for taking care of their physical health. I don't have a "better system" all worked out though, sorry.
And I do realize that some socialist European countries have really good health care. Sweden, if I remember correctly, is very socialist and very healthy. On the other hand, and maybe it's simply because I live in the US, I don't hear a huge amount of people trying to immigrate to Sweden from, say, Russia. But, that could just be because I don't live in Sweden.
It's not only the government, though - we don't like paying for our own medical care. We have seemed to come to the understanding that it's the state's job to keep us healthy, and if we can't pay to have our back adjusted three times a week, the government needs to provide.
It's really hurt the doctors and hospitals, too... when you aren't actually paid... well, it can make it hard. Lots of docs don't like HMO's. I guess it's like buying a car. There may be financing options, sure, but the government shouldn't help you pay for your car, and car dealerships are a lot happier when you can pay in cash. Money speaks a lot more than promises of money.
Health care isn't a right, it's a privilege. Interestingly, the same appears to be happening with social security and things like that. Way back before social security, people actually thought about it, and provided for their own future at a partial expense of splurging in the present. Funny thought, that... actually planning ahead, thinking about what you pay for! Wow.
This includes Apple... Microsoft and Linux and IBM and Dell and... etc... all those companies are necessary for competition. If the world was only Apple, some people would seem to think that'd be great. No, you'd just replace the supposed Microsoft monopoly with an Apple monopoly. Yes, monetary gain drives Apple as it drives Microsoft. Steve Jobs wants to eat dinner, too.
Does Photoshop (or Adobe, may as well mention the company) illegally dominate huge chunks of the personal computer industry?
Just making a comment that low or high price does not necessarily imply good or bad competition. Photoshop is not cheap, but a ton of people use it, and there frankly isn't a whole lot of competition (yes, I know GIMP exists and I actually use it).
The idea that there is only one group of people in the world smart enough to create a reliable and modern PC operating system is simply a falsehood.
If it's a 95% windows shop, it's likely they WILL have more often and more complex issues. If there are 90 Fords and 2 Hondas, it is quite more likely that a Ford will break down first.
Not necessarily saying that it's not true your Macs have fewer problems, but the statistics and results from those statistics are skewed.
But that doesn't solve the problem. Yes, she was young. Whether or not her testimony is reliable is an interesting question (it seems that it is generally easier to see when a 7 year old is lying than 25 year old... we get much better at that sort of thing as we get older).
But the question remains. It was illegal, was it not? If her illegal activity had been shooting someone in the foot or running over your dog, would things be different?
It's an interesting discussion, because this particular thing, as mentioned in other posts, is often done (knowingly!) by young people. Online gaming starts at what, now, age 10? Earlier? Kids don't suddenly become conscious at age 18 when they aren't minors anymore. I'm pretty sure a 12 year old (yes, I know she was younger) can fully understand that pirating music is illegal. Now, I think parents have some responsibility in telling them... most parents don't seem to care, though.
Her age is an issue. So, here's a question then. Since she IS so young... well let's say her mother was driving a car and the seven year old didn't have a seatbelt on and they get pulled over. I believe it's the mother that is culpable in that situation, right? Interesting thought.
Just because someone is young doesn't mean all illegal activity should just be overlooked. Regardless of the RIAA, the general problem of what to do is still there, and the fact that this WAS illegal is still there. Who is to be punished, and if they should be in the first place, is the question.
So, was the seven year old girl (at the time) doing legal activities... or rather, are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA:P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?
I fully realize that's an outrageous comparison. But a few things strike me as seeming to go unnoticed in most of the "RIAA is the devil incarnate!" discussions.
Parents don't seem to care what their kids do, unless they are caught. Of course, since there's a huge push for kids being allowed to do whatever they want and that parents shouldn't force any sort of morals on their kids and stuff like that, it just makes sense. But seriously, parents should know what their kids are doing.
Whether or not you like the RIAA, pirated music IS illegal, is it not? Whether or not this is a good way to go about catching illegally pirated music, that does not get rid of the fact that pirating music is illegal. Whether or not you're seven years old. Drunk driving is illegal at age seven, pirating music is illegal at age seven. Typical laws don't change based on your age. Punishment might, and culpability might to some degree, but it's not like you have to be 21 or older to illegal pirate music. Copyrights apply to minors.
