no problem.

So, in order to protect against possible military applications(known for their cost-sensitivity...); we are making the sale legal as long as El Presidente gets his cut? That's in character, sure; but what's the paper-thin excuse for that being a cogent policy idea?

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

see, here nobody accepts my belief system, they have moded both of my comments as "troll", yet I never troll here, I always say what I mean when it comes to tech, politics and economics. To mode my comments as "troll" means to declare that I do not believe and practice what I say or maybe that I am trying to start some sort of a riot. The former assumes that I am not serious, the latter assumes that everyone reading these comments camnot engage in civilized discourse, it is disgusting really, that people deny others their intentions or agency.

any amount of government, all of it makes me sick to my stomach, that is all I have to say on the topic.

Correct, government shouldn't be running services, this is up to the private individuals to satisfy needs at an agreed price. Years ago here I said that at some point in the 21st century we will see collapse of the government structures, we are observing it now. The next logical step is to have all services, no matter what they are to be done privately if needed. This is what I am rooting for, I am hoping to see it in this life time.

fuck ruzzia, fuck all ruzzians and triple fuck everyone doing business with the. Hopefully their scourge of s country collapses and breaks into small pieces and everyone there gets ass cancer of the 5th degree and dies a horrible death.

How do you know that?

Being from Google, I rather assume the opposite - and that they probably focused their engineering effort to make sure the reduced battery life didn't give their corporate surveillance activities away.

Also busses, tractors and combines and all sorts of farm equipment, everything that could be looted from businesses and homes was looted. Hundreds of thousands of children were kidnapped.

ruzzia is a scourge, always was always will be, unfit to exist on this planet.

Every time I say it here, I am moded down as a troll, doesn't change the reality.

Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.

This is the sound of the other shoe dropping.

Fortran has some optimizations involving pointers that are invalid in other languages like C. So it can be the absolute fastest outside of hand optimized assembly (which is very difficult to do better than a compiler these days). It also has advanced math libraries which are highly tested and optimized. So its niche is highly performant math and scientific programming.

As I said, ruzzia is a scourge https://slashdot.org/comments.... unfit to exist on this planet. It akways was a scourge, always will be. Same with islam, by the way, muslim brotherhood is coming for all of us, not just ruzzian zombies

I've read MRI scans require helium, and there is currently a shortage. It's not practically renewable or recyclable so far. If everyone gets an MRI it could cause a severe shortage.

I wonder if the tech can be reworked to not require helium or any other hard-to-find resource.

It's long past time we had a real debate about the law, too. Just because something has been the law for a long time, that doesn't necessarily mean it should remain the law as times change. Clearly there is a difference between the implications of casually observing someone as you pass them in a public street, when you probably forget them again a moment later, and the implications of recording someone with a device that will upload the footage to a system run by a global corporation where it can be permanently stored, shared with other parties, analysed including through image and voice recognition that can potentially identify anyone in the footage, where they were, what they were doing, who they were doing it with, and maybe what they were saying and what they had with them, and then combined with other data sources using any or all of those criteria as search keys in order to build a database at the scale of the entire global population over their entire lifetimes to be used by parties unknown for purposes unknown, all without the consent or maybe even the knowledge of the observed people who might be affected as a result.

I don't claim to know a good answer to the question of what we should allow. Privacy is a serious and deep moral issue with far-reaching implications and it needs more than some random guy on Slashdot posting a comment to explore it properly. But I don't think the answer is to say anything goes anywhere in public either just because it's what the law currently says (laws should evolve to follow moral standards, not the other way around) or because someone likes being able to do that to other people and claims their freedoms would be infringed if they couldn't record whatever they wanted and then do whatever they wanted with the footage. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others, which some might feel should include more of a right to privacy than the law in some places currently protects.

That all said, people who think it's cool to film other human beings in clear distress or possibly even at the end of their lives just for kicks deserve to spend a long time in a special circle of hell. Losing a friend or family member who was, for example, killed in a car crash is bad enough. Having to relive their final moments over and over because people keep "helpfully" posting the footage they recorded as they drove past is worse. If you're not going to help, just be on your way and let those who are trying to protect a victim or treat a patient get on with it.