Too early, almost, and THEN too late.
Too early, almost, and THEN too late.
I don't know if you are deliberately misunderstanding or what.
When I say:
--> I don't want to live in a society where you can beat someone with a pipe and not go to jail because the guy who took the photo didn't ask
I am not talking about you using violence to stop people taking your picture.
I am talking about some random person taking a picture of a crime in progress, and the criminal walks because the photographer didn't ask his permission to photograph the crime.
I am talking about giving criminals an reasonable expectation of privacy in public means they can do whatever they want, because no photographic evidence of their crime will ever be admissible. That is what I see you advocating.
I feel you are being more of a troll here, deliberately misunderstanding to be a prat; if you honestly don't understand the difference between taking a picture in a public place and deliberately invading their personal space you need some help.
I stand by original "don't do things in public that you want kept private, most of us learn that before we are out of grade school", you address little except trollish misunderstandings. I am specifically talking about photography not taking videos, and nothing in the article supports any such ban.
That being said:
Full transparency can only support freedom, if everyone can record everyone else, then it's harder to lie about who did what. If only certain people are allowed to record people in public then they can conveniently lose anything they don't wish to share. hint: you are already being recorded in lots of places, many businesses have security cameras. Those that do stand in an advantaged position if there is a dispute and they control the sole recording.
You suggestion is like the difference between leaning on the bar, and walking up to someone and leaning on them, in a bar. If I want to take pictures of people in a public place, and publish, I have to get waivers/permission and stuff after the picture is taken. But when I am on my own just taking photos of the city, sites, landmarks, etc. not framing faces, but framing shots that have people in them, I don't have any requirement to ask them first.
Get this, if you are in public you don't have privacy. I don't want to live in a society where you can beat someone with a pipe and not go to jail because the guy who took the photo didn't ask your permission first. pro tip: don't do things in public that you want kept private, most of us learn that before we are out of grade school.
Try visiting a larger town, or even a city. See if you go to places where there are more than one or two people present it becomes increasingly more of a burden to for someone to talk to a bunch of strangers, now tell me why it's more reasonable to ask me to ask each of thousands of people if it's all right to snap a picture of a landmark, rather than one person being required to speak to me to say they don't want their picture taken. (and by the way all they can reasonable ask is that I not publish it)
The only innovation is the taking money from "training partners" for so profoundly changing everything Micro$oft every few years that every office worker in the world, who uses M$ products, has to go in for training every few years. The training places were going down the tubes because everyone learned windows and office and stuff, and nobody needed training anymore. Anything you didn't use very often you could just Google. (since M$ help is useless)
Now that they've changed everything (twice? three times?) not only can you not jump from one version to another without grinding the mental gears but you can't even get an easy answer with a search engine, since there are twelve different ways of doing things and only one works in your situation.
I don't KNOW that they are taking money to deliberately change everything, but it sure makes sense.
If they aren't they need to fire they guy who came up with the idea of changing everything so radically so often... out of a cannon.
Why? Let them use their money to build their own space station.
If you send up enough of them, that's exactly what they will have done.
The other part missing is the when online merchant DOESN'T charge $10, they charge $7. So the M&P store is really whining that they can't make $8 of profit on a $10 sale, they don't want to drop their prices to match (as a rule) AND have to pay sales tax.
Then the $3 shipping looks really good, even better when free shipping comes in... (i.e. they buy more to hit the free shipping cut)
And there is the REAL reason sales tax doesn't get collected, the sales tax rules are so complex that the B&M are barely able to keep the rules for their one physical location straight, much less the rest of the country/world.
Is amazon (US) supposed to charge VAT on orders by residents of EU member countries?
I know that amazon.uk is smart enough NOT to charge me VAT when I order from them. (I am in US)
Actually the reason I buy stuff online has nothing to do with sales tax, it has to do with availability and price. Many of the things I want to buy are not available locally, and everything that is available locally is far more expensive BEFORE sales tax is added in, and harder to find.
They don't WANT to understand, that's too hard, they want to dictate. They still don't grasp that they will get busted every time they go down monopoly way.
I think it's more the apps. The different app vendors were stumbling over themselves to make their apps as similar to their DOS versions so that when their customers went to windows they didn't have to relearn the apps. So the move forward was more about making everyone comfortable with the part that mattered, the apps, and the OS was just window dressing (so to speak).
Now, I have to think M$ is in bed with training outfits, as they seem to go out of their way to force you the go to school to figure out how to use their apps ever release.
Couple that with all the seemingly malicious changes to simple OS stuff to make it harder to find, I think they have drifted away completely from the whole reason this all came off the ground in the first place. Users not being forced away from their comfort zone.
Yeah, I only watched in 3D one/first time.
Yeah, everywhere I looked, when I bought last year) there either wasn't a non-3D choice for bluray player or TV, or the 3D version was enough less expensive (with the same feature set otherwise) that going non-3D didn't make any sense. The only reason II used the 3D at all was because the TV came with a 3D movie. It was a horrible experience. But it seems they are desperately trying to get people to have all the tech in their homes, so they can push the stupid 3D discs... I pass.
Since the 1950s there has been 3D after 3D after 3D but all anyone wants is the hologram of Princess Leia from the movie.
There are lots of problems with stereoscopic "3D". Your eyes (actually your brain)determine distance both by rangefinding and focus. When the two don't match (and they seldom will in a stereoscopic movie), many people get headaches.
Then there's the stupid glasses you have to wear.
Then there's the fact that 3D isn't really necessary.
But if you like 3D, never fear, it'll be back. It always is. As soon as a new crop of kids come around who think "3D" is new it will ressurect, just as it's done for over sixty years now.
I think you hit it with focus part. I always thought the reason I liked the 3D in Avatar was that it was environmental, it wasn't the focus of your attention as much as just there. They might have better luck with it if they kept the 3D to the edges instead of trying to jump your primary focus out of the screen, or at least reduce my headaches. I know I am altering the literal sense of the word focus from your intent, but I still think it applies.
>"outlaw any questioning of scientific theories" ??
Where are the scientists who welcome the teaching of alternatives to the theory of evolution? No, they lobby hard to pass laws making it illegal to teach any ideas that question the theory. Every year, a fragment of a jaw bone found in the "wrong" place causes scientists to go into a frenzy to rewrite the tree of evolution, but that's besides the point.
I'm sure people would be tripping over themselves to examine an alternate theory, I have yet to hear of one.
If they want to be treated as science, then they have to do the work, no magic sky fairies or other untestable rubbish.
> Are You asking for a 5-billion-year-long experiment ??
Yes. Otherwise the assumptions are non-falsifiable, and we might as well believe the writing on stone tablets found on a mountain somewhere.
That's just so completely wrong, plenty of stuff in the ToE is falsifiable; most of the deniers just whine that "none of those thing happen" and think the theory is at fault for being consistent with reality.
>Evolution isn't statistics. Geology isn't statistics. Cosmology isn't statistics.
They absolutely are. Journals for all three topics mention p-values all the time.
Stats can be used to assist in analyzing data, but they are just a tool, they are not the science.
Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"