While the RIAA is consistently criticized (and perhaps rightly so), very few suggestions are made for protecting copyrighted music. I happen to be a musician (well, composer) and copyrights can be a rather helpful thing, because there are people that will steal and even promote it as their own, taking royalties or sales or whatever you like. Enforcing copyrights is something we have to do, we can't rely on "good human nature" because that fails quite a bit, regardless of your particular anthropological views.
It's a good thing none of us ever do anything wrong or overreact or have a bad day and snap at someone.
Seriously... in this case, it seems like it was one person, doesn't it? The company apparently retracted it and resolved it. But sometimes it seems people are so anti-corporation by default that if one solitary fallible human being makes a mistake or gets mad and takes it out on someone, the entire company is at fault and either we should boycott them or burn their publishing house down or something.
Because, afterall, every mistake that happens by anyone in any corporation is premeditated from the CEO down.
Not saying there aren't bad corporations out there (after all, they are run by people!), but perhaps we should be fair at times and not immediately assume the corporation is trying to ruin the entire world of scientific research. Hrm.
would it be legal for them to prevent me from doing so?
Yes. As legal as it is legal to force you to wear clothing while on their campus, and as legal as preventing you from pointing a gun at someone and shooting. There's no federal or state right to being allowed to use torrents while on university campuses. The prevailing thought among a "me" centered generation, however, is that we have a RIGHT to do whatever we want. Well, do somethings and you get punished; in order to do some things, you might have to move. Want to use torrents? Don't go to Ohio State. Not a complex logical problem.
How are the google ad links created? Is there someone circulating a suite of templates or do companies which buy the ads simply provide a URL with which to link to?
In my experience with AdWords, there are four lines of text to fill, and one URL. The first one is the "title" and is linked to a url you provide. The next two lines are just text. The last line is supposed to be part of the url, or something related to it in some way... but you can have "hello.org" displayed but actually link to "hello.org/visitorfromadwords.html"
Seems silly to do it on an 802.11 but people do it; my school is basically all wireless since the campus is spread out, and P2P can really bog down a wireless network. So bandwidth is now limited in general... I don't think we have torrents actually banned, though.
My college, which is private, doesn't allow even iTunes sharing amongst the students, because the bandwidth usage slows everything down significantly. Now, this is a private school and we aren't rolling in money, but it's still an issue.
I've even read some speculation that taking things like multivitamins don't really help us that much
They actually don't tend to have a lot of vitamins, depending on which ones you take (e.g., 500mg of C is good, I'm sure, but not a whole lot).
Referring to modern diets, I don't think we actually do get enough, as a rule. Heart attacks at age 40? Something is wrong. Heart attacks don't come from a deficiency in aspirin or alcohol.
I don't think we only get sick because of deficiencies in vitamins and minerals... but I think we'd all agree that our immune systems are constantly fighting bacterial infections and viruses, and it's when our immune system isn't strong enough to fight something that it "wins," so to speak, right? This is the premise for homeopathic cancer treatments and such, which seem to have some amount of success - and which tend to be looked down upon by radiation/chemo docs.
Vitamins can have side effects, yes. My entire point, though, was that vitamins and minerals are not harmful in the same way drugs are. You don't get addicted to C. It's hard to overdose on C. It's not hard to overdose on some random drug, and it's not hard to get addicted to a lot of drugs, either. There are entirely different things going on here... the liver has to treat alcohol, for example, as a toxin. The liver doesn't have to treat C as a toxin, because it isn't one.
But my point was, with a given drug that has cautions about side-effects, those side-effects come with normal doses for extended periods of time, or overdosing at one time. If you take a normal dose of Tylenol for a long time, your liver starts to dislike you... and by "normal" dose, I mean a dose that is necessary to reap any of the benefits from it.
But with something like vitmins or minerals, those are things that the body NEEDS and that we are usually deficient in, so taking "normal" doses for extended periods of time (e.g., your whole life) has no adverse effects.
Tylenol, however, is not a deficiency. I don't get sick because I am deficient in drugs, medication, etc. I don't get a cold because I haven't had enough . I get sick because my immune system was down, and quite possibly because I'm deficient in something that my body needs (and most everyone, due to a variety of agricultural problems and simple eating habits, is deficient in a lot of things. How many average Americans do you know get fat because they eat too much spinach...)
