Stop calling people names for using basic logic. If you didn't understand it, that doesn't mean that they weren't making a point. It just means you didn't understand it.
I'd try to walk you through it, but you don't listen or comprehend what the other users on this site say to you so it is hopeless.
Just last week in my town a drunk guy was arrested for stripping down in the womens restroom in a 24 hour restaurant... and lathering himself up in the sink... and making sexual comments to women.
If all of that was legal, other customers would drag him out in the parking lot, instead of having the cops deal with it in a civilized way. It isn't behavior that is tolerated by the community, regardless of the details of the laws. Whereas, if he had just gone in a stall and done his business without talking to anybody or exposing himself, chances are nobody would have called them... or cared.
The important detail people miss is that the fear is being drummed up mostly on the basis of the threat of sexual assault; but that is illegal anyways, and men follow women into the restroom for that purpose as it is; and they aren't dressing up as a woman to do it, because that doesn't actually help their crime in any way. You're not going to attack somebody while there are other people in the restroom without the cops being called, so what is the disguise for? How is there actually an increased threat? If there were robot guards at the door that let in anybody wearing a dress, then the fear would make more sense; but women are allowed to wear pants these days, so that wouldn't work anyways.
Wow, imagine how an attractive woman would feel trying to take a college computer class, with like... over half the class trying to flirt with her all the time, even when she's asking a technical question.
It is pretty freakin' harmless for a gay guy to flirt with you, or me, because gay people are a small minority, so the total amount of unwanted flirting is really small. Even if you have a pretty face, like I do, and tend to attract some attention.
Even if I go to a gay bar and have a drink, and sit alone, I won't receive nearly the level of obnoxious flirting that a woman with average looks receives just trying to take a programming class.
And all it takes to avoid flirting in the restroom: avoid eye contact.
Notice how Tesla is a car manufacturer, not a media outlet?
So no, the thing about Toyota is apples and oranges. Toyota was pushing back over coverage of themselves. They're not going to call up and ask the media to stop giving coverage to others, that opens a giant can of worms that you didn't consider, and isn't like your example. Even attempting to interfere with the relationship between two third parties is not going to happen. There is no way that Ford, who has lawyers and PR people in their employment, is going to attempt to interfere with whatever relationships or contracts there are between a media outlet and a competing brand. That sort of speculation is suitable for television sitcoms or AM-radio, it is not serious thought or analysis.
Media outlets do not engage in exclusive contracts where they agree to only talk about one brand of an item, and that is the only type of situation where you can lock others out. So a computer company can make a deal with a store, for example, to only sell their brand of computer. But they can't go to companies that sell their competitor's brand and try to interfere with that, other than by making offers for an exclusive contract.
Shameful to see you down-modded for simple logic, what is this place coming to?
It reminds me of what Ayn Rand said about "social darwinists," and how to respond to them. (in "Philosophy: Who Needs It?")
The sad part is, they're getting all feely and emotionally righteous, so they have no concept of what an insult to Freedom it is to whine about people choosing where to spend their money, as a matter of speech, a matter of choosing what they (literally) support. And the fact that they're claiming to defend somebody on the basis of tolerating different opinions... it just defies the need for detailed analysis.
I don't care if it is javascript or some other language, the problem is the part where it runs in a web browser, which is capable (designed primarily for, even) loading code provided by the server.
People talk about using it for authentication, but that can already be done with existing authentication protocols. Sure, it needs a client-side helper app, but places that are too strict to have the auth helper are going to be disabling any USB ports if this is going to be enabled in the browser; and maybe preemptively, just in case.
I wouldn't mind the client helper being written in javascript. But I wouldn't want it to be able to load code, I'd just want it to get requests from the browser/plugin, and respond in a predefined way.
That doesn't sound like it could ever be abused...
I'll install it right before I fire myself out a cannon without any safety equipment.
My goodness, this is hilariously awful as a use case concept.
If I trust software enough to let it talk to USB, I want to also trust that it is under its own control. Here, even if you thought you could trust it before, it can be changed server-side without notification, so you wouldn't be able to continue trusting it while using it. You wouldn't need to get infected with a virus or malware to lose control of your USB device; only the server would need to be cracked! And the trustiness would just pass right through to the user.
Just to repeat the part you didn't read... (you can read, right?)
