Slashdot Mirror

If only a single employee had done this, they'd be sent to prison for fraud, right after being fired. But because this behavior was so widespread and apparently came from top levels, what is corporate person that is Wells Fargo to face?

If 5300 people got sent to prison, the entire culture of underlings doing awful things to please asshole bosses would be interrupted. But, ahem, that would not be good for the Corporatist Oligarchy.

Yes, again I agree, but it's really difficult because ultimately that disregard for one's own life can actually make the net situation worse. You read about drownings in the paper all the time. Often some bystander or one of the parent's tries to save a drowning child and either they both perish, or the child is saved and the adult dies. Yes, the adult was being extremely brave and made the ultimate sacrifice. But what if that adult had other children who are now without their parent? One could argue that the net loss in such a case is worse than if the drowning child had been left to die.

The extreme outcome of this way of thinking is absolute tragedy such as this, which sickens me to even think about. How could that "rescue team" live with themselves after letting that happen?

Where's the balance? I don't think I'm wise enough to know....

Whether it's Monsanto and RoundUp-resistant weeds, or bananas and Panama disease : Nature adapts, while man-made genes don't. If humans modify their genes, the "most-popular genes" will become a larger and larger portion of the population, leading to a lack of genetic diversity, making for a wonderful opportunity for some disease to conquer them all, or some natural change to make it difficult for that portion of the population to adapt. As it's been said before, "Nature finds a way."

I make all my questionable purchases using bull sperm. It's like liquid gold.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

The connection to pollinators alone is serious but we don't know how Gaia works, really. We don't know anything. Hubris will be our downfall. "So are there any downsides to removing mosquitoes? According to Phil Lounibos, an entomologist at Florida University, mosquito eradication "is fraught with undesirable side effects". He says mosquitoes, which mostly feed on plant nectar, are important pollinators. They are also a food source for birds and bats while their young - as larvae - are consumed by fish and frogs. This could have an effect further up and down the food chain." source: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

This is hypothetical. Even if somebody indiscriminately releases millions of genetically modified death-skeeters, it would not make mosquitoes extinct. There are more than 3,500 species of mosquito, for one. Also, from the BBC article, "Would it be wrong to eradicate mosquitoes?

The question is likely to remain hypothetical, whatever the level of concern over Zika, malaria and dengue. Despite the success of reducing mosquito numbers in smaller areas, many scientists say knocking out an entire species would be impossible.

"There's no silver bullet," says Hawkes. "Field trials using GM mosquitoes have been a moderate success but involved releasing millions of modified insects to cover just a small area.

"Getting every female mosquito to breed with sterile males in a large area would be very difficult. Instead we should be looking to combine this with other techniques."

The Soviet Union ultimately fell to a popular uprising, inasmuch as the hardliners lost their nerve during the 1991 coup. Were you around for this, with Yeltsin on top of a tank? Maybe not...here's a BBC link. This was all like it was yesterday to me, but it is 25 years ago now. Enough time for someone to grow up to adulthood without knowing about it.

As for what happened before, Gorbachev's 'glasnost' and 'perestroika' policies were essentially driven by a reformist Communist agenda. He believed that by changing the way the state ran, the economic system could be preserved. He was wrong. The hardliners in the 1991 coup wanted to restore the full Soviet package of repression and isolation, but realized they lacked sufficient support to make it happen.

After the coup, the constituent states of the Soviet Union all opted out by the end of 1991, and it passed into history. Anyway, I don't see how you don't call this a popular uprising. Gorby was trying to avoid a civil war by reforming, but in the end the people basically kicked him out of his job and went their own way.

The Chinese were a lot smarter about this - junk the socialist economic system and keep the authoritarianism. It's a lot more functional, though they're running into a brick wall now with that.

According to BBC, Tim Cook is lying about how much tax Apple has paid:
"He claimed that Apple paid tax at a rate of 26% around the world, that isn't the whole story.

Apple works out its tax rate as if it had paid taxes due in the US at a rate of 35%.

But the actual payment of those taxes is deferred - till when, nobody knows.

Maybe until US taxes come down or some special tax amnesty is agreed to repatriate hundreds of billions that Apple and others keep off US shores in the tax equivalent of outer space.

