We don't need 99% of that. Just make car insurance responsible for covering all costs of an accident: medical, damage, police to investigate, road closure if required etc. If the insurance cost of being allowed to drive manually doubled and the cost of automatic only was halved then the majority of people will go automatic and we'll get the majority of the safety benefit.
Pretty much the only reason to 'force' manual driving out is if you want to bring in more efficient, but complex, automated junctions which a human couldn't accurately use.
Exactly. The never ending list of things that everyone thought they wanted then didn't when it became available or didn't think they wanted and then couldn't get enough of when they came out shows just how pointless asking these kinds of questions without far more context is.
Automatic cars will be massive if the cost differential is small, people are allowed to do something else while it is driving and it's safer / insurance is cheaper. Just think about the number of disabled, elderly etc people who aren't able to drive and you've got a sizeable market.
Actually that's not the only thing that could be done. If you were from an average family 100 years ago (let alone 10,000 years ago) then you didn't have food around to waste comfort eating and the food you did have wouldn't be high in fats and sugars that provide short term contentedness to most people.
If the average can of coke had 10% less sugar (or HFCS) in it then someone who drinks an average of one can a day would consume 1.2kg less sugar a year and 50,000 less calories. The health benefit of that change are pretty huge in terms of health risks, tooth decay and weight control. Turning calories into fat can't be calculated precisely but cutting 50,000 calories is likely to lead to around 6kg of weight loss in a year.
What's worth considering is that food in the west has gotten progressively sweeter over time. When companies release sweets in other countries they often have to tone down the sugar content because it's too sweet for un-accustomed taste. We could drop sugar content gradually by 10% across our diet and never even notice it happened. The thing is companies won't do it on their own.
Stop right there at the "stress makes you eat" part. WTF man? No it doesn't. Maybe it does FOR YOU, perhaps FOR SOME, but it's hardly universal.
Not my favourite part of his article but you're splitting hairs if you only accept statements that are universal. Your own post says "The locals freaking love McDs" WTF man? but by your own criteria-> No they don't. Maybe it does for that ONE, perhaps for SOME.. can you see how that kind of nitpicking doesn't add anything as it's obviously not meant literally.
There is a well researched correlation between stress, over-eating and unhealthy-eating.
You're right that personal responsibility and control are important and some people tend to ignore these, however it is also true that factors outside individual control (brain hacking as you call it for example) play a massive part and masses of people ignore those. A common opinion of fat people is that they're fat because they're lazy, weak etc with no recognition that yes they played a part but so did food manufacturers, governments etc and we should be dealing with both.
We coordinated military actions and provided them with equipment. It would require the kind of legal flexibility our governments are beginning to rely on to pretend that isn't an alliance.
Then even if you stopped being a keyboard warrior and actually tried to achieve something you'd get nowhere. You don't achieve things without compromise and you need to decide what you really care about and what battles you can fight.
I disagree with the way residential planning permission works in the UK. I also disagree with restrictions of press freedom, supporting torture etc. If supporting a party that likes our planning system but will support press freedom and human rights is the best deal I can get I'll take it.
There are moral absolutes. However I'm not sure having a racist party as one of the fall-back options on an election campaign is that big an issue. I've seen no evidence at all that Julian is racist or bigoted. He isn't voting for discrimination and could campaign against any racist policies they propose if by some miracle Australia First got some senators.
Most people are on death row for taking lives unjustly (premeditated murder, etc), why not use this as a method for them to give life to others?
Having a voluntary system is one thing, as long as it is genuinely 100% voluntary.
The issue with any other system is that it offers a perverse incentive to execute more people. It is also immoral in my opinion to treat other people as your property to do with as you please, even in death.
Ignoring deeper ethics questions it'd also be pretty pointless. Very few people are executed in the US and the methods are virtually all incompatible with donation. You'd have to get the method of execution changed in multiple states.
Do you want to know how to get massively more organ donors: Add an organ donor opt-out tick-box to the next to the driving license application form and renewal form. Something like 90% of people (based on research not pulled out of my ass) will not tick the box. Combine that with giving donors (and people with medical exemptions) priority in the waiting line for organs. Either of these measures would be more than enough to solve a donor shortage issue and will provide orders of magnitude more organs than culling prisoners.
Go on then, set up a replacement and be responsible for breaking the law when you refuse access to it. Till then your some nobody hypocrite and PJ's shown more courage than you have.
