Common hatred is a much more effective motivator than common goals. Sad, but true.

Acknowledging G W being demonstrably better than Trump is in no way an endorsement of him any more than acknowledging golden showers are cleaner than full blown fecalfilia is endorsing watersports....it's recognition that bad comes in gradations, not just pass/fail.

He gets recognition and justification without actually having to interact with people. You think that would be good enough for an extrovert?

I doubt that. ;-)

Except for territory they hold, I agree, Palestinian suffering is their only influence, and that's not much.

I agree, because we back them, Israel does as it pleases. I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints beyond Palestinian suffering, like constantly expanding borders and expulsion from historical holy sites.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state (where only barren desert is Palestinian with all water and access controlled by Israel, shut off at any hint of complaint).

The Palestinians do want a two state solution, just not one where any land worth having is Israel and the leftovers are Palestine.

Israel gains nothing from negotiating when they can get what they want, like recognition of another land grab (Jerusalem) without negotiating. That's why this move is horrendous, it gives them incentives to not negotiate and just act unilaterally.

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed. Given that, what's the option? Outright war? With us backing Israel, that's a no go.

I think, if given a solution that didn't give everything to Israel, the Palestinians would jump at it (maybe not Hamas, but the people). Being offered second class citizenship after having all their land and possessions taken is not workable, and it's what they seem to get.

If N Korea sells Iran a nuke, I hope we can we go back to negotiations instead of genocidal one sided dictations.

It is good to see that SkyNet's target recognition software is coming along, despite the delays based on the schedule we were taught.

Also, I am 10 angry ferrets in a suit, so I wonder how I would show up on this scan.

Apparently, voice recognition in a car (or using SIRI, or whatever the android version is) is as dangerous as actually using your phone while driving, primarily because it doesn't always work and drivers get annoyed.

source

Congratulations! Your video, Voice recognition technology in Scotland, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 119 Badge!

Your video, Voice recognition technology in Scotland, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think they join for the same base reason we post here. Recognition and a desire to be part of something.









Dag will be mailing your Koolaid packets shortly.

I'd love it if someone did memory-experiments on this, to see if it retained recognition between it's larval and adult stages.

Except that he didn't. He took that million, made investments, got a job with daddy, and within 15 years had accrued massive debt.

When his father died he got a massive inheritance. That's where his wealth comes from.

And, as John Oliver pointed out with great humor, Trump has had one failure after another as a businessman. But his name has recognition so it's useful as a brand. So OTHER people put his name on their buildings and such, and then he swaggers around taking credit for it.

You bought the yellow kool-aid, and now you're smiling through it and trying to tell us it doesn't taste like piss.

Ya...doesn't seem like a future-proof skill to have... computers, cameras, image recognition...all these things make this skill pretty irrelevant.

Right. Here are some facts.

The CIA isn't spying on most of us through our TVs right now, though they do have the technology to do it and have developed it specifically for that purpose.

So have countless other entities (government and independent. You can download the tech yourself if you care to, or have the technical ability).

Samsung is spying on you through your Samsung TV's
(http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/fine-print-on-one-of-samsungs-tvs-says-its-recording-your-voice/)

Any consumer products with voice recognition could be considered to be spying on you, such as Google and Amazon "home assistants".

Technically, by now anything with an active microphone has the capability to do this. It should probably be considered worse that it's not the government, but completely unknown third-parties who supply the infrastructure to do this on a massive scale for the purposes of data mining for advertising.

I have personal experience with this technology and the industries that develop and distribute it. This isn't hearsay or conjecture. I will never understand why it's acceptable for unchecked third-party corporations to spy on you, but once the government does it, a slightly larger minority gets upset.

There are some valid points here, but I think there are multiple interpretations to these issues and it's not so clear cut.

I'll just pick an easy one. Trigger warnings are no more a restriction of free speech then calling a movie rated R VS PG13, it's just more specific, so lets get that out of the way. Take a read of a classic like John Stuart Mills “On Liberty”. He does a great dissemination of freedom and balancing it with causing harm developing the harm principle and the offense principle. It's well thought out and addresses these very issues. There is a recognition that free speech should be regulated depending on if it causes harm. For instance it's illegal to yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater since it could cause harm from a stampede of people trying to leave. I apologize if I get things wrong, but the following is my understanding here, but look here if you're interested. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Theory_of_liberty)

It's a difficult concept to define what is an act of harm. In general this is highly related to concepts of political correctness and has it's very roots in classical liberal thought. In my understanding, Mill would say not to restrict free speech in the case offense only in the case of harm. However, psychology and neuroscience make this line less distinct in caseses of trama or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual, not just offense. This means that harm is less universal and depends on the individual and it leads to the idea of separating spaces based on the line between offense and harm. My understanding is the idea of rating systems, red light districts come from this. Also, now, a newer concept of safe spaces. It's easy to say that people should just suck it up, but it's not always that clear cut and there is historical precedence for this idea.