In fact, the scramble to avoid paying tax at 35% is the reason the whole structure exists in the first place."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

It all depends how you read the quote. Just like exam questions. I read it the same way you did, now see they probably meant this was the 'exact same configuration', as opposed to 'previously flown'. Choice of words can be a huge thing in conveying a clear message. Of course, they may have chosen the wording to confuse?

BTW I got my clarification that it wasn't a previously flown stage from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

Challenge accepted, nutjob detected.

A weak attempt to marginalize the OP with the standard tactic of conflation. Mindless indeed.

Challenge accepted, nutjob detected.

In my world, we rely on practical tests of functionality *with the actual users* rather than theoretical measures of effectiveness. It seems the CDC agrees with me on this one.

As to one of your other points:

"The bottom line is that a single act of intercourse between a young couple has on average a one in 20 chance of pregnancy – this assumes the opportunity presented itself on a random day, as these things tend do when you are young."

Source

So the answer is based on how often you fuck. The CDC numbers do not map precisely to data of this sort, however.

Last point: "measuring the effectiveness of encouraging people not to fuck" sounds like the craptastic questionnaire-based research I saw at (not to pick on them) the Lehigh psych department in the early 2000s. People lie, and they can't simulate the paths not taken effectively. There would literally be no way to know if someone decided to not have sexual intercourse based on an abstinence campaign.

Besides, my kind of abstinence campaign would be "Blowjobs for Everyone" or "Real lovers wank each other".

Get your facts straight.

18 November 2010

Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Ms Nye says he has not been available for questioning.

13 August 2015

Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into one accusation of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion against Mr Assange because they have run out of time to question him. The more serious allegation of rape is not due to expire until 2020.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

He's hiding from Swedish justice and has fought extradition, that's why he hasn't been "charged". He's another Roman Polanski, without the excuse of having his pregnant wife stabbed to death by homeless cult members.

The guy is a rapist and a coward.

Okay, I usually don't respond to the posts that are flagrantly insulting, but I'm going to make an effort here to respond in kind. Bear with me.

You idiot, they didn't "release information about a gay Saudi", they published more than half a million Saudi diplomatic cables which contained, among many many other things, the fact that this one guy had been arrested for homosexuality. Wikileaks is not a revenge site, where people like you go to post the private information of a girlfriend who dumped you when she found you had skidmarks larger than your dick. Wikileaks is a place where whistle blowers go to publish some of the secrets that very large organizations, mainly governments, hide from those people whom these secrets effect.

It is true that smarter people than you have criticized this approach to journalism, and those people may have a point: huge amounts of documents like this can not be censored for potentially harmful or embarrassing personal information prior to their release. Even if they could be, Wikileaks might not be willing to do so - they have built their reputation on total transparency, with the understanding that only when you receive a whole document, without redaction, can you be certain of its contents. Much as Hillary Clinton has received a lot of criticism for self-censoring emails from her server, so does Wikileaks avoid that criticism by censoring nothing.

(Now would be a good time to pause for a moment and make sure that your drool is not getting on your keyboard while you read this. Consider a bib.)

But, as I said, there are people who are not idiots who have pointed out problems with this approach. Most of those criticisms have taken the form of the TFA: when the US diplomatic cables were released there was much hand-wringing about all the lives that they would cost when sources were revealed. That didn't happen, but it was the same argument then as now: such a huge number of documents are bound to include a few embarrassing or possibly even dangerous tidbits about individuals. Some of those people went on to make the same implied argument as in TFA, "If we don't keep secrets, someone might get hurt." though previously they were less stupid about it than trying to suggest that if someone found out that a man had been arrested for homosexuality he might be... arrested for homosexuality. I don't know about Saudi Arabia specifically, but in most places arrest records are public information. (Was this written by someone you know? They seem to be writing at your level.)

Regarding my opinion about all of this: I'm uncertain about what's best for the public good, but if Wikileaks maintains an unflinching absolutism it's bound to get them in trouble eventually. I don't think that the TFA's method of cherry-picking a tiny tidbit out of a huge stack of information and shouting, "Look how much damage Wikileaks is doing!" is acting in the public's favor though. In fact, I think that sort of misinformation is very much against the best interests of the public.

I might further make a distinction between private information, personal records, and secrets, but any kind of subtlety like that would be lost on you, I'm sure. So I'm going to stop there.

