Whyâ¦ what a fascinating idea. To hold in my hand that capsuleâ¦ to know that life and death on such a level was my choice. Such power would set me up above the gods!
> Btw. does anyone here remember the USS Vincennes?
Actually yes, I do. There were various discussions about at what point the crew knew they'd just shot down an airliner, or at what point they should have known that they were targeting one. There've even been various conspiracy theories that they knew it was an airliner all along and shot it down intentionally to kill someone or another who was onboard. But the US has always admitted that it was the one who shot down that airliner.
At no point has the US government tried to re-write history and disavow the blame by claiming that it not the US who pulled the trigger; but some bunch of locals who somehow managed to capture (and figure out how to operate) the Vincennes.
They've been dumbing down the gameplay on real games for years to make things easier the konsole kiddies. Look at Deus Ex: HR or the Xcom: EU vs. their namesakes for fine examples. It doesn't surprise me a bit that they'd cripple the graphics too. Can't let the children get jealous that someone else has something better, after all.
Or it could be old-fashioned racism. There are plenty of places in the US still where, if you're driving a Japanese car, the locals will see you as some kind of commie mutant traitor.
"Cool... Terminator vision!"
"the ability to record is completely tangental to how I'd want to use the thing"
Under the ADA, it doesn't mater how large or small the business is. "Reasonable accommodations" have to be made at places open to the public. And so long as someone is not actively using Glass to record video, it's perfectly reasonable for someone whose prescription lenses include Glass functionality to be left alone in peace as he watches his movie. And yes, it is possible for someone's vision to be bad enough to bring the ADA into play; but still be adequately correctable with glasses.
Personally, I look forward with glee to the day when Glass IS build into prescription glasses, some business discriminates against them, and said business is crushed under the ADA. Unfortunately, it does increasingly look like that may be what it takes to finally slap this particular platoon in the luddite brigade down.
And all that is completely aside from the point that it's ridiculous and narcissistic for people to assume that the only reason anyone might be wearing Glass to to secretly spy in them. It has "substantial non-infringing uses", and all that.
Do they even bother to do that at all anymore? I was under the impression that pretty much anything that hit the net before the official DVD/BR release came from Oscar screeners these days.
The part that baffles the crap out of me is the overbearing self-importance of the anti-Glass segment of the luddite brigade.
Their entire argument seems to revolve around the assumption that the only reason someone might want to own or wear Google Glass is to surreptitiously take pictures or video of them. There's a much smaller contingent that looks at its current form-factor and screams: "NERRRRRD!!!". But by far and large, the anti-Glass hate comes from the: "You're wearing that thing to take pictures of me, Me, ME!!!". That level of arrogance and narcissism both astounds and confounds me.
When *I* first heard about Google Glass, my thought was: "Cool... Terminator vision!". And shortly after, I thought: "Even cooler... Predator vision!!!". Yeah, the camera is a necessary part in generating the sort of informational overlays that I'm imagining. But the ability to record is completely tangental to how I'd want to use the thing. And yes, I do know that Glass doesn't yet come close to those capabilities. But one day it certainly will.
You'll probably want to drop Sweden from the list; considering they're acting as the bagman for DC's efforts to get their hands on Julian Assange.
From the US side of the pond, it looks a bit more like Brazil than 1984.
But still, considering that China's not shy about rolling tanks in on their dissidents and Russia's fondness for the effects of ricin and polonium; we're still a few steps above the opposition.
Iâ(TM)ve lived in San Francisco since around a decade before Uber was even founded. And taxis were just as much crap then as they are now. The only difference is that Uber and Lyft are offering competitive options that provide a service that doesnâ(TM)t suck.
Thatâ(TM)s the particularly appalling thing about the taxisâ(TM) crusade against Uber and the like. They made their own bed by: pretty much never coming when and where you summon them; screaming bloody murder (and sometimes refusing entirely) if you ever want to goto, or be picked up in, the avenues; running various BS âoethe credit card reader is brokenâ scams; and often having their vehicles, or themselves, stink of smoke, vomit, or pee (There was even a bedbug infestation not long ago!). Now they need to just STFU and lie in that bed. If theyâ(TM)d offered a good service in the first place, Uber would never have had a niche to enter into the market.
A written guarantee that my uniform would be either gold or blue, and that I'd not have to accompany the captain on landing parties until my own rank is at least Lieutenant Commander; and I'm in.
Unfortunately, that wouldn't work; at least not for reasonable people. Remember, Burning Man takes place in an otherwise uninhabitable desert. You're required to bring everything, including water, you need to live in that desert in with you; and cart it out, along with your trash, at the end of the week. That's not too difficult if you have a car. With a bus? Your 60-person bus just became a 12-person bus when you add in peoples' supplies and gear. It's not much of an improvement.
Of course, there's the option of NOT going prepared and being a parasite on those who happened to bring extra. And, yes, there are already bus services that cater to those people. But I, for one, would never, ever, join their ranks.
The Burning Man organization just doesn't want to solve certain problems with the event. Entry and exodus are big ones.
Entry has even more obvious solutions to the problems. But they are absolutely uninterested in solving it because it would involve making changes, and the entry procedure is "traditional'. Also, speeding things up would involve taking away certain peoples' ego trips; like the pointless and milquetoast "searching" of incoming vehicles that's not really a search and never uncovers contraband, but lets the "searcher" assert his au-thor-a-TAH over the "searched". Seriously... a friend of mine once entered with a crate full of illegal, and against BM rules, fireworks sitting openly in his van in full view of the people "searching" it, and they just waved him through! They could also cut out the, once again, "traditional" routine of making everyone get out of their cars AGAIN to ring the bell, get hugged by a hippie, and make the first-timers roll around in the dirt. But those people, too, have made their niche for themselves in the BMorg, and damned if they'll give it up, and to hell with the attendees who've just spent 14 hours stuck in their cars and would just like to get to camp and take a break.
I've never really payed attention and gotten all riled up at exodus; mainly because I've at atypical hours the years I went and didn't get stuck in major hold-ups. But I expect that there are similar improvements that could be made.
Hell, all they'd have to do is send the managers of entry and exodus down to Anaheim for a weekend and tell them to watch how Disneyland gets a Burning-Man-sized crowd in and out EVERY DAY, with hardly ever a delay, then bring back the knowledge and re-implement it. But there's no interest across the organization in fixing the problem.
You have your math wrong.
In most cases, it's actually disadvantageous, from a taxation perspective, for a couple to get married. There are other legal benefits which, obviously, many people decide are compelling enough to go ahead and take the tax penalty. But as a single taxpayer, you are not subsidizing married couples. The opposite is, in fact, true.