But the question is, what constitutes an overdose. I know for a fact that you can take up to 10 grams of vitamin C and nothing goes wrong. That's like, 20 "normal" pills (normal vit C pill seems to be 500mg in my experience).
But an overdose of perscription drugs? Hmmm.
Or, let's say this. You can take 3 grams of vitamin C, every day, for the rest of your life. Ever tried taking morphine for the rest of your life? Might not be a good idea. Most doctors won't let you do that.
I thought all truly educated users of the internet were in agreement that if you want something private, you don't use the internet... at least, not without some big steps (major encryption with secret keys carried in person in locked briefcases, used only once, and are based on atmospheric noise).
Whether or not Google is "bad" or "good" is almost irrelevant; to some extent, you're not going to be private online. If you want to lead a truly private... life of some sort... get offline. People can tap your connection, too, and get your e-mail that way. Privacy is... pretty limited online. That's why people get Ph.D.'s and huge awards in network cryptography stuff.
So... yeah, Google probably has a lot of information that most other companies don't have, and have an easier way to, mmm, snoop or whatever you might think they are going to do. But hey, it's your choice to be online, to allow cookies, etc.
Can always mask your ip, not allow any javascript or cookies or anything like that... or become a monk and live in a monastery and spend years repenting of ever supporting Google's malicious activities by using gmail.
The gear carrying stuff and sensory problems is a good point.
It would still seem useful in specific situations, though. Probably not ALL situations, certainly; I'd imagine that not even combat boots are useful in ALL situations.
It would seem to me that flying a modern fighter jet is not "as easy" as flying a biplane, uh, back in the day. After all, there are a ton of electronic devices in the jet that allow you to do some pretty amazing things with it, but yes, it does require more knowledge and education and concentration, perhaps.
Any redneck in the backwoods of Tennessee can like, fix a tractor and run it in any conditions. He's really "smart" that way... or perhaps, "handy." But put him in front of a commercial jet... as technically minded as he is (he may even be able to partially understand how the actual machinery works), he probably will have a hard time actually flying it if he's required to use these new fangled electronic devices. It'll probably be overwhelming and he'll probably wish he had his tractor back again.
I really have no idea exactly why they don't like it, but this doesn't seem to be terribly new. People have always tended to resist things that are new; sometimes it's good, sometimes it isn't... in this case, since this technology most likely will put the troops in less physical danger because of technological advances that keep their physical body out of harms way (e.g., peering over a wall with the gun instead of your head)... I think that's a good thing.
Why drive a jeep into the "front lines" (not that we exactly have "front lines" anymore...) when you can drive a heavily armored tank that travels twice as fast and has a better turning radius, more stability, and more firepower...
But, if something is harmful to the environment to the point that you don't have a choice...
If someone is smoking, you can leave the room.
If someone is putting toxic chemicals in your drinking water, there isn't quite as much you can do. If someone is putting toxic gases in your air, it's hard to get away from it.
I am far from an environmentalist, but there are a lot of toxic things that are legal right now that are really bad for you. This is different from, say, banning fatty foods or something. I can avoid fatty foods, I can eat organically, whatever, but it's a bit different when I can't get away from it, unless I move to Antarctica or something.
Slashdot Mirror
However, no one is really being forced to upgrade right now ... some people still run Windows 2000, I imagine. Some people still run old versions of Mac OS. Especially if you build your own computer :)
It'd be akin to me firmly disputing that a DOS word processor is far superior to any sort of modern word processor.
May as well just get a black and white screen and forget all this color nonsense.
I do admit that the command line is helpful at times, though.
If there's a rule that I'm not allowed to visit a porn site, and I find one that ISN'T blocked and go there, that's MY problem. Yeah, they should block it now, but I should still be punished.
Yes, to some extent, creativity is good. When creativity leads to illegal or immoral behavior, punishment takes place. If you're creative enough to find out how to do such and such, you're probably intelligent enough to know the rules regarding it, too.
