Forgot your password?

Comment: Why not just make it safer? (Score 1) 324

by MrKaos (#47900475) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

Instead of making it more difficult to text while driving - why not make it easier? People are going to do it so why not have speech to text conversions and heads up displays so people don't have to take their hands or eyes off the wheel and road. The technology is already out there, people will use it even when it is irresponsible to do so - so instead why not just make it safer and easier so that people can get on with driving?

There is no law out there that has more influence than a partner, child or obligation has to take the risk in the first place.

Comment: Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score 1) 163

by MrKaos (#47900173) Attached to: Justice Sotomayor Warns Against Tech-Enabled "Orwellian" World

and guns are legal in most of the USA so i can shoot someone's drone out of the sky if it's spying on my property

Falling bullets still mame and injure people, even if they don't kill. Wouldn't it just be easier to interfere with the control signals and "liberate" the drone from it's owner? You have a mains powered transmitter - they have batteries. Yes they can encrypt the signals, yes you can still make the drone uncontrollable.

Comment: Blood immunity (Score 1) 119

by MrKaos (#47900121) Attached to: US Scientists Predict Long Battle Against Ebola

Some people exposed to this disease will survive and develop an immunity.

Shouldn't we be developing vaccines based on human beings who have survived and develop that? The human condition itself is a remarkable platform for self preservation and we have science as a tool. Thinking this is not our problem or that it is a challenge of a particular country seems to be a great way to spead this disease.

Ebola is a human challenge, shouldn't we treat it that way?

Comment: Common Carrier (Score 1) 285

by MrKaos (#47895267) Attached to: California Declares Carpooling Via Ride-Share Services Illegal

I'm unsure if the law is the same in the US as commonwealth countries, however, this is the relevant legal construct. That to accept passengers you have to be a common carrier, and I wondered how ride share programs got around this.

On the whole though, I think ride share is a good idea - though the odd crazy may be a bit spooky.

Comment: Re:The war hasn't started (Score 1) 471

by MrKaos (#47877601) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Smartwatch Apps Could You See Yourself Using?

Not until the health/life insurance companies start offering incentives to wear and heed a smartwatch's fitness advice.

My work-provided health insurance currently does this, reducing premiums for people who use such devices and provide the collected data to them. Nonetheless, that's not nearly enough incentive for me to go along with it.

I can't wear them while I train BJJ. The only reason I was interested in doing that was to try to get an idea just how much energy I consume when I train. Alas the tech is not rigorous enough to deal with hard training.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score 1) 427

by MrKaos (#47869061) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

If *you* had to choose between more freedom and the promise of a slightly cooler environment, which would you choose?

If you think you are free then you are a fool. If you aren't arguing for change in energy policy then you are reinforcing the status quo of oil and coal companies whose manipulation of the media to cast this doubt over the science presented over many years has produced the very state of mind you are in.

They call you "useful idiots".

If someone comes to try and educate you or demonstrate why you are arguing against your own best interests you respond in the hostile aggressive way you have been programmed to.

Do you think future human beings would choose freedom or the promise of climate control?

I think they would choose life over a hidden taxation that they will inherit. They will have no choice but to pay it.

Or would you selfishly make that choice for them?

I will take the responsibility for arguing in their interests because I have analysed the threat and the evidence supports the need for modifying the way our world works.

The difference between my position and yours is that mine gives them a choice and yours denies them a choice. Your position takes away their freedoms whilst mine position grants them their freedom because my position takes responsibility whilst your position forces responsibility onto a later generation for which they have no choice but to deal with our irresponsibility.

Irresponsibility because we don't own the air , oceans or land, we are borrowing them off future generations of humanity. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you're a hippy, it just means that you think humanity deserves a future. If you don't think humanity deserves a future then just let the people concerned with building a future free of oil/coal externalities get on with it.

Make no mistake, climate legislation is designed to diminish individual freedom.

Yes it does. It diminishes our individual freedom because we are choosing to do so. We are choosing to take responsibility when there is still an opportunity to prevent consequences we don't understand. We are acknowledging that we are stewards to future generations of humanity and adult enough to accept that there are burdens that come with it.

You can either choose to be responsible to future generations or not - to take their freedom or not. That is the freedom you have now.

Bringing computers into the home won't change either one, but may revitalize the corner saloon.