Miscellaneous Tech News
-
-
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
And you'd likely only have to hit him once with that wrench. . .
-
@dustinb3403 i doubt youd often need to even hit them once.
-
-
@dustinb3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
And you'd likely only have to hit him once with that wrench. . .
Depends on what kind of drugs you use. Heroin? You can use the wrench all you want, he won't feel any of it, and won't know the password. Meth? You better be ready to get that wrench shoved up your ass and pulled out through your nose. PCP? He will be beating you with said wrench and laptop within 0.5 seconds, hopefully you will have already made peace with the deity of your choice.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Legal questions around border agents using your face to unlock your iPhone.
Again with Scott spinning his opinion on a news article by obfuscating the original title or even the url.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Legal questions around border agents using your face to unlock your iPhone.
And to answer Scott’s statement, legal precedents on one form of biometrics, fingerprints, are that it is perfectly legal.
This is why I reboot my iPhone immediately when entering customs or an situation with police.
You are, currently, legally protected from being forced to divulge a password.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
In answer to the article,and you spin, not a chance.
The average family buys new cars within a few years of paying one off, which is typically an5 year loan. Even at double, that is still every ten years.
Regulatory hurdles will be years long, and that is after the tech is finally actually out and safe.
-
@jaredbusch read their title, then read mine. Other than pointing out that it was BBC's opinion, there is no spin. None. Read them, where do you perceive the slightest spin whatsoever?
-
@jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
In answer to the article,and you spin, not a chance.
Remember, my "spin" was point out that their prediction was not universal but just theirs. So my "spin" and theirs are opposite. You see spin that doesn't exist that is contrary to what is actually there. You perceive that because I am a proponent of eliminating drivers, that even when I state something neutral or opposite to that, that I must be spinning it in in the way you anticipate me to do. But I simply am not doing that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@jaredbusch read their title, then read mine. Other than pointing out that it was BBC's opinion, there is no spin. None. Read them, where do you perceive the slightest spin whatsoever?
I did and no, they are not at all implying the thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
In answer to the article,and you spin, not a chance.
You perceive that because I am a proponent of eliminating drivers, that even when I state something neutral or opposite to that, that I must be spinning it in in the way you anticipate me to do. But I simply am not doing that.
You are incorrect. Words are words. And you use ones that the authors did not. It has nothing to do with your thoughts for or against. Just with you having to put in words that the authors do not.
I want driverless cars more than you. As I would benefit more immediately than younif they were available right now.
-
@jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@jaredbusch read their title, then read mine. Other than pointing out that it was BBC's opinion, there is no spin. None. Read them, where do you perceive the slightest spin whatsoever?
I did and no, they are not at all implying the thing.
Right, mine implies that it is BBC's opinion. Had I purely quoted it in my own voice, it would have been me adding my own statement of it being the case. In order to avoid the spin, I HAD to reword it as being a third party opinion. I added no spin of my own one direction or the other. But I avoided adding a strong spin that would occur had I simply quoted the title.
-
@jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
You are incorrect. Words are words. And you use ones that the authors did not. It has nothing to do with your thoughts for or against. Just with you having to put in words that the authors do not.
Rewording is standard journalism, not spin, though. Rewording to add spin, is adding spin. They are different things. To be spin, it must create a bias in the reader different than the original.
-
Spin from Cambridge dictionary: "a way of describing an idea or situation that makes it seem better than it really is, especially in politics".
Exactly the opposite of what I am doing - a careful rewording to describe an idea as closely as possible to what it is.