I have little sympathy for those who break rules and then complain that it wasn't their fault, they shouldn't have been able to break them. If you want to help someone's security, tell them about it, don't do it and then tell them you were trying to help them AFTER you get caught. Which it seems a lot of hackers try to do these days.
And on the other hand, there are anti-mac people that are excited about this sort of news. That's stupid, too.
But really, the anti-MS and anti-PC and anti-Mac stuff gets really old after a while. Macs have problems, PCs have problems, MS software has problems; I have to say that with this particular instance, Apple supporters seem much more worried about admitting that there is a problem than PC supporters or MS users.
Modding something flamebait for pointing out an inconsistency in how problems with company X are accepted is... hmmm. Silly.
Interestingly, while it seems that a lot of people think this is bad (well, it seems to me that Microsoft responding to its competitors is often talked about in a bad light), it's actually good. It's competition in the market. It makes for better programs when there are two competing programs. I'm glad to see Microsoft is pushing forward with IE8 so soon after IE7, personally.
And yes, I run Linux on my laptop and run Firefox on both my laptop and my desktop. I also don't hate Microsoft.
I wonder if there will be a new Internet protocol for protection against malicious smoking hackers.
I didn't tell you to go think about it a bit; I mentioned thinking about what we spend money on specifically in reference to social security/retirement to make a point that many people have begun thinking that it's everyone else's job to look out for them in things like that.
In the case of infant health care, on one hand, there are such things as parents and insurance. Parenting and families are more "old ideas" that people have decided they typically don't like, I guess. *gasp* PARENTS are responsible for their kids' education, not the government?
So, back to the topic, what about those that truly need medical care and don't have the money? Well, there ARE charitable foundations for those sorts of things, and I honestly wouldn't be hugely opposed to that sort of government spending, capitalistic as II am. But the problem comes when people start claiming that their lack of marijuana or their broken fingernail or whatever is a life threatening disease and, worse, whatever department in the government that processes the request actually listens to them and gives them $10,000 to fix their nail.
Obviously I'm exaggerating.
I might be wrong, too, but I don't think many people are upset that their tax dollars go to help "people like you." i do think people are upset when their tax dollars go to help those that extort the system horribly and simply don't want to actually work or don't want to actually set aside money for taking care of their physical health. I don't have a "better system" all worked out though, sorry.
And I do realize that some socialist European countries have really good health care. Sweden, if I remember correctly, is very socialist and very healthy. On the other hand, and maybe it's simply because I live in the US, I don't hear a huge amount of people trying to immigrate to Sweden from, say, Russia. But, that could just be because I don't live in Sweden.
It's not only the government, though - we don't like paying for our own medical care. We have seemed to come to the understanding that it's the state's job to keep us healthy, and if we can't pay to have our back adjusted three times a week, the government needs to provide.
It's really hurt the doctors and hospitals, too... when you aren't actually paid... well, it can make it hard. Lots of docs don't like HMO's. I guess it's like buying a car. There may be financing options, sure, but the government shouldn't help you pay for your car, and car dealerships are a lot happier when you can pay in cash. Money speaks a lot more than promises of money.
Health care isn't a right, it's a privilege. Interestingly, the same appears to be happening with social security and things like that. Way back before social security, people actually thought about it, and provided for their own future at a partial expense of splurging in the present. Funny thought, that... actually planning ahead, thinking about what you pay for! Wow.
I should have finished my thought.
This includes Apple... Microsoft and Linux and IBM and Dell and ... etc ... all those companies are necessary for competition. If the world was only Apple, some people would seem to think that'd be great. No, you'd just replace the supposed Microsoft monopoly with an Apple monopoly. Yes, monetary gain drives Apple as it drives Microsoft. Steve Jobs wants to eat dinner, too.
Does Photoshop (or Adobe, may as well mention the company) illegally dominate huge chunks of the personal computer industry?
Just making a comment that low or high price does not necessarily imply good or bad competition. Photoshop is not cheap, but a ton of people use it, and there frankly isn't a whole lot of competition (yes, I know GIMP exists and I actually use it).
This includes Apple.If it's a 95% windows shop, it's likely they WILL have more often and more complex issues. If there are 90 Fords and 2 Hondas, it is quite more likely that a Ford will break down first.