People with head injuries that lead to permanent disability are usually admitted to the hospital for observation. Blood tests can tell the ER doctor if there is damage, and various scans can test for swelling.
It does not matter if you fall on ice, or fall from the sky. That is completely irrelevant. That is causing you emotive bias. What matters is the actual injuries to the brain, which is very easy to test for in any ER. A simple blood test can tell you if there is brain damage, because the human body responds to that damage.
It might be that the whole concept is not "there" yet, and won't ever be. The technology might be really awesome and mature, and the nature of the vehicle is just not effective at anything useful.
You're comparing how scary the situation sounds, and presuming damage based on that. No need to start speculating about IQs and such things.
He got some stitches and was sent home. That is way more informative about his injuries that a hand-wavy "what happened to this guy." People with head injuries that lead to permanent disability are usually admitted to the hospital for observation. Blood tests can tell the ER doctor if there is damage, and various scans can test for swelling. He's not poor, so he probably was given those diagnostics.
Falling off a ship in the ocean has a different risk profile than falling into still fresh water.
When I was a teenager, lots of people would jump way more than 20' off of bridges into freshwater lakes. Popular rock-jumping spots near me these days are about 50'.
You might have a basket of apples and oranges that have led you to false beliefs about the dangers of jumping into water.
Europeans are being recorded by a bunch of governments though. You can write, but you can't read. If you could, you'd already know that, because you spend time claiming to care about the subject.
Europeans are much more heavily monitored and recorded than Americans. In addition to being monitored in all the same ways as Americans, they also have all their domestic communications added to the same database, and they also have government cameras all over the place on public streets.
They also have weird hipsters who think that they have lots of privacy, presumably because they force google to remove links to stories about criminal history and bankruptcy.
I can just look at the links themselves without clicking the crap to see that it isn't the same subject.
It is a thing. You didn't know about it. You presume the sky would fall. You spam links.
Try collecting information, evaluating it, and forming ideas into words. It is more likely to have some value.
One if fox news. Nice try lol. The next says it is a sexual assault victim giving opinions on policy. The last two are about assaults in womens restrooms.
I addressed that in the post you were responding to: "Predators can strike anywhere. The only time restrooms are involved is when somebody gets followed into the restroom, because there is nobody around, and then it doesn't matter what the sign on the door says." So yes, I am still sure. Those links don't address what I said, and in fact you still haven't comprehended the details of the discussion that you're arguing near to.
The majority of the places I've worked don't even have segregated restrooms in the first place.
The only places that have shared bathrooms are the ones where there is only one place to do your business.
Then it can be shared, since only one person can use it at a time.
Well, you're simply wrong about that. It has been a thing for many years. It is without problems.
There is no special danger from attack while pooping or peeing. That's in your head. Predators can strike anywhere. The only time restrooms are involved is when somebody gets followed into the restroom, because there is nobody around, and then it doesn't matter what the sign on the door says.
All dictionaries are "newspeak," because the function of a dictionary is to list known word meanings. They are not established as authorities on what words should mean. At least not in the English language. Some languages use that conception of dictionaries. English doesn't. If the known word usages that people publish changes, then the dictionaries will change to accommodate those meanings. Otherwise, the dictionaries would simply be wrong about what words actually mean, and would leave the language opaque.
Nobody cares what your opinion of what a word should mean is. That has nothing to do with what the list of known meanings are. Also, the vast majority of words have multiple definitions. You're free to use whichever meanings make sense in your sentence. It doesn't become wrong because somebody else only ever uses one of the definitions of a particular word.
My advice to you is to switch to French. Words in that language have official meanings.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop calling people names for using basic logic. If you didn't understand it, that doesn't mean that they weren't making a point. It just means you didn't understand it.
I'd try to walk you through it, but you don't listen or comprehend what the other users on this site say to you so it is hopeless.
Just last week in my town a drunk guy was arrested for stripping down in the womens restroom in a 24 hour restaurant... and lathering himself up in the sink... and making sexual comments to women.
If all of that was legal, other customers would drag him out in the parking lot, instead of having the cops deal with it in a civilized way. It isn't behavior that is tolerated by the community, regardless of the details of the laws. Whereas, if he had just gone in a stall and done his business without talking to anybody or exposing himself, chances are nobody would have called them... or cared.
