Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android coming to wearables

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 206 posts

Re: Android coming to wearables

#161

Post by nacs »

Nanzikambe wrote: post #112
nileshtrivedi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, what's really illegal is "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" which covers oral and anal sex - both heterosexual and homosexual.

Who on earth made that law? I mean seriously, what rational, feeling human being thinks: "Oral Sex? Ew! No thank you! Best make that illegal!" There's a world view I can't imagine.

This kind of thing exists to this day even in the US:

"Georgia code section 16-6-2 provides a 1 to 20 year mandatory sentence for any adults consenting to "any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another". Married couples are not excluded from this law." -http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_states_is_Fellatio_ill...

Re: Android coming to wearables

#162

Post by njharman »

Nanzikambe wrote: post #112
nileshtrivedi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, what's really illegal is "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" which covers oral and anal sex - both heterosexual and homosexual.

Who on earth made that law? I mean seriously, what rational, feeling human being thinks: "Oral Sex? Ew! No thank you! Best make that illegal!" There's a world view I can't imagine.

> I mean seriously, what rational, feeling human being thinks:

Christian, esp the various puritan sub-sects. Oral sex being socially acceptable is relatively new. 40yrs or less. As a kid in 70's I'd get in trouble for saying "suck". My parents considered it an obscene word as bad as "fuck".

Re: Android coming to wearables

#163

Post by aestra »

quest88 wrote: post #142
angersock wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope--issue came to a head after my insurance company wanted me to put a GPS tracker in my car to get lower rates. So, I do without now. If I decide it's unavoidable, I'll buy an ancient clunker (preferably one with as little electronics in it as possible, think classic car).

Whoah! What insurance company is that?!

Tons. I am going to say the majority. It is optional though. You usually get a discount just for signing up, then you get an additional discount for your driving

Progressive, Travels, Allstate, The Hartford...

They not only track your location, they track your speed, the amount of quick stops you make (an indication you are tailgating), and time of day (some times of day are more risky than others statistically), and how much you drive. People who drive at low risk times, don't drive very fast, don't make quick stops, and drive only a little bit get discounts. Usually you leave the device in your car for 6 months-1 year and your discount is forever. My insurance (Travelers) gives you a 30% discount max. You can also log on online and view all your stats.

You plug a device into your OBD-II port.

There are significant privacy issues at hand here. In one case, it can be argued that you shouldn't be tracked, in another case it can be argued that driving is extremely dangerous (more dangerous than many people assume) and every attempt should be made to make driving safer. Humans have already demonstrated that they will alter their driving behavior for financial gains.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage-based_insurance

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457511...

[2] http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/will-insurers-pay-you-no...

Re: Android coming to wearables

#164

Post by yincrash »

nacs wrote: post #161
Nanzikambe wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who on earth made that law? I mean seriously, what rational, feeling human being thinks: "Oral Sex? Ew! No thank you! Best make that illegal!" There's a world view I can't imagine.

This kind of thing exists to this day even in the US: "Georgia code section 16-6-2 provides a 1 to 20 year mandatory sentence for any adults consenting to "any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another". Married couples are not excluded from this law." - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_states_is_Fellatio_ill...

All of these laws were completely struck down in a Supreme Court decision in 2003[1]. Georgia also struck down their specific one earlier in 1998 [2].

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._Georgia

Re: Android coming to wearables

#165

Post by hahainternet »

nfoz wrote: post #111
psbp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't Google's ad monetization practices fairly transparent? You can see all the data collected in the dashboard, you can see how ads are targeted under the ad settings. It seems like people are alluding to Google's data usage as some sort of black box where it seems pretty open to me.

Their practices are fairly transparent, they show me that they sell my info in a way that I dislike.

Except they don't. They sell your potential clicks.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#166

Post by some_guy_there »

nacs wrote: post #161
Nanzikambe wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who on earth made that law? I mean seriously, what rational, feeling human being thinks: "Oral Sex? Ew! No thank you! Best make that illegal!" There's a world view I can't imagine.

This kind of thing exists to this day even in the US: "Georgia code section 16-6-2 provides a 1 to 20 year mandatory sentence for any adults consenting to "any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another". Married couples are not excluded from this law." - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_states_is_Fellatio_ill...

Judges in any of those state, bound by the Supremacy clause, will have to throw out those cases following Lawrence v Texas. If they won't do it, a federal court will be glad to do it on their behalf.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#167

Post by lewaldman »

nileshtrivedi wrote: post #82
dictum wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in my nation (India) being gay is illegal Sorry for the flame material, but why is it that this is rarely mentioned in western news media (at least in the countries whose news I follow)? For those who, like me, didn't know that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India

Actually, what's really illegal is "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" which covers oral and anal sex - both heterosexual and homosexual.

Define "nature".

Afaik several species beyond our own do oral/anal sex.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#169

Post by CodeMage »

smokinjoe wrote: post #54
kshatrea wrote: post #3

I am in the position of being torn apart by two very strong feelings. One is the world where information flow due to companies like Google does a real service to humanity: for e.g. wearing devices that can keep us reminded of our meds or monitor sugar levels, to talk just about the possibilities in healthcare. Then I think of Edward Snowden and I now know that what Google knows, maybe America/Russia/China/WhatHaveYou…

More and more I'm thinking that some sort of Digital Bill of Rights is necessary to carry on in this technological-based World. At first I always thought of it as a nice thing, but perhaps a little too abstract or extreme to really do what it needs to do. However now we have some very large and real threats to our personal lives via this medium. I just feel like it makes a lot of good sense to produce something of th…

Call me defeatist, but when I see an existing Bill of Rights being violated so frequently and carelessly, I don't think a new Bill of Rights would be a solution.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#170

Post by astrange »

nawitus wrote: post #134
k-mcgrady wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find myself also questioning this often. It leads to me regularly switching between iOS and Android, Google services and Apple services. Ideally I would like privacy but I think as we go forward keeping privacy would leave you in the same kind of position someone like RMS is in by sticking to his Free Software philosophy so strongly. I'm always surprised at the number of friends and family I see who have their Face…

>I'm always surprised at the number of friends and family I see who have their Facebook set to public - especially considering what they post. I think that's actually smart. In reality the privacy setting on Facebook has no real effect on privacy, because companies and the NSA will still get your information. You might as well treat everything you post on Facebook as public.

> because companies

Which companies?

> the NSA

You mean, law enforcement agencies who specifically request your information with a subpoena?

Post reply on HN