There is national pride in just about any country, however I really don't think the American superiority complex should be dismissed based on that. The very fact the question of whether America is the greatest or not is controversial and seriously asked in the media gives an interesting insight.
The show 'Newsroom' starts with a 'shocking' scene where a student asks what makes America the greatest country in the world. If/when that happened in real life no one would be remotely surprised. When someone answers with "it isn't" THAT would be a shock!
America is probably the closest any country can come to claiming to be the greatest without looking entirely ridiculous. The problem is that when people think they are greatest they dismiss the views of others, believe they know the truth and should be allowed to do what they want because they know best.
The MPs should really be asking what is in Snowden's files? If they knew what it was they probably would be think the anti-terrorism laws should apply.
Not sure if troll or stupid...
The law is specifically for determining whether someone is a terrorist or not. You can argue that the government should want to stop him; but that doesn't stop this being a case of blatantly mis-applying terrorism laws. They may as well have detained him without explaining why or claiming any legal justification which apparently you're find with as long as the government decides they don't like you, your family, your friends, want to know something or to get access to something you have.
Maybe if the US didn't want to be fighting this kind of leak then it shouldn't have spied on its allies and illegally spied on its own citizens.
What I find very disappointing about this case is that you'd like to think have a two party political system would lead to the government being held to account and asked some very uncomfortable questions. That hasn't happened here. We've had the chair of a government sub-committee who is a member of the opposition and a previous home secretary, also member of the opposition, talk about it in public and both were extremely careful not to say anything wrong had happened.
In some ways the two party system helps them do things like this now. When Labour allowed the US to rendition people through Britain rights activists attacked Labour, now with this people are attacking the Conservatives, but in both cases the same thing would have happened if the other party had been in charge. Pretty much the same as the US and Snowden. People complain about Obama's behaviour towards Snowden but wasn't McCain the one who suggested Snowden should be sent to Gitmo? Republicans set the place up but we're into the second term of a Democrat president it's still there and we're using drones to assassinate people more than ever.
It's either a troll or evidence of someone with a victim complex.
It says a lot about some American's inability to see that they aren't perfect that a body like the UN which is extremely timid towards the US is seen as rabidly anti-US to them.
I don't, you don't and I doubt Yahoo do either. The problem is that there is a big chunk of US that will. That chunk could try and turn keeping a site 'justifying suicide' into a negative news story for Yahoo, it could also cause problems with internet filters that filter out material related to suicide; potentially losing Yahoo a lot of viewers for one or more web properties.
It sucks, but I can see why Yahoo don't want that hassle.
But as for the article if I were in Europe I would move my servers to Europe tomorrow. These government goons all think alike so I suspect that even the Euro police will cooperate anyway; they'll just deny it in a different accent.
This is a good point and reasoning. It's easy to imagine that everyone is going to look for some super data haven, or that one doesn't exist so no one will do anything. Those are the two extreme views and sadly due to the wonders of internet arguing get most of the focus. Another option is that you at least limit your data to fewer organisations and ones that in general are more likely to be on your side.
One thing the Snowden affair has shown is that citizens are far more bothered about their rights being abused than foreigners. He lost a lot of sympathy later on when he outed secrets, that as a European I appreciate, but American's didn't because it wasn't them being spied on.
They gave $5000 to Twitter account merchants. It doesn't seem to me that was the smartest thing to do with the money if you actually want to discourage this kind of activity.
If by spending $5,000 you manage to get information that leads to $100,000 worth of accounts being disabled before they can be used and increases the cost of creating new accounts then it seems to me like it's a very good way to discourage that activity.
I don't know any hardcore gamers who use kinect with any kinect enhanced games. using it to control squaddies or stuff like that.
I've tried out voice command in games (via headset not Kinect) and I think it adds something when well implemented. Limitations on voice recognition and AI understanding have been the main limitations to me. If I could say something like "show me the nearest AT weapon", "zoom my map out", "where is flag" etc and get decent visual prompts then it'd be very useful for me; currently the commands are normally pretty pointless (things I could do better with my controller) or not reliable (it either won't know what I am saying, or knows the words but they aren't the specific keywords it is programmed to use).
Is it me or does it seem like Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place now?
Not really. Microsoft know that 90%+ people who buy an Xbox One and thus have paid and received a Kinect unit will plug it in and use it. If the vast majority of users are using it then developers will make decisions accordingly. The question is why Microsoft didn't take this position in the first place? They get what they want with much less ammo for critics to accuse them of spying on people.
