I agree. We have to stop handing out inherited citizenship, and stop calling people citizens just for being born here. Infants clearly haven't earned anything, and shouldn't be given citizenship. Everyone should have to earn their citizenship, no matter who their daddy is or where their mother was squatting when they were born.

You know the whole idea of citizenship is foreign. Maybe we should do away with it altogether.

This, 100%. Let's privately fund the military, as a charity, and get all those military-industrial-complex freeloaders off my tax dime. Then I'll have plenty of money to spend on the science I want to do with the money I earn in "commerce".

Does this plan also mean that capitalists who can't be bothered to do commerce are removed from control of money? According to his own accounting Jeff Bezos loses money trying to do commerce every year, but the government keeps giving him more of our money to waste. Tax breaks and subsidies for some well-educated person who can't be bothered to pay for their own play ground. It makes me sick.

I have none of those things when I work in the office. I don't have a quiet, separate workspace. I don't have a door. I'm not the only person around. I get all sorts of "quick questions" and social interruptions. And those are all choices my employer makes, that they could change if they thought they were important.

This part is fake "the potential theft of this information jeopardizes the delivery of secure, effective and efficient treatment options."

And I know that because the when they use the word "theft" here they don't mean "deprived us of our property or use thereof" they mean "copied". It's the same lie the MPAA tells us. I would download a car, or vaccine, even if China wanted to claim credit for it.

I'm much more worried about the harms caused by keeping treatment information secret, and about the people who believe that the world is better when they get to control that secret.

A) A race is whatever racists say it is. It changes all the time and it's not based on actual facts. Lots of racists would identify "Chinese" as a race, and would include lots of people who aren't Chinese citizens in that race.

B) "Racism" is colloquially used to describe many form of oppression, particularly but not exclusively oppression based on heritable attributes, like national origin (inherited through law or birth circumstance) or skin color (inherited through genetics). It's maybe not precise and clear language but it is common usage.

C) Good job being technically correct: the poster should have said "nationalist" instead of "racist". Given all the white nationalists making decisions for our country though -- people who self-identify as both racist and nationalist -- you could maybe excuse the conflation.

Are you suggesting that your movements are currently allowed to be secret, if corporations or governments so choose? How do you manage that. We know for a fact the government collects and uses that sort of information to harass people (and corporations and nation states). When Google does the same thing to the public we call it an advertising market. This isn't a change from the status quo, it's just opening the information up to the public, for use in promoting the public good, instead of keeping this already-available information secret, shared only among cronies and crooks.

You don't have to like it. You're welcome to do something else. You can opt out. You can even use the public data while you're opting out. But the idea that we want to share data about driving to let our computers drive faster, safer, more efficiently, etc. seems really attractive to me. We all choose to use IP routing and throw packets somewhat haphazardly into the public network. relying on BGP announcements about where we want people to find us. It's public data - It has to be, because it's what the public uses to interact with the system. You're also allowed to set more nuanced boundaries. I certainly intend to demand that the data be shared in a way that's safe for everyone, if they choose to participate. But it's reasonable to imagine that people /want/ that sort of information sharing, even if you don't.

They're not talking about SA, they're talking about COCOM restrictions on GPS receivers. GPS receivers are supposed to refuse to operate at high altitudes and speeds as part of arms export regulations.

"Pound" is a unit of force equal to exactly 4.4482216152605 Newtons as per ISO 80000 (and related standards) which defines G as 9.80665 m/s^2 regardless of the local value. Neither the local effective acceleration nor the system of units have any impact on the ability to make meaningful and reproducible measurements of force.

There are reasons to use the same units across the board but "works in space" is not one of them.

Bluetooth audio quality is fine if you use something with A2DP support. Not everything does, but it's well worth the effort to find things that do -- then you can get regular AAC or aptX or other reasonable codecs at respectable rates.

My toaster does not need to be online. But neither does your phone, or even your home or office for that matter. If we're going to limit ourselves to "need" as the basis for which technology we build you're gonna have to give up a lot of things.

No one is going to make you put your toaster online if you don't want to. But just because you can't think of anything to do with that technology doesn't mean that no one else can, and whining that other people want to try is just sad and selfish.

The fact that you have to actively opt-out is a problem all by itself.

Or you could just decide as a member of the public to hold driverless cars to the same standards as human drivers and allow them to potentially hit a pedestrian in the same situation. And remember the give them the bonus from the thousands of deaths related to simply driver error.

If you're depending on a driver to stop fighting and bullying you're either not taking those threats seriously or not taking driving seriously. One person cannot handle both things safely at the same time.

You shouldn't confuse "not allowed by law or public opinion" with "not technically possible".

Obviously we can't all live within 6 blocks of our offices (though probably a lot fewer people could go to offices in the first place if we cared). But some of the people telling you to "live close to where you work" just mean "don't live in the suburbs" which is typically possible even when meeting the conditions you note above. It's also advise that's well-supported by research demonstrating that people wildly undervalue the cost of long commutes compared to the benefits of a larger house or whatever they're buy with that commute time.