And today BBC reports that a King penguin was made a Brigadier in Edinburgh :)

Scotland Yard, for one, has a bunch of specialists with a talent for grainy security footage. It's taken a while, but now that super-recognizers are actually looking through all that footage, it looks like the cameras in London are starting to put people in jail.

Where I live, it seems cameras have at least convinced crooks to put on ski-masks before they rob a bank teller or a convenience store. I've got mixed feelings about a world gone all Minority Report, but if you live in a neighborhood where this kind of shit-crime is common, you start to get frustrated at the grainy blob on the 11 o'clock news carjacking a lady at a gas station. It's these assholes who'll make it easy for toothy salesmen to sell politicians on armed security drones, DNA sniffers, cyborg security-dogs, and whatever else crazy shit the future has in store for us.

You're an idiot.

So, on October 2nd the countries, where it is Ok to block the entire populace from foreign Internet-resources, where "hate speech", "blasphemy", and mocking the president or king are criminal offences — they will all have more say in how the network is operated than before. Yay!

It's awful because it judges people to be dangerous based on a small number of bad individuals.

Small? 51% of America's Muslims would rather be governed by Sharia. That's huge, not small.

existing fences do next to nothing

Huh? Would you care to substantiate this?

what works for Israel and their much, much smaller border is unlikely to work for the US-Mexico border

Why is it "unlikely" to work? And mean work as in "make crossing harder and policing easier" — it does not have to eliminate the problem, the wall just has to reduce it.

the reasons for crossing are different - there's too much money and opportunity in border crossings

The reasons are different, but the difference is in favor of my (and Trump's) argument: terrorists trying to cross into Israel are highly motivated men bent on murder. Folks crossing into the US are (mostly) coming here for economic opportunities. If the crossing is too difficult (hence too expensive) far fewer of them will be crossing. And they'll be less likely to bring their pregnant wives with them, thus reducing the problem of "anchor babies".

Ah, so legal immigrants only have to not send money back home

Yes. It is — and always has been — legitimate for governments to tax, what they wish to discourage. Trump may even simply freeze the remittances — the way Iran's accounts were frozen — until Mexico agrees to do, what he wishes. And then unfreeze the monies...

But when you have large, nonpartisan agreement, and actual empirical proof

All you've shown were publications in popular press. I don't blame you — neither of us is an economist. But, given the profession's failures, susceptibility to opinions and tendency to be politically-influenced, I wouldn't be basing a decision on the opinions of those "experts".

That doesn't mean we should double down on them and vow to kill even more innocents

The point is, we may end up killing far fewer if we threaten to target not bystanders, but the terrorists' kin. But killing may not be necessary — simply seizing these people may be sufficient.

I'm saying even if it is effective, we shouldn't do it.

Your sentiment does credit to your morality. And yet, it is akin to the sort of misguided pacifism, that frowns on "killing" until it is too late and the pacifist's own blood reddens the sand...

Would you accept demolishing the terrorists' homes and detaining their children (up to age 3) for an anonymous adoption in the US?

I dislike the "give serious consideration" to funding yet more research in areas that have been thoroughly debunked

What research "debunked" the idea, that porn — in the amounts available today — is harmful? What makes you dismiss the idea, that it may be a reason (at least partial) today's youth aren't interested in sex, for example?

are harmful to free expression

Are you saying, production of pornography is protected by the First Amendment? If so, even child pornography is protected... But, if we can exempt certain kinds of "expression" based on the harm it is causing, it would be legitimate to evaluate the harm — or lack thereof, would it not be?

Either way, this pornography thing is minuscule compared to the rest of your "beef" with Trump, it is hardly worth discussing.

Or I could vote third party

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful.

Why is it awful? You may or may not agree, that it would help, but what is "awful" about it? It is not "simply" a religion — no other religion that I know of specifies a particular form of government as the only one acceptable. Most are mum on it, while Christianity explicitly leaves "Cæsar's to Cæsar". Donald Trump's page, to which you linked yourself, has links to results of a poll of Muslims already in the US showing, they would like to be governed by Sharia rather than the Constitution. Arguably, a President — who's solemn responsibility is upholding the document — would be derelict of his main duty, if he allowed even more people with such opinions to enter the country and become citizens. This is not much different than blocking Communists and Nazis from immigrating...