If that's your proof then I'm even more confident it isn't some cunning conspiracy. Firstly the link you sent is to a site selling the ability to watch from 'coaches film' perspective which proves that they aren't restricting access to it to get people into the ground. Secondly you can't get 'coaches film' perspectives by sitting in the ground. Thirdly, just because coaches prefer a certain perspective doesn't mean that the typical TV viewer does; one has a job based on understanding the nuances of what is going on, the other is watching entertainment (though some viewers may want a more serious service, which you've just demonstrated they can get online without going to the ground).
Perhaps there are too many adverts during movies and shows aired on television.
I remember when Sky (UK subscription tv) started up. You had to pay to get it but there were very few adverts and people really rated that. Over time it's gotten to the point where Sky seem to have more (probably just as much in truth) adverts as the free to watch channels! It's easy to blame the Sky but I think we have to accept that some people would rather pay £40pm and have adverts than pay £60pm. Companies don't run adverts for giggles they run them for revenue and if they weren't then they'd be charging more for the service or offering cheaper content.
The question is also how many people are going to sign up to a service like Netflix (if they weren't already) to get at one show which they could get easily off of a torrent site? I haven't torrented in years, and think Netflix is a great service, but saying that what was offered here was so easy that all remaining piracy must be freetards alone is probably misleading.
It's sad. The site used to be fun and interesting. Too bad they couldn't make it a successful business.
It's a shame but hardly surprising. It seems pretty apparent that people aren't willing to pay for local reporting. Local papers are moving, or already are, advertising with at best a couple of stories unless you live in a decent sized city; they are generally free.
What's a real shame about that is that good local journalism would actually help societies in a number of ways. Corruption, bad council decisions etc get exposed. Communities are more aware of each other. People are more engaged.
Social media will be used to fill the gap eventually however that comes with many downsides.
I'm fairly sure TV coverage deliberately sabotages viewing angles to maximize the draw of live attendance.
Although I can see the logic behind this I think it is highly unlikely. TV channels pay teams huge amounts of money to show their matches and it is the TV channels that film the event. They have no motivation to make physically being there more attractive. If teams were filming and distributing matches themselves then maybe that could be happening.
I'm not sure how it wasn't already obvious to you, but it already had +5 insightful when I posted so unless the people who modded it up are/. time-travellers then your full of shit.
James Bond isn't just any old bloke off the street. I don't have any trouble believing that a woman 007 could beat 99.5% of men in a physical confrontation. Furthermore James Bond as a character has never been about just brute strength so it's hardly a critical factor in determining who is appropriate. If you find the idea of a capable woman who can handle herself in a fight jarring it says more about how you stereotype than what women are really capable of.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't need 99% of that. Just make car insurance responsible for covering all costs of an accident: medical, damage, police to investigate, road closure if required etc. If the insurance cost of being allowed to drive manually doubled and the cost of automatic only was halved then the majority of people will go automatic and we'll get the majority of the safety benefit.
Pretty much the only reason to 'force' manual driving out is if you want to bring in more efficient, but complex, automated junctions which a human couldn't accurately use.
Exactly. The never ending list of things that everyone thought they wanted then didn't when it became available or didn't think they wanted and then couldn't get enough of when they came out shows just how pointless asking these kinds of questions without far more context is.
Automatic cars will be massive if the cost differential is small, people are allowed to do something else while it is driving and it's safer / insurance is cheaper. Just think about the number of disabled, elderly etc people who aren't able to drive and you've got a sizeable market.
Actually that's not the only thing that could be done. If you were from an average family 100 years ago (let alone 10,000 years ago) then you didn't have food around to waste comfort eating and the food you did have wouldn't be high in fats and sugars that provide short term contentedness to most people.
If the average can of coke had 10% less sugar (or HFCS) in it then someone who drinks an average of one can a day would consume 1.2kg less sugar a year and 50,000 less calories. The health benefit of that change are pretty huge in terms of health risks, tooth decay and weight control. Turning calories into fat can't be calculated precisely but cutting 50,000 calories is likely to lead to around 6kg of weight loss in a year.
What's worth considering is that food in the west has gotten progressively sweeter over time. When companies release sweets in other countries they often have to tone down the sugar content because it's too sweet for un-accustomed taste. We could drop sugar content gradually by 10% across our diet and never even notice it happened. The thing is companies won't do it on their own.
