Is nothing sacred anymore?
Of course not. If sex is not sacred anymore, then why would the data concerning it be? Sex itself is sold as a commodity. The sex toy reduces a sacred act to a mere technological-biological process of particular temperatures and intensity settings. There is nothing meaningful in it. So it makes sense that this essentially meaningless but useful data would be collected for further marketing purposes. The essential value of that data, just like human bodies in general today, will be determined by its marketability.
The underlying issue here, then, is not a mere privacy issue. It is the bigger issue of the meaning of the human body. Unless we can see the body as sacred, then nothing else in the world can remain sacred before the press of market pressures.
Now I'm usually all for a socioeconomic explanation for things, but I think that this argument involves certain assumptions that hint precisely at something much more significant. You argue that people are having less sex because they cannot afford homes and cannot afford to date. But this assumes first and foremost that dating and home ownership are necessary for sex. This shows that in our time, people have certain assumptions about how well-off one needs to be in order to be in a consistent relationship or begin a family. Hence I think that the main reason why young people are having less sex is precisely because so many marry much, much later--especially those who do not attend university, which is a major place to meet a spouse.
Hence the biggest shift is cultural. In the past, people generally married earlier and had assumptions about the necessity of marriage. I would bet that young single mothers, too, were less likely to remain single. It is hard to make very strong and specific cultural claims about thirty years ago, which was itself a discordant and complicated mess of a culture--but at least if we go farther back, it is clear that poor people married and had sex and did so much earlier than people today. So the difference is not that there are poor people--in fact, so many Americans today are not remotely as poor as they would have been 100 years ago or would be in the third world--but that we have very different assumptions about what role one's economic and social situation should play within sex and marriage.
Exactly. So it seems to me that, from a consumer's point of view, the chip card roll-out was a failure in both convenience and security.
In convenience, it is slower, and it's just awkward to insert the card in the front. It should have been to the side of the machine. Even salespeople are often confused and more than half the time the chip slot is there but disabled and they ask you to slide it anyway.
In security, the main problems are both because of backwards compatibility. We still use signatures, no PINs, and so it's still a farce of a security measure that does not stop people from simply stealing your physical card. Secondly, since the magnetic strips are still usable on the card, and many stores do not even scan the chip, someone who steals the card does not even need to use the chip at all. In fact, I would imagine that it's still possible to clone cards so long as you only use them the magnetic strip scanners. Lastly, how does this at all help to secure Internet purchases, which now make up a huge amount of credit card commerce?
So the new pod design eliminates mid-air casualties. But it crushes bystanders on the ground when it lands after being ejected.
It all depends on what kind of notes you take and what for. I am a professor and I tend to jot down lots of quick thoughts that some day I may work into a publication or else post online. I also write down detailed notes on books, i.e. what important thing I found on what page. I tend to hand write notes on color-coded post-its in the book and then I transcribe these on the computer either by typing or by voice.
I used to use OneNote a long time ago because it is very versatile and it's easy to make charts, etc. I switched to Evernote (free) because I wanted my data to be synced and because of the utter simplicity of it. At the time I didn't like how I couldn't do color and formatting on Android and I still hate Evernote's awful tables.
However, I developed a Perl script that allows me to type up my book notes in plain text and then easily format and color-code them. the script then automatically imports the output into Evernote. The API--at least back when I made the script--is not terribly great, but it at least works and I don't have to fuss with stupid VBA. I think I just used a command line script.
I think these recent changes my seriously chase me away from Evernote, because I need more than two devices and the subscription fee is just outrageous. I have seriously thought of paying it before, but it just is not worth it when there's plenty of competition. Evernote is far from a great company; their UIs are often terrible and they hardly ever improve their apps in ways that actually help the users. For example, their UI just keeps getting more and more blinding white, and they will never add any option to be able to make it sensibly dark for those of us who have to stare at it all day. Thankfully I recently found an easy hack that at least improves it a little bit: https://discussion.evernote.com/topic/86645-solution-to-not-having-white-background-for-notes/
Nowadays I take most quick notes--like shopping lists--on my OneNote app on my Windows Phone. It sucks terribly, but it's much quicker than waiting for Evernote to load.
