Comment Re:so why would i want to wear a computer? (Score 2) 219
Agreed. Technology progresses quickly. Society not so fast. In some ways this is good, but it does create face-palm moments.
Agreed. Technology progresses quickly. Society not so fast. In some ways this is good, but it does create face-palm moments.
I can see medical uses for this. Imaging being able to monitor heart rate and other vitals 24/7. I had a father-in-law who could have used something like this...
You may want to work on your logic. Math is based on logic. this does not mean that everything based on logic is math.
I'll give you two answers, feel free to pick the one you like.
1) When you are fighting a less-advanced army, they won't have the technology to implement your suggestions.
2) Defense (haha) contracts are written based on what will sell with congress, not necessarily what is useful
A slight correction. My numbers compared states to Western Europe only. North and South are slightly higher in homicide rates, but still well below US averages and below all but one or two of US states
If you take a tiny handful of small neighborhoods out of the equation (places like Flint, Michigan) the United States is actually an extremely peaceful place
Your statement is completely false. Take a look at the murder rate by state and you will find that the lowest rate state is New Hampshire. Guess what? New Hampshire still has a higher murder rate (barely) than Western, Northern or Southern Europe. 42 of the 50 states have a more than double rate. 37 triple. 28 quadruple. 18 quintuple.
So no, taking a couple ZIP codes out of the equation will not get us to where civilized countries homicide rates are.
Anybody on Slashdot who doesn't know who she is
You might try wrapping your head around this: obligatory XKCD.
Except that it may be the case that other innocent people may be affected by these people's acts.
Do you know the difference between a summary and an article?
Nowhere in the article is Gothenburg called the capital of Sweden nor is it the capital. Perhaps the submitter is suffering from Gothenburg Syndrome.
You are splitting hairs
"I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out. I won't do that, because I fear the consequences."
The only reason he says he wouldn't kill someone who disagreed with his viewpoint is because of the consequences. If he thought he would get away with it, he is saying he would.
At a certain point I realized that folks with a different viewpoint than mine aren't usually out to do me harm and are not evil people but simply have a different viewpoint. The vitriol becomes tiresome to read...
I can, but that isn't the point.
I'd argue that you are ignoring the distinction that Adams (who I normally find surprisingly shallow) manages to keep in mind:
"I'm okay with any citizen who opposes doctor-assisted suicide on moral or practical grounds. But if you have acted on that thought, such as basing a vote on it, I would like you to die a slow, horrible death too."
He disagrees with; but holds the vitriol, for people who disagree with him; but does not hold the vitriol for people who have actually acted to impose upon others their position.
No, I am not ignoring the distinction because I find it idiotic. Basically, he is saying that he doesn't wish death on you for disagreeing but for having the gall to actually act on your convictions. That is plain stupid and infantile. And this is coming from someone who agrees that we need euthanization laws.
So, "FOE" to you is someone who's views you disagree with. I find that quite sad.
Hackers of the world, unite!