I went to the supermarket today. According to the National Enquirer, Hillary Clinton has already been indicted for a whole bunch of illegal things she did. It was on the front page.
I'm still a little leery of jumping on the "OMG FAKE NEWS!!" bandwagon given there seems to be absolutely nothing new about the phenomenon. I'm inclined to blame a combination of an awful Democratic candidate (well, she was. And no, I don't think Bernie would have won either. Democrats had a dreadful choice at the primaries this year) and the seductive nature of Fascism, which has proven itself over and over again to be a message people respond to as long as they don't recognize it for what it is.
The supermarket tabloids have been peddling this crap for decades. TV news, especially local news, also has its own version of "reality", frequently mixing syndicated spots of dubious accuracy with genuine news. (And this is ignoring justified, if over stated, criticism of mainstream serious print media, which is a different category of misleading content.)
That you are a pussy? We already knew that...
But the feminized SJWs here think that being whiny bitches about a magazine is their path to getting laid.
Bad news, losers, it doesn't work.
Twitter doesn't do government services and they'll be out of business shortly. Also, their leader is a left wing ideologue.
The rest of the companies would gladly take on the work. This surprises you how?
Did you somehow think that your ideology was going to keep on preventing people from working with Trump without political power? Think again.
Sure, I saw all the interviews Obama where sat down with the American Spectator and Breitbart.
The Intercept is a legitimate site co-founded by Glenn Greenwald. It has essentially the same reputation as Greenwald, it's truthful and focuses on certain issues to the point of obsession, but for fairly good reasons.
As far as not answering the question, the correct response to "Will you ever sell your services to make a registry for Muslims?" is the same one as "Would you build baby mulching machines in Toddler sizes?" or even just "If Trump asked you to make your workers wear militaristic uniforms with jackboots, would you do that?" - the answer is always going to be "Fuck no", not "At this time we'd prefer not to answer" or no answer at all. That's regardless of whether the questioner is from the New York Times or Breitbart.
I think we all know the tent in the desert was just propaganda...
once it not only tracks a 2D head position, but also distance from the windshield.
I have a tablet that claims to be able to know when I am looking at the screen. I think this problem has been solved for quite a bit of time.
The problem is perspective. The road is flat, so what's projected on it will not appear as the same shape for someone looking on it from elsewhere.
No. If you project what appears to be a "zebra crossing" onto the street, it has to appear on the street in the same place as a real zebra crossing for the driver to see it as such.
There are perspective issues involved, but they exist for both the projection and the viewer. You cannot simply project an image of a zebra crossing onto the street, you have to distort it to take the surface into account. And the viewer's brain will take care of the reverse perspective problem, taking the distorted regular striped pattern as seen on the retinal surface and converting it into "zebra crossing" in the brain.
This is one of the reasons why a HUD would be a better solution to this problem. Not only will the info be invisible (and thus not distracting) to outside observers, it is a much simpler problem to manage the perspective and transformations necessary to project the correct data.
Perform this thought experiment. You are in a large lecture hall. There is a computer projector displaying a circle on the screen at the front of the room. The projector electronics have taken the angles into account and distorted the incoming video signal so that the displayed image is a circle on the screen. Now move about the room so your perspective of the screen changes. The image on your retina will change based on your angle to the screen, but your brain will still see a circle.
projects a stop sign onto the road out ahead.
Or projects a different sign. Other vehicles see that sign and assume it must be right, ignoring the posted stop sign (or other traffic control device) and causing an accident. I see absolutely no risk in each vehicle creating it's own moving traffic control system.
Especially when it starts projecting "zebra crossings" into the street. That's going to create a mess and be quite a process here in Oregon where there is a crosswalk at every intersection. What fun, when a pedestrian sees the oncoming car projecting crosswalk markings so they assume the driver is aware of it and steps out into the street assuming the driver is already planning on stopping. Hilarity ensues.
If I don't use cash, it doesn't mean you can't.
If it is a cash-less society, you can't. You aren't just talking about what you can do, you're talking about what other people cannot do.
Are you arguing that I should structure my financial dealings to be most convenient to you?
I don't give a tinker's damn whether you use cash or not. You want electronic payment systems everywhere, that's fine with me. My being able to use cash says NOTHING about how you have to pay for anything. But you are arguing that I should structure my dealings to be more convenient for you. You can't deal with cash, but instead of limiting yourself to wanting to use electronic systems, you argue we need to go cash-less as a society.
I say you can do whatever you want; you say I shouldn't be able to use cash. So, tell me again who is trying to structure how other people manage their financial dealings?
Period. It's a waste of time. Any government that tries to force standard of living reduction will be voted out of office. This is essentially what happened with Obama, and he tried to do it in a stealthy way. Imagine someone openly taking an axe to public prosperity in the interest of climate change? They'd shove knives up his ass like Quaddafi.
You have to create a totalitarian state with the full apparatus of secret police, surveillance, detention camps and summary executions to even start to go there, and the focus on climate change would impair your ability to maintain that social control. Beside which, the inherent corruption in such a state would ultimately subvert your efforts to reduce your carbon footprint.
Also, i'd rather have the climate change than the secret police, thanks.
1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.