The important detail people miss is that the fear is being drummed up mostly on the basis of the threat of sexual assault; but that is illegal anyways, and men follow women into the restroom for that purpose as it is; and they aren't dressing up as a woman to do it, because that doesn't actually help their crime in any way. You're not going to attack somebody while there are other people in the restroom without the cops being called, so what is the disguise for? How is there actually an increased threat? If there were robot guards at the door that let in anybody wearing a dress, then the fear would make more sense; but women are allowed to wear pants these days, so that wouldn't work anyways.
Wow, imagine how an attractive woman would feel trying to take a college computer class, with like... over half the class trying to flirt with her all the time, even when she's asking a technical question.
It is pretty freakin' harmless for a gay guy to flirt with you, or me, because gay people are a small minority, so the total amount of unwanted flirting is really small. Even if you have a pretty face, like I do, and tend to attract some attention.
Even if I go to a gay bar and have a drink, and sit alone, I won't receive nearly the level of obnoxious flirting that a woman with average looks receives just trying to take a programming class.
And all it takes to avoid flirting in the restroom: avoid eye contact.
Notice how Tesla is a car manufacturer, not a media outlet?
So no, the thing about Toyota is apples and oranges. Toyota was pushing back over coverage of themselves. They're not going to call up and ask the media to stop giving coverage to others, that opens a giant can of worms that you didn't consider, and isn't like your example. Even attempting to interfere with the relationship between two third parties is not going to happen. There is no way that Ford, who has lawyers and PR people in their employment, is going to attempt to interfere with whatever relationships or contracts there are between a media outlet and a competing brand. That sort of speculation is suitable for television sitcoms or AM-radio, it is not serious thought or analysis.
Media outlets do not engage in exclusive contracts where they agree to only talk about one brand of an item, and that is the only type of situation where you can lock others out. So a computer company can make a deal with a store, for example, to only sell their brand of computer. But they can't go to companies that sell their competitor's brand and try to interfere with that, other than by making offers for an exclusive contract.
Anyplace with gas or diesel vehicles on the road there is poor air quality in the traffic lane, where you are when your car sucks the air in.
I do a lot of driving in rural, mountainous areas with awesome air, but that doesn't mean the air quality is high in the middle the of the road.
This is something that people with $10k cars are usually willing to pay for. For a luxury car, it is a no-brainer.
Shameful to see you down-modded for simple logic, what is this place coming to?
It reminds me of what Ayn Rand said about "social darwinists," and how to respond to them. (in "Philosophy: Who Needs It?")
The sad part is, they're getting all feely and emotionally righteous, so they have no concept of what an insult to Freedom it is to whine about people choosing where to spend their money, as a matter of speech, a matter of choosing what they (literally) support. And the fact that they're claiming to defend somebody on the basis of tolerating different opinions... it just defies the need for detailed analysis.
You're fired! lol
Quit moralizing, and think business. That's what Shortfingers would do.
He's undoubtedly increased his television appeal. As an actor, this will enhance his career.
As a brand? As a business-person? His brand is permanently tarnished.
He should really ditch television and try to leverage a multi-film franchise contract.
If people hate him, passionately, moralizing doesn't help his brand any.
I don't care if it is javascript or some other language, the problem is the part where it runs in a web browser, which is capable (designed primarily for, even) loading code provided by the server.
People talk about using it for authentication, but that can already be done with existing authentication protocols. Sure, it needs a client-side helper app, but places that are too strict to have the auth helper are going to be disabling any USB ports if this is going to be enabled in the browser; and maybe preemptively, just in case.
I wouldn't mind the client helper being written in javascript. But I wouldn't want it to be able to load code, I'd just want it to get requests from the browser/plugin, and respond in a predefined way.
That doesn't sound like it could ever be abused...
I'll install it right before I fire myself out a cannon without any safety equipment.
My goodness, this is hilariously awful as a use case concept.
If I trust software enough to let it talk to USB, I want to also trust that it is under its own control. Here, even if you thought you could trust it before, it can be changed server-side without notification, so you wouldn't be able to continue trusting it while using it. You wouldn't need to get infected with a virus or malware to lose control of your USB device; only the server would need to be cracked! And the trustiness would just pass right through to the user.
Just to repeat the part you didn't read... (you can read, right?)