The study shows our primitive mind makes a lot of decisions for us. But nothing about free will.
Exactly. In fact, better studies have even shown that some pre-processing of visual information occurs before the signal even reaches the brain. This reinforces the conclusion that much of our cognition is essentially prior to the activity of consciousness, even though consciousness would be a presupposition of free-will. (For example, my mind determines that a glyph on a screen is the letter L and then sends my consciousness not the raw pixel data, as it were, but rather the glyph pre-interpreted as an L; once within consciousness, I may or make not make a decision in regard to this glyph.) Thus the only relevant statement that the present study can make with regard to free-will is that fast-paced declarations about the imminent future may be at least partially determined in advance by preprocessing that occurs prior to the full experience of consciousness.
Note that I say "declarations about the imminent future" and not "choices" or "decisions." This study does not really deal with free-will directly because the participants are not necessarily even intending to make real decisions but only to pronounce upon the future. (Some may even interpret this as a kind of "psychic" prediction.) Hence their conscious minds are essentially tasked with acting like random number generators. But it is no surprise if we are bad at being random, just as computers are not fully random. If you ask me to come up with a random number, I will almost certainly pick a number that I am already predisposed toward picking because of the situation around me, or because it is one of my favorites, or because I am trying to be crafty, or because it happens to currently on my mind, etc. I can never be certain that any random number that I generate is truly random.
But free-will is not reducible to randomness, and therefore a lack of genuine randomness is not tantamount to a lack of free-will. Free-will is not the ability to do something random, nor the ability to be absolutely undetermined by outside influences. (Ironically, this study, implies that free-will in this case would be the ability to be wrong about predicting colors.) Ultimately free-will is the ability to decide about oneself to take up the mass of conscious data and concrete, pre-determined factors and to weave them into a connected narrative of selfhood. Thus free-will is not incompatible with any kind of predetermination whatsoever. Quite the opposite, when we experience ourselves as having made a free decision, we can also look back at that decision and see that it "makes sense." Hence I experience myself as freely deciding to eat lunch; but this makes perfect sense because I am hungry, I have a lunch on hand, I am used to eating lunch at this time, etc. We are too used to looking for ridiculous exceptions in order to try to prove free-will, like I need to make a decision that makes absolutely no sense at all. However, free-will is something that--at least according to our own conscious experience--occurs not simply in such extreme and exceptional cases, but even in the most mundane and predictable parts of conscious life.
Haha, that quote is exactly what was going through my mind as I read this abstract, too.
The comment below by Reaper9889 is correct and thus highlights the fact that one could argue that the black hole goes to another universe but still kills whatever passes through. Nevertheless, this shows the silliness of the whole idea suggested now by Hawking. Any information that might be transferred to another universe would be essentially garbled beyond all recognition such that it would have only a nominal connection to this universe. A person goes in, and out in another universe comes some shadowy noise (of Hawking radiation?) that can never again be reassembled into a living person. On the other side, could we be sure that whatever "information" is really ever arriving from another universe? In fact, it is just as easy to conclude that whatever "arrives" is just random, meaningless noise with no basis in any universe whatsoever. Ockham's Razor would make such a multiverse assumption seem extremely improbable.
Perhaps the biggest problem, however, is that normal people read this kind of "news" and think that black holes are portals that might bring living people to other universes. Thankfully we don't have to worry about people throwing themselves into black holes any time soon, but people do turn this kind of gibberish into metanarratives of meaning--similar to how Bender is comforted by the thought that maybe she could still be alive in another universe. The thought of infinite other universes helps us to forget the pain and evils of this one. Example: "Maybe our little human civilization will be meaningful after all because some small little information about it will be able to reach another universe in some way and some other intelligent race will know that we once existed and that we were intelligent, after all." (Richard Dawkins says something similar to this in one of his books, but premised not on multiple universes but on the endless expanse of space.) "We maybe," I reply, "But maybe when that garbled, scratchy, noise that used to be information comes through to the other civilization, just maybe they won't give a damn. How meaningful will that be?"
You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.