"Known as AverageExplorer, it searches out thousands of images of a given subject, then amalgamates them into one composite "average" image...
Suddenly the Kim Kardashian selfie book makes total sense.
She's not a narcissist, she's just helping test the beta.
More likely that your insurance company would enforce the settings on your car and require that you pay them extra if you'd like the car to value your life over other lives.
With fast networks it's even possible that the insurance companies could bid on outcomes as the accident was happening. Theoretically my insurer could throw my car into a ditch to avoid damage to a bmw coming the other way.
OK, I really don't like where this concept is going. Consider what will happen when your insurance company values the property they're insuring over the life controlling it inside. Talk about an ethical nightmare, especially when those systems are deemed exempt from any legal liability.
The US has an exception to the rule that statesf: If a foreign diplomat is deemed a spy, fuck it. It goes back to the cold war era.
If a true "fuck it" mentality existed, he would have likely been ousted long ago.
It would also question the entire purpose of an embassy sitting in a foreign country. People that would have wanted him eliminated would have done so long ago without the burden of political correctness. "Fuck it" does not bother with manners.
Suppose somebody built a nuclear power plant next door to you that had a 1 in 4000 chance of going critical on any one day. That's a median of 11 years, right?
Yeah, sure. But the thing here is that it's not a 1 in 4,000 chance of this asteroid hitting us every day; it's 1 in 4,000 that it'll hit us once. 800-odd years from now.
1 in 4,000 is a small enough chance to be a virtual certainty over a few hours for events happening once a second - does that mean anything at all to a 1 in 4,000 once-in-a-lifetime chance? No. And this event is not even a once-in-a-lifetime event; it's once-in-several-tens-of-lifetimes.
Or to put it another way: People suck at probability assessments.
Let's put it another way. By the time this 1 in 4,000-chance event comes around, we will have invented new math that will make it equal to a pint of blueberries. But that's OK, because the holodeck was invented in 2350, so it's all good. Like we need to worry about the real world. It's not even on MTV anymore.
800 years is not that far off. There is no way that humans will advance to the stage where we can manipulate asteroids or explore space by then. Chances are, we will be extinct.
100 years ago man was barely grasping the concept of manned flight a few hundred feet off the ground.
Now we have rovers on Mars chatting back and forth, and astronauts Tweeting "backyard" pics from the ISS.
I find it a bit of a slap in the face that you assume what man is capable of 800 years from now when you can't even begin to fathom where we will be 100 years from now from a technological standpoint. We can't even imagine an environment devoid of the internet anymore, and that was a concept that only took a few decades to change the world as we know it, especially the financial sector.
As far as chance goes, chances are the wisest elders were condemning us to extinction 800 years ago too. And 800 years before that. Let's face it, we're a weak species who's been on the brink of screwed for thousands of years now, armed only with the power of logic and opposing thumbs. Perhaps we can keep our indifference's in check for a few more centuries to survive.
If the person insists on saying this over and over again and denigrates others who disagrees while giving no evidence then yes, that person is indeed a troll.
You've just described the teaching methods of the world's most popular religions, so I guess all those folks are out.
It's a good thing there are no trolls in politics...otherwise we'd be screwed.
Bitcoin has about as much credibility as Monopoly money in my mind. Asking if something can undermine the credibility of monopoly money doesn't really make any sense.
Hey, here's a little riddle for you. Do you know what they call Monopoly money in real life?
Quantitative Easing.
I find it hilarious that you are comparing Bitcoin to Monopoly money. Between Hasbro and the US Government, I wonder which one is printing more money every month. Talk about credibility.
SSDs in Apple devices aren't at 2 dollars a gig. Nice FUD tho...
There is no Fear or Uncertainty when you walk into an Apple store. You are paying a premium for that hardware.
And there is no Doubt as to what price you'll pay at Apple or any other store selling Apple products. You'll pay THE price.
Let's just drop the FUD now.
as a publicly traded company, the number of automated and potentially fraudulent users they have is most definitely the sec's business
I guess that depends on whether or not you find added value (read: feature) with a bot in Twitter.
I can see it being sold this way to the SEC. Easily.
I'm sorry for being negative here, but listening to how stenography is "about to evolve" makes me laugh. In this day and age where every damn thing is captured on video and audio already, questioning the validity of a stenographer and the specialized equipment they require to do the exact same job isn't exactly an exercise in futility.
Is it just because of "wiretap" laws? It seems like it would be a pretty trivial feature to add to smartphones. It's also easy to see how it could be very easily enhanced beyond simple audio files -- automated or selective recording of only some calls ("Answer and record", "record all calls" flag in contacts, speech-to-text, and so on).
Recording calls USED to be very easy -- $5 telephone pickup from Radio Shaft and a cassette recorder.
It's still easy to record telephone conversations (speakerphones, digital handheld recorders, and likely apps). What is not so trivial is the average consumer actually using those recordings to their advantage without violating state or federal law.
Besides, would you really want this to be a prevalent feature on smartphones? All of your friends having recordings of your phone conversations? Apps being dropped on the phone that access and share these recordings (via the EULA no one reads anyway). How long before the Facebook/Twitter/Instagram app simply turns on recording and sharing by default, leaving you scrambling to secure your new eavesdropping spy-phone? We act like the current data collection methods aren't intrusive enough.
And yes, it is very sad to think about new and cool technology in this way, but it's the sad reality of the world we live in. One should question how new tech will be abused. It's certainly no longer a question of "if" anymore.
Correct! So what if I placed an on-demand playback of "This call may be recorded for future review". How many CSRs at the other end would drop my call?
In reality, probably none. The CSR likely doesn't have the authority to simply not give you support for that reason. That would be the beauty of using something like that.
In my state, only one party needs to be aware of a recorded conversation, and it's perfectly fine for that to be the person doing the recording.
I'm glad you mentioned state here, as that is critically important. In fact the legality of recording and then using at a later date is perhaps the most important aspect of this entire idea. Know your laws.
Wiki of the recording consent laws, listed by country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws
Yes, but imagine if a terrorist changed all the in-flight movies to be Uwe Boll movies: Passengers might start jumping out of the plane!
That's nothing. I heard the in-flight Infotainment catalog includes Nickelback, which we all know is the aural equivalent of two cup chicks hosting a goatse lemon party.
I block all ads and have for the better part of a decade. Too many worries about malware, improper handling of info, tracking, you name it. It's a bad business model, anyway. I not met too many true geeks who feel much differently. If someone's business is built on something that can be manipulated and blocked so easily, the business model sucks to be sure.
Companies do not blow millions on advertising because they think there's an equal number of millions coming in from actual sales revenue.
The business model exists as a business expense and therefore exists to reduce the companies tax liability.
Let's put in this way. How many people do you know that have actually bought something from an online ad?
Yeah, I can't think of anyone either. Ever.
Now take a look at the advantage they get from writing millions off running pointless Superbowl ads.
From their perspective, the business "model" is working perfectly because of corporate welfare. Get rid of that shit, and we would likely see a 90% drop in advertising.
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