People with head injuries that lead to permanent disability are usually admitted to the hospital for observation. Blood tests can tell the ER doctor if there is damage, and various scans can test for swelling.
It does not matter if you fall on ice, or fall from the sky. That is completely irrelevant. That is causing you emotive bias. What matters is the actual injuries to the brain , which is very easy to test for in any ER. A simple blood test can tell you if there is brain damage, because the human body responds to that damage.
The technology is not there yet.
It might be that the whole concept is not "there" yet, and won't ever be. The technology might be really awesome and mature, and the nature of the vehicle is just not effective at anything useful.
Interesting. On my planet, test flights are more dangerous than routine flights, not less.
I'd want to require them to have a special donor plate on the bike, for easier enforcement.
You're comparing how scary the situation sounds, and presuming damage based on that. No need to start speculating about IQs and such things.
He got some stitches and was sent home. That is way more informative about his injuries that a hand-wavy "what happened to this guy." People with head injuries that lead to permanent disability are usually admitted to the hospital for observation. Blood tests can tell the ER doctor if there is damage, and various scans can test for swelling. He's not poor, so he probably was given those diagnostics.
In fairness, about 2 or 3 seconds on the edge of the belt would be more comparable.
Falling off a ship in the ocean has a different risk profile than falling into still fresh water.
When I was a teenager, lots of people would jump way more than 20' off of bridges into freshwater lakes. Popular rock-jumping spots near me these days are about 50'.
You might have a basket of apples and oranges that have led you to false beliefs about the dangers of jumping into water.
Fantasy would be using CGI instead of a real jet pack.
They could have just replaced the helmet in post-production if that was it. How much cheaper can a real jet pack really be?
rt.com is Russian state propaganda. You should know it is bogus when you see the domain.
I only came in to see if anybody noticed. No, they were too busy making jokes I guess.
Europeans are being recorded by a bunch of governments though. You can write, but you can't read. If you could, you'd already know that, because you spend time claiming to care about the subject.
Europeans are much more heavily monitored and recorded than Americans. In addition to being monitored in all the same ways as Americans, they also have all their domestic communications added to the same database, and they also have government cameras all over the place on public streets.
They also have weird hipsters who think that they have lots of privacy, presumably because they force google to remove links to stories about criminal history and bankruptcy.
I can just look at the links themselves without clicking the crap to see that it isn't the same subject.
It is a thing. You didn't know about it. You presume the sky would fall. You spam links.
Try collecting information, evaluating it, and forming ideas into words. It is more likely to have some value.
One if fox news. Nice try lol. The next says it is a sexual assault victim giving opinions on policy. The last two are about assaults in womens restrooms.
I addressed that in the post you were responding to: "Predators can strike anywhere. The only time restrooms are involved is when somebody gets followed into the restroom, because there is nobody around, and then it doesn't matter what the sign on the door says." So yes, I am still sure. Those links don't address what I said, and in fact you still haven't comprehended the details of the discussion that you're arguing near to.
Even that is too narrow.
Never trust.
I that really your yardstick for excellence?
Most of Europe doesn't even have freedom of speech as a basic right.
You're on slashdot. Probably half the users live in California. Near her.
The majority of the places I've worked don't even have segregated restrooms in the first place.
The only places that have shared bathrooms are the ones where there is only one place to do your business.
Then it can be shared, since only one person can use it at a time.
Well, you're simply wrong about that. It has been a thing for many years. It is without problems.
There is no special danger from attack while pooping or peeing. That's in your head. Predators can strike anywhere. The only time restrooms are involved is when somebody gets followed into the restroom, because there is nobody around, and then it doesn't matter what the sign on the door says.
All dictionaries are "newspeak," because the function of a dictionary is to list known word meanings. They are not established as authorities on what words should mean. At least not in the English language. Some languages use that conception of dictionaries. English doesn't. If the known word usages that people publish changes, then the dictionaries will change to accommodate those meanings. Otherwise, the dictionaries would simply be wrong about what words actually mean, and would leave the language opaque.
Nobody cares what your opinion of what a word should mean is. That has nothing to do with what the list of known meanings are. Also, the vast majority of words have multiple definitions. You're free to use whichever meanings make sense in your sentence. It doesn't become wrong because somebody else only ever uses one of the definitions of a particular word.
My advice to you is to switch to French. Words in that language have official meanings.