Not my favourite part of his article but you're splitting hairs if you only accept statements that are universal. Your own post says "The locals freaking love McDs" WTF man? but by your own criteria-> No they don't. Maybe it does for that ONE, perhaps for SOME.. can you see how that kind of nitpicking doesn't add anything as it's obviously not meant literally.
There is a well researched correlation between stress, over-eating and unhealthy-eating.
You're right that personal responsibility and control are important and some people tend to ignore these, however it is also true that factors outside individual control (brain hacking as you call it for example) play a massive part and masses of people ignore those. A common opinion of fat people is that they're fat because they're lazy, weak etc with no recognition that yes they played a part but so did food manufacturers, governments etc and we should be dealing with both.
We coordinated military actions and provided them with equipment. It would require the kind of legal flexibility our governments are beginning to rely on to pretend that isn't an alliance.
Then even if you stopped being a keyboard warrior and actually tried to achieve something you'd get nowhere. You don't achieve things without compromise and you need to decide what you really care about and what battles you can fight.
I disagree with the way residential planning permission works in the UK. I also disagree with restrictions of press freedom, supporting torture etc. If supporting a party that likes our planning system but will support press freedom and human rights is the best deal I can get I'll take it.
There are moral absolutes. However I'm not sure having a racist party as one of the fall-back options on an election campaign is that big an issue. I've seen no evidence at all that Julian is racist or bigoted. He isn't voting for discrimination and could campaign against any racist policies they propose if by some miracle Australia First got some senators.
Having a voluntary system is one thing, as long as it is genuinely 100% voluntary.
The issue with any other system is that it offers a perverse incentive to execute more people. It is also immoral in my opinion to treat other people as your property to do with as you please, even in death.
Ignoring deeper ethics questions it'd also be pretty pointless. Very few people are executed in the US and the methods are virtually all incompatible with donation. You'd have to get the method of execution changed in multiple states.
Do you want to know how to get massively more organ donors: Add an organ donor opt-out tick-box to the next to the driving license application form and renewal form. Something like 90% of people (based on research not pulled out of my ass) will not tick the box. Combine that with giving donors (and people with medical exemptions) priority in the waiting line for organs. Either of these measures would be more than enough to solve a donor shortage issue and will provide orders of magnitude more organs than culling prisoners.
Go on then, set up a replacement and be responsible for breaking the law when you refuse access to it. Till then your some nobody hypocrite and PJ's shown more courage than you have.
There is national pride in just about any country, however I really don't think the American superiority complex should be dismissed based on that. The very fact the question of whether America is the greatest or not is controversial and seriously asked in the media gives an interesting insight.
The show 'Newsroom' starts with a 'shocking' scene where a student asks what makes America the greatest country in the world. If/when that happened in real life no one would be remotely surprised. When someone answers with "it isn't" THAT would be a shock!
America is probably the closest any country can come to claiming to be the greatest without looking entirely ridiculous. The problem is that when people think they are greatest they dismiss the views of others, believe they know the truth and should be allowed to do what they want because they know best.
Not sure if troll or stupid...
The law is specifically for determining whether someone is a terrorist or not. You can argue that the government should want to stop him; but that doesn't stop this being a case of blatantly mis-applying terrorism laws. They may as well have detained him without explaining why or claiming any legal justification which apparently you're find with as long as the government decides they don't like you, your family, your friends, want to know something or to get access to something you have.
Maybe if the US didn't want to be fighting this kind of leak then it shouldn't have spied on its allies and illegally spied on its own citizens.
What I find very disappointing about this case is that you'd like to think have a two party political system would lead to the government being held to account and asked some very uncomfortable questions. That hasn't happened here. We've had the chair of a government sub-committee who is a member of the opposition and a previous home secretary, also member of the opposition, talk about it in public and both were extremely careful not to say anything wrong had happened.
In some ways the two party system helps them do things like this now. When Labour allowed the US to rendition people through Britain rights activists attacked Labour, now with this people are attacking the Conservatives, but in both cases the same thing would have happened if the other party had been in charge. Pretty much the same as the US and Snowden. People complain about Obama's behaviour towards Snowden but wasn't McCain the one who suggested Snowden should be sent to Gitmo? Republicans set the place up but we're into the second term of a Democrat president it's still there and we're using drones to assassinate people more than ever.
It's either a troll or evidence of someone with a victim complex.