Not necessarily saying that it's not true your Macs have fewer problems, but the statistics and results from those statistics are skewed.
But that doesn't solve the problem. Yes, she was young. Whether or not her testimony is reliable is an interesting question (it seems that it is generally easier to see when a 7 year old is lying than 25 year old... we get much better at that sort of thing as we get older).
But the question remains. It was illegal, was it not? If her illegal activity had been shooting someone in the foot or running over your dog, would things be different?
It's an interesting discussion, because this particular thing, as mentioned in other posts, is often done (knowingly!) by young people. Online gaming starts at what, now, age 10? Earlier? Kids don't suddenly become conscious at age 18 when they aren't minors anymore. I'm pretty sure a 12 year old (yes, I know she was younger) can fully understand that pirating music is illegal. Now, I think parents have some responsibility in telling them... most parents don't seem to care, though.
Her age is an issue. So, here's a question then. Since she IS so young... well let's say her mother was driving a car and the seven year old didn't have a seatbelt on and they get pulled over. I believe it's the mother that is culpable in that situation, right? Interesting thought.
Just because someone is young doesn't mean all illegal activity should just be overlooked. Regardless of the RIAA, the general problem of what to do is still there, and the fact that this WAS illegal is still there. Who is to be punished, and if they should be in the first place, is the question.
So, was the seven year old girl (at the time) doing legal activities... or rather, are illegal activities made legal when you are young?
It's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily like the RIAA :P But let's say she got drunk and drove around in a car. That's illegal, too. Should she not be prosecuted at all because, after all, she's only 7?
I fully realize that's an outrageous comparison. But a few things strike me as seeming to go unnoticed in most of the "RIAA is the devil incarnate!" discussions.
It's a good thing none of us ever do anything wrong or overreact or have a bad day and snap at someone.
Seriously... in this case, it seems like it was one person, doesn't it? The company apparently retracted it and resolved it. But sometimes it seems people are so anti-corporation by default that if one solitary fallible human being makes a mistake or gets mad and takes it out on someone, the entire company is at fault and either we should boycott them or burn their publishing house down or something.
Because, afterall, every mistake that happens by anyone in any corporation is premeditated from the CEO down.
Not saying there aren't bad corporations out there (after all, they are run by people!), but perhaps we should be fair at times and not immediately assume the corporation is trying to ruin the entire world of scientific research. Hrm.
Yes. As legal as it is legal to force you to wear clothing while on their campus, and as legal as preventing you from pointing a gun at someone and shooting. There's no federal or state right to being allowed to use torrents while on university campuses. The prevailing thought among a "me" centered generation, however, is that we have a RIGHT to do whatever we want. Well, do somethings and you get punished; in order to do some things, you might have to move. Want to use torrents? Don't go to Ohio State. Not a complex logical problem.
In my experience with AdWords, there are four lines of text to fill, and one URL. The first one is the "title" and is linked to a url you provide. The next two lines are just text. The last line is supposed to be part of the url, or something related to it in some way... but you can have "hello.org" displayed but actually link to "hello.org/visitorfromadwords.html"
There isn't really a "template."
Seems silly to do it on an 802.11 but people do it; my school is basically all wireless since the campus is spread out, and P2P can really bog down a wireless network. So bandwidth is now limited in general... I don't think we have torrents actually banned, though.
My college, which is private, doesn't allow even iTunes sharing amongst the students, because the bandwidth usage slows everything down significantly. Now, this is a private school and we aren't rolling in money, but it's still an issue.
Referring to modern diets, I don't think we actually do get enough, as a rule. Heart attacks at age 40? Something is wrong. Heart attacks don't come from a deficiency in aspirin or alcohol.
I don't think we only get sick because of deficiencies in vitamins and minerals... but I think we'd all agree that our immune systems are constantly fighting bacterial infections and viruses, and it's when our immune system isn't strong enough to fight something that it "wins," so to speak, right? This is the premise for homeopathic cancer treatments and such, which seem to have some amount of success - and which tend to be looked down upon by radiation/chemo docs.
Vitamins can have side effects, yes. My entire point, though, was that vitamins and minerals are not harmful in the same way drugs are. You don't get addicted to C. It's hard to overdose on C. It's not hard to overdose on some random drug, and it's not hard to get addicted to a lot of drugs, either. There are entirely different things going on here... the liver has to treat alcohol, for example, as a toxin. The liver doesn't have to treat C as a toxin, because it isn't one.
