Maybe he isn't into texting and other shit, and in an alternate universe without Pokemon Go he would be paying attention to the road while driving?
If we're going into alternate universes, then I like this one the best: someone else struck the pedestrian, and he was playing an ambulance game where you drive to injured people and give them medical attention. In that universe, playing the game while driving caused him to save a life!
Or they could be smart and lock out users when they're moving so fast they're obviously not on foot.
If I proposed an idea that's wrong more than half the time, the last thing I'd expect anyone to call me, is "smart." That simply isn't the right word for this idea.
Fast movement doesn't imply driving. I'll grant that if you can determine the vehicle is a bicycle or motorcycle, chances are over 50% that the driver is playing. (Motorcycle passengers are unlikely to have free hands.) But if it's basically any other type of vehicle (or if no vehicle is involved at all), you're throwing babies out more often than you're throwing out bathwater! Why would you use a word like "smart" for this?!?
One of the problems we face today, is that some people are, believe it or not, still using Facebook. I think this will help.
Mr Wozniak said he would probably use the adaptor to connect his existing earphones to his next iPhone, and said that, like many other users he is attached to the accessories that he uses alongside the phone.
Anyone else spot the problem here? "His next iPhone." The guy has already made up his mind, independent of whether it's good or bad. This is the economic equivalent of someone who votes party line.
He doesn't give a single fuck, so there is no reason Apple (or anyone else) should listen to him. He has announced his irrelevancy. I'm not projecting that onto him; he's saying it!
All the funnier that he's "attached" to his nonstandard accessories. The guy is a classic lock-in victim, except with the bonus that's he's already sworn to never do anything about it.
Who is the "they" doing the believing? EFF?
A lot of people, including the EFF, are mentioning Facebook and Twitter for some reason. Those sites are said to be fairly popular, so they might be good examples if you're trying to explain the issue to the mainstream.
But if you actually click through to the
So: "social media identifier." For people who use Facebook, their facebook id would, indeed, happen to be something the government would be interested in. But if you don't use Facebook, then that's not what they're asking for. The presumption is that you socialize (to at least some degree) somehow. That may or may not be correct, but for 100.0% of the people who are reading this comment, it happens to be an accurate assumption.
One good answer to their question might be: what's your Slashdot identifier? Well, if you log in, then it's your login name. Using that combined with some really large logs (presumably where the https was broken) they can see all the pages you requestedwhich uses that cookie, and infer what kinds of things you're interested in. And Slashdot already helpfully shows your posts, so they'll know what you're often saying. And that will happen to work fairly well for you, sirber.
If you don't log in, then they might like to know your ISP accounts (home and mobile) so they can check logs to see your IP address at certain times, to either directly tie it to Slashdot activity, or indirectly through, say, Google Analytics cookies or something like that. At some point, this crosses the line into the impractical, but let's remember: if you don't login to Slashdot, then the value of whatever identifies you on Slashdot is significantly lessened, since you're probably not maintaining persistent communications anyway, so they're less likely to care. They'd ask you about some other site.
Other "site" presumes HTTP, though, and of course social media is far larger than just the web. Email might still possibly the biggest social media network of all, where your identifier would be your email address. IRC? Usenet? (Ok, we're sounding very old here. But maybe someone knows how to investigate old people.)
If there's really nothing, then you probably are somewhat unusual (no, not a "terrorist," just unusual), so they might need to talk to you instead of just read about you in the other room. The presumption isn't Facebook and Twitter: it's just something.
Something online. Maybe you spend all your time chatting people up in bars, in the real world, without a computer network. Then I suppose a photograph of your face is your social media identifier. No?
What if the rest of society is really worried over the fact that a sophisticated adversary is meddling into your domestic affairs
I'm more worried that parts of my society might actually see exposing political parties' communications, as being akin to "meddling in our affairs" or even more absurdly as "intervening in our elections."
I hope that these people are lying, faux-outraged in an attempt to get their crappy party an emotional edge over another crappy party, but I fear they're being honest, every bit as disconnected as they claim to be.
A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post
Wait, you're saying a staggering 6% of Rs, 8% of Ds, and 15% of Is have been swayed at least once? I'd call that amazingly effective.
For my routine driving, I never have to worry about "stopping to fill up" because I am doing that every night at home.
This is like saying smartphones don't ever run out of battery, because we plug them in every day at work and every night at home, whereas ten years ago our phones worked for two weeks between charges and then sometimes we forgot to charge them so we ran out. Now you don't ever run out anymore, because you're obsessively charging all the time.
I am amused that you listed this under "pro." I think you made a wise decision which worked out for you, so I'm totally not calling you stupid or some bullshit like that. But
Hm. I am getting confused about whether or not a mitigated con can actually maybe really be a pro. Hey everyone: help with the analysis. Is this guy wrong, or am I? He's right that he's not having to stop to refuel as an exception, but OTOH he's constantly putting in extra effort that internal combustion people don't have to think about very often. Is that a pro or a con?
Should I be summing up all the annoyances and comparing them over a long period of time (e.g. a year)? Yes, I think that's the correct way to figure this out.
This makes me want to coin a new word which means "amortized annoyance." Ammoyance? Annoytization strategy?
If she is guilty as sin the so are Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice
This is the first I've heard that those assholes are also running against Johnson. Very well, I'll vote against Powell and Rice too. Happy now?
You got Libertarians confused with anarchists, but I would expect no less from you Nazis.
The decision is based on a report from two New York state senators, released last week. Jeffrey Klein and Diane Savino visited the locations of 100 registered sex offenders in New York City and found 57 pokÃ©mon and 59 pokÃ©stops and gyms within half a city block. They were particularly worried about the "lures" that draw pokÃ©mon â" and thus players, including children â" to a location.
So congratulations, New York: you elected total fucking morons to your senate, who think government power should be used whimsically and without thought for whether or not it makes any sense. I bet this little anti-pedo law will be the only consequence, though.
No. If that were the goal, then it would merely require that drivers be signed by the machine's admin or whatever parties they have signed as delegates, not such a distant third party as Microsoft.
Snowden is not convicted, He can't be pardoned yet.
I'd love to hear you try to explain that to Gerald Ford.
The story does use a lot of funny wording which implies that they had been donated to the Public Domain, but if you click through to sources, it looks more like they were still under copyright, offered through some kind of free-as-in-beer license.
Looks like. It's really hard to see WTF the actual status is. What shitty, lazy reporting! But my guess is they're not PD, because the lawyer would have checked before he sued, that being the responsible and common sense thing to d-- why is everyone laughing at me?
VMS must die!