It says a lot about some American's inability to see that they aren't perfect that a body like the UN which is extremely timid towards the US is seen as rabidly anti-US to them.
I don't, you don't and I doubt Yahoo do either. The problem is that there is a big chunk of US that will. That chunk could try and turn keeping a site 'justifying suicide' into a negative news story for Yahoo, it could also cause problems with internet filters that filter out material related to suicide; potentially losing Yahoo a lot of viewers for one or more web properties.
It sucks, but I can see why Yahoo don't want that hassle.
This is a good point and reasoning. It's easy to imagine that everyone is going to look for some super data haven, or that one doesn't exist so no one will do anything. Those are the two extreme views and sadly due to the wonders of internet arguing get most of the focus. Another option is that you at least limit your data to fewer organisations and ones that in general are more likely to be on your side.
One thing the Snowden affair has shown is that citizens are far more bothered about their rights being abused than foreigners. He lost a lot of sympathy later on when he outed secrets, that as a European I appreciate, but American's didn't because it wasn't them being spied on.
If by spending $5,000 you manage to get information that leads to $100,000 worth of accounts being disabled before they can be used and increases the cost of creating new accounts then it seems to me like it's a very good way to discourage that activity.
I've tried out voice command in games (via headset not Kinect) and I think it adds something when well implemented. Limitations on voice recognition and AI understanding have been the main limitations to me. If I could say something like "show me the nearest AT weapon", "zoom my map out", "where is flag" etc and get decent visual prompts then it'd be very useful for me; currently the commands are normally pretty pointless (things I could do better with my controller) or not reliable (it either won't know what I am saying, or knows the words but they aren't the specific keywords it is programmed to use).
Not really. Microsoft know that 90%+ people who buy an Xbox One and thus have paid and received a Kinect unit will plug it in and use it. If the vast majority of users are using it then developers will make decisions accordingly. The question is why Microsoft didn't take this position in the first place? They get what they want with much less ammo for critics to accuse them of spying on people.
If that's your proof then I'm even more confident it isn't some cunning conspiracy. Firstly the link you sent is to a site selling the ability to watch from 'coaches film' perspective which proves that they aren't restricting access to it to get people into the ground. Secondly you can't get 'coaches film' perspectives by sitting in the ground. Thirdly, just because coaches prefer a certain perspective doesn't mean that the typical TV viewer does; one has a job based on understanding the nuances of what is going on, the other is watching entertainment (though some viewers may want a more serious service, which you've just demonstrated they can get online without going to the ground).
I remember when Sky (UK subscription tv) started up. You had to pay to get it but there were very few adverts and people really rated that. Over time it's gotten to the point where Sky seem to have more (probably just as much in truth) adverts as the free to watch channels! It's easy to blame the Sky but I think we have to accept that some people would rather pay £40pm and have adverts than pay £60pm. Companies don't run adverts for giggles they run them for revenue and if they weren't then they'd be charging more for the service or offering cheaper content.
The question is also how many people are going to sign up to a service like Netflix (if they weren't already) to get at one show which they could get easily off of a torrent site? I haven't torrented in years, and think Netflix is a great service, but saying that what was offered here was so easy that all remaining piracy must be freetards alone is probably misleading.
It's a shame but hardly surprising. It seems pretty apparent that people aren't willing to pay for local reporting. Local papers are moving, or already are, advertising with at best a couple of stories unless you live in a decent sized city; they are generally free.
What's a real shame about that is that good local journalism would actually help societies in a number of ways. Corruption, bad council decisions etc get exposed. Communities are more aware of each other. People are more engaged.
Social media will be used to fill the gap eventually however that comes with many downsides.
Although I can see the logic behind this I think it is highly unlikely. TV channels pay teams huge amounts of money to show their matches and it is the TV channels that film the event. They have no motivation to make physically being there more attractive. If teams were filming and distributing matches themselves then maybe that could be happening.
I'm not sure how it wasn't already obvious to you, but it already had +5 insightful when I posted so unless the people who modded it up are /. time-travellers then your full of shit.
Get a dictionary, read it from time to time then get back to me and we'll talk ;)
James Bond isn't just any old bloke off the street. I don't have any trouble believing that a woman 007 could beat 99.5% of men in a physical confrontation. Furthermore James Bond as a character has never been about just brute strength so it's hardly a critical factor in determining who is appropriate. If you find the idea of a capable woman who can handle herself in a fight jarring it says more about how you stereotype than what women are really capable of.