And before you say "First Amendment" — stop. Insults against Islam are already deadly dangerous — and even the "moderate" Muslims would like it to be illegal. When Iran called for murder of Salman Rushdee, Margaret Thatcher gave the man state's protection. Today we are more likely to see the victim blamed for his own "intolerance". For example, instead of the state's protection, the would-be Koran-burner was asked to pay for additional police presence out of his own pocket in order to exercise his First Amendment rights. Trump is more likely to reverse this unfortunate trend, and that is a good thing...

reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims

It is increasingly hard to make a distinction. But the ban Trump is proposing is not permanent — rather it is "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". That is, until reliable methods of separating "Islamists from Muslims" (your choice of terms, not mine) can be developed.

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea

Why is it "ridiculous"? When Israel implemented their wall — which critics were calling ridiculous and evil too — the number of terrorism-related deaths inside Israel plummeted.

Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income.

As Trump points out, most of the remittances originate from illegal immigrants. Now, such illegality might not warrant death penalty or even incarceration, but any and all financial penalties are perfectly justified. What of the legal immigrants? Well, they too can easily avoid this "tax" you disapprove of by holding on to their monies — it will achieve Trump's goal anyway. Because the goal is not to rob these folks, but to compel Mexico to (help) pay for the wall construction.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists

Economics are a scandalously unscientific discipline. Frustrated Harry Truman once demanded to see a "one-handed economist" — so exasperated he became of the endless "one the one hand/on the other hand" coming from his economic advisers.

Now I am for free trade — not because it is effec

At least one.

Do you guys actually vote for this shit to happen?

Technically yes, but since the US uses a first past the post system and both major parties there support paid health care, just with different ideas about how the insurance should work (Democrats more or less believe most people should be able to get insurance, Republicans believe that you have to let people die to encourage the other people to buy insurance effectively).

I don't think they were ever presented with a democratic choice to have universal health care or anything near it. Generally the evidence that the US is an oligarchy not a democracy seems quite clear.

Given the past support, 1964 Brazilian coup d'état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Is Brazil the target of industrial espionage?" (17 October 2013)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
US allies Mexico, Chile and Brazil seek spying answers (1 July 2013)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

Even getting something to the point where it could launch a harpoon that would unfurl a flag on the Moon is insanely hard. I'd be very surprised if a company that has about a 50% chance of its short-range missiles exploding on the launchpad and has only just managed to put something vaguely in LEO (and not in its intended orbit) would be able to get there in 10 years.

People said the same about Europe's Eurofighter Typhoon 5 years ago, and yet it's already having to intercept 4.5th Gen Russian fighters that are infringing European airspace in the Baltic.

You should read more news.

Is that why you have people calling 999 to report that their cat has been playing with string for over two hours straight, or that two actors were fighting on a television show?

And don't get me started on Brexit...

If we had an article for every security vulnerability/backdoor found in a Microsoft product, it'd be impossible to find anything else on Slashdot.

What's newsworthy in this case is that the vulnerability remains unpatched since 1997. That is older than some of my kids. That's almost old enough to drink.

That's not unprecedented either: http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...

Insightful comment - I can throw in another name being the WHO (who refused to name Zika a danger to the Olympics as well). Those are the experts that are supposed to protect the athletes, as everyone would agree that they would not hesitate one second to accept the supposed risk of the health situation in that country. In that case, the experts are supposed to come in and take the decision. They didn't, and it is a shame that we can all see the scandal coming and no-one cared enough. I feel for the athletes.

Russian security teams also use typewriters to avoid this very problem

Even if velocity had been the car's decision (it wasn't), autonomous cars will go somewhat above the speed limit if surrounding traffic does. It's the right thing to do.
And of course the car logs its speed. I would expect it to. Having an autopilot feature that deliberately doesn't log data would expose Tesla to much greater liability.

China supplies 80% medicines
http://m.bbc.com/news/business...

The device range is tested, tuned, looked for, amplified by another device to just outside the building.
Collection is then just a local device away e.g. UK spied on Russians with fake rock http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... "contained electronic equipment and had been used by British diplomats to receive and transmit information".
Thats how the range problem is never an issue. The real trick is getting nations, people, groups to use and trust leaky fully imported wireless devices.

US President Barack Obama's half-brother, Malik Obama, says he will vote for Donald Trump. http://www.bbc.com/news/electi...

Some big auto makers have already reduced development in EVs or have decided to market them in only certain markets

Like who? As far as I can tell most manufacturers are ramping up, in some cases massively so. There appears to be a general recognition across manufacturers that the electric market is taking off fast and they all have plans to capitalize on it. I'm sure some will stumble on the way and some markets will be more receptive than others but that's the way of things.

As for Apple, I see no time now or in the future where they will make their own cars. They don't even make their own electronic devices and manufacturing a car is a vastly more complex endeavour. More likely they'll pay a 3rd party to build it for them or they'll buy out a manufacturer or gain a controlling interest. Even then developing a new vehicle from scratch is hard, particularly (since this is Apple) they would wish to build and own the infrastructure that goes with it.

I expect that's where most of these makers see profit - with a petrol vehicle their revenue stops with the sale of the car, but with electric they can lease batteries, bill for charging, subscription services etc. They see Tesla doing it and they want a piece of that action too. The dangerous bit is that unless governments mandate a common charging and billing infrastructure things could get horribly proprietary and fragmented very quickly.

Lithuania.

Do you not remember the moral panic in the 1980's over Dungeons and Dragons? Or the Judas Priest subliminal message trial?

All society's suffer from this sort of insanity from time to time.

So frequently one will attack people, saying that it is for Islam, but then everyone will say "it wasn't really, he's just insane".

I think you have this backwards. If a Muslim guy kills half a dozen people, the media headlines say "Terrorist Attack"! If a random white guy kills half a dozen people, the media story says "Another mass shooting by an insane guy." But the number of "insane guys" who do mass shootings outnumbers the number of Muslim guys-- thousands of killings by ordinary Americans, versus a handful by Muslims..
(source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... )

A harder question is: why are Americans so terrorized, when the actual threat is trivial? http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2...

It's perfectly fine that Microsoft spies on you because Windows 10 is free! Unlike evil GOOGLE, who reads your email to find people who do things they don't like!

God, I'm tired of refuting this stupid shill argument. Google's services are free. They tell you explicitly what they do with your data. Google does not have a monopoly on email, you're free to use many other providers. Since I'm concerned about my privacy, I only use gmail as a spam box.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has been evasive and deceptive about collecting peoples' data, completely silent about what they *do* with that information, and they collect all this info by leveraging their de facto monopoly on the desktop OS market (yes, you can use macOS or GNU, but billions of dollars of legacy Win32 programs and contracts are wrapped up on Microsoft's end, and so switching is not so simple for the privacy-concerned).

It's perfectly fine that Microsoft spies on you because Windows 10 is free! Unlike evil GOOGLE, who reads your email to find people who do things they don't like!

He is just bombing them.
Erdogan is far worse than Putin. At least Russians are still allowed to leave Russia and Putin made it perfectly clear that death penalty is unconstitutional due to the right to life.

Like wagging your finger at your kid's bully? The sort of ASBO tripe that passes for serious crime in the UK sets one hell of a low bar, and opens a wide door to abuse.

The authorities seem clueless as to how to stop terrorists attacks around the world. What's are all the spying and warrantless requests actually going towards?

They don't seem clueless. Here, from the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

Since the London bombings of a decade ago, Britain has managed to avoid such a mass attack. But statistics show it has been a close-run thing. Forty terrorist plots have been disrupted since 2005 - including seven in the past 18 months.

It's no accident that this country has not yet endured a Paris, Brussels or Nice. Britain's defences against terrorist attack depend not just on the watery buffer of the English Channel and our non-membership of Schengen - Europe's border-free area. Crucially they also rely on the way in which intelligence is now intimately shared between all the agencies: the Security Service (MI5), MI6, GCHQ - and the police. This is the key to keeping Britain safe - although it's by no means guaranteed.

But effective intelligence-sharing in the UK didn't happen overnight - as the history of combating Irish and Islamist terrorism shows. In many years of covering the conflict in Northern Ireland, I lost count of the number of times I was assured that intelligence-sharing had never been closer and the IRA was on the run. Both were fictions.

All that has dramatically changed. The Security Service and local counter-terrorism police officers now work closely together and share all intelligence. The barriers are down. MI5's door is open. This shared intelligence is then passed upwards to the pinnacle of Britain's counter-terrorist pyramid where it's sifted and analysed by MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the police at their weekly meetings in MI5's London headquarters. A further benefit of shared intelligence is that the agencies and police - both at home and abroad - now all work from a single list of targets - the contents and length of which are a closely guarded national secret.
These are the hard-learned lessons that have kept Britain relatively safe for the past decade. But, as the intelligence services and the police here are at pains to point out, there is no guarantee that it will always be so.

Now this BBC news story looks like it came directly out of a PR spokesperson from the intelligence agencies, so I don't know how much of it is true. But I wouldn't automatically assume it's all false.

Well, you're getting some hate but this article from the BBC seems to agree with you.

http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...

"That allure has been boosted by the fall in the value of the pound since Brexit - making UK targets cheaper and many industry watchers are predicting a new wave of foreign takeovers."

The Nice attacker "... did not seem overtly religious. Locals said he was often seen drinking beer and never attended the small mosque near his block of flats. ... had been in trouble with police between 2010 and 2016 for threatening behaviour, violence and petty theft. In March, a court in Nice convicted him of assaulting a motorist with an improvised weapon - a wooden pallet ... "

Source: BBC.

The Paris attackers (the two Abdeslam brothers, one who blew up himself, and the other one who was arrested) owned a bar serving alcohol and were not religious either. They did not attend a mosque. There were drugs in that bar too, and neighbours complained.

Source: Business Insider.

Other attackers also got in trouble with the law: petty crime, drug dealing, ...etc.

This seems like a recurring theme with Islamic State now. They don't recruit from religiously observant people, like Al-Qaeda used to do. They recruit ex-criminals, apparently seeking salvation by committing a 'martyrdom act'.

But don't let facts stand in the way of prejudice and preconceived ideas ...

From another immigrant Canadian ...

That moron Newt ...

The Nice attacker "... did not seem overtly religious. Locals said he was often seen drinking beer and never attended the small mosque near his block of flats. ... had been in trouble with police between 2010 and 2016 for threatening behaviour, violence and petty theft.
In March, a court in Nice convicted him of assaulting a motorist with an improvised weapon - a wooden pallet ... "

Source: BBC.

The Paris attackers (the two Abdeslam brothers, one who blew up himself, and the other one who was arrested) owned a bar serving alcohol and were not religious either. They did not attend a mosque. There were drugs in that bar too, and neighbours complained.

Source: Business Insider.

Other attackers also got in trouble with the law, petty crime, drug dealing, ...etc.

This seems like a recurring theme with Islamic State now. They don't recruit from religiously observant people, like Al-Qaeda used to do. They recruit ex-criminals, apparently seeking salvation by committing a 'martyrdom act'.

No, it's not. Male and female skeletons form partially overlapping continua, so there are plenty of ambiguous cases. Especially when chromosomic gender (i.e. XY vs XX) is different from hormonal gender (i.e. what the body actually LOOKS like). That caused quite a few problems in sport, when it turned out that some "females" actually expressed male hormones ( http://www.bbc.com/sport/athle... ) and as a result had significantly different body structure.

And never mind that there are people with hermaphroditism, XX-males, women with male genitalia and so on.

So yeah, let me repeat for you: "You are mentally ill if you think that you can pigeonhole everybody into a nice two-valued selection box".

Tesla has finally released the results of what happened in Pennsylvania.. It seems that the autopilot warned the driver because his hands were not on the steering wheel. The car warned him repeatedly and it was the driver who grabbed the wheel and caused the crash.

In another accident, the driver was driving the car on an undivided mountain road which is not recommended. The driver's hands were not on the steering wheel. The car alerted the driver repeatedly to put his hands on the wheel. The driver claims it's because the alerts were given in English whereas he spoke Mandarin. Autopilot is supposed to be used on divided roads with clear visibility and the driver is supposed to keep their hands on the wheel.

Maybe they should require drivers to take an autopilot test to show that they understand it before enabling it. Like autopilot on a plane it still requires that the driver pay attention and have their hands on the wheel and be ready to take over.

My car is an early model S before the hardware for Autopilot was available.

And in the supposedly "liberal" Netherlands a