But my point was, with a given drug that has cautions about side-effects, those side-effects come with normal doses for extended periods of time, or overdosing at one time. If you take a normal dose of Tylenol for a long time, your liver starts to dislike you... and by "normal" dose, I mean a dose that is necessary to reap any of the benefits from it.
But with something like vitmins or minerals, those are things that the body NEEDS and that we are usually deficient in, so taking "normal" doses for extended periods of time (e.g., your whole life) has no adverse effects.
Tylenol, however, is not a deficiency. I don't get sick because I am deficient in drugs, medication, etc. I don't get a cold because I haven't had enough . I get sick because my immune system was down, and quite possibly because I'm deficient in something that my body needs (and most everyone, due to a variety of agricultural problems and simple eating habits, is deficient in a lot of things. How many average Americans do you know get fat because they eat too much spinach...)
But the question is, what constitutes an overdose. I know for a fact that you can take up to 10 grams of vitamin C and nothing goes wrong. That's like, 20 "normal" pills (normal vit C pill seems to be 500mg in my experience).
But an overdose of perscription drugs? Hmmm.
Or, let's say this. You can take 3 grams of vitamin C, every day, for the rest of your life. Ever tried taking morphine for the rest of your life? Might not be a good idea. Most doctors won't let you do that.
I thought all truly educated users of the internet were in agreement that if you want something private, you don't use the internet... at least, not without some big steps (major encryption with secret keys carried in person in locked briefcases, used only once, and are based on atmospheric noise).
Whether or not Google is "bad" or "good" is almost irrelevant; to some extent, you're not going to be private online. If you want to lead a truly private ... life of some sort ... get offline. People can tap your connection, too, and get your e-mail that way. Privacy is ... pretty limited online. That's why people get Ph.D.'s and huge awards in network cryptography stuff.
So... yeah, Google probably has a lot of information that most other companies don't have, and have an easier way to, mmm, snoop or whatever you might think they are going to do. But hey, it's your choice to be online, to allow cookies, etc.
Can always mask your ip, not allow any javascript or cookies or anything like that... or become a monk and live in a monastery and spend years repenting of ever supporting Google's malicious activities by using gmail.
The gear carrying stuff and sensory problems is a good point.
It would still seem useful in specific situations, though. Probably not ALL situations, certainly; I'd imagine that not even combat boots are useful in ALL situations.
It would seem to me that flying a modern fighter jet is not "as easy" as flying a biplane, uh, back in the day. After all, there are a ton of electronic devices in the jet that allow you to do some pretty amazing things with it, but yes, it does require more knowledge and education and concentration, perhaps.
Any redneck in the backwoods of Tennessee can like, fix a tractor and run it in any conditions. He's really "smart" that way... or perhaps, "handy." But put him in front of a commercial jet... as technically minded as he is (he may even be able to partially understand how the actual machinery works), he probably will have a hard time actually flying it if he's required to use these new fangled electronic devices. It'll probably be overwhelming and he'll probably wish he had his tractor back again.
I really have no idea exactly why they don't like it, but this doesn't seem to be terribly new. People have always tended to resist things that are new; sometimes it's good, sometimes it isn't... in this case, since this technology most likely will put the troops in less physical danger because of technological advances that keep their physical body out of harms way (e.g., peering over a wall with the gun instead of your head)... I think that's a good thing.
Why drive a jeep into the "front lines" (not that we exactly have "front lines" anymore...) when you can drive a heavily armored tank that travels twice as fast and has a better turning radius, more stability, and more firepower...
But, if something is harmful to the environment to the point that you don't have a choice...
If someone is smoking, you can leave the room.
If someone is putting toxic chemicals in your drinking water, there isn't quite as much you can do. If someone is putting toxic gases in your air, it's hard to get away from it.
I am far from an environmentalist, but there are a lot of toxic things that are legal right now that are really bad for you. This is different from, say, banning fatty foods or something. I can avoid fatty foods, I can eat organically, whatever, but it's a bit different when I can't get away from it, unless I move to Antarctica or something.