I think you hit the nail on the head, but that's why I disagree with this article. Most nerds, believe it or not, realize the results of their personal choices as you do and don't irrationally point their frustration at innocent people. I think it's unfair to say that all nerds reach this irrational conclusion "as a matter or mental self-defense." I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but this is a sweeping generalization based on one crazy man's acts.
Really, slashdot? This comments gets a 5, Insightful? It's an unsupported assertion.
Redundant internet options are a good thing. This is a smart move by GM in the face of giant ISP mergers and poor net neutrality legislation.
Google has no interest in omitting data collection to mitigate other sites' security flaws.
I'm personally not going to buy a smartwatch until it can replace my phone. Once I have that, it's not much of a change in routine for me to plug it in each night.
None of that is necessarily true if it's rooted. http://gizmodo.com/google-glas... Also, "most people" aren't doing something that they mind being recorded doing. The problems come from the situations where they do mind.
...to some of you but police officers are also there to protect you from those who might want to take your money or otherwise commit a crime against you. I'm aware of the potential for abuse from these systems, but if we decide they can't watch us in public, where can they watch us? What deters a robber that knows for a fact there will never be a cop around to catch him in the act?
Taken to this extreme, how would police officers ever observe anything? I'm all for privacy, but if I get mugged in the street and a cop drives by, I sure as hell want them to be looking out and come to my aid.
Go into a bar or strip club and point your camera phone every direction you turn your head. See how long it takes for one of those "idiots" to knock you out.
A manager of mine once told me he hired me because of this. Of course, you have to nuance it a little. I told him something like "I'm good at communicating the ideas of the project in ways that non-technical people can understand and appreciate the value of it. A lot of times in these positions if you're doing your job perfectly, nobody notices because the system just works. It's important to make sure we get credit for this as a team."
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence." From this: http://www.venganza.org/about/...
It's punishing people for doing damage or committing a crime before they've done it, on the increased chance that it might happen.
To me, the problem is that it breaks promise of neutrality, and deceives anyone who believes it's a neutral piece. I don't fault anyone for spinning their story in a way that benefits themselves; that's inevitable. But don't show me a NPOV policy that implies otherwise.
I agree with you, but I think there's merit even in those quantifications that turn out useless. This sort of science, at least the way you describe it being done, is really shooting in the dark. Sometimes you find an interesting and meaningful correlation or analysis, but more often than not you're juggling and sorting numbers to no useful end. People will always pay to keep taking shots.
A bit of a sidetrack, but this is what most disappointed me about the whole NSA surveillance thing. We (the US) have probably the greatest ability of any country to protect freedom on the internet and be a force for free speech and expression in the world, yet our trampling of the 4th amendment is squandering that. We *claim* to bring freedom to other countries with guns and bombs, yet fail an opportunity to bring it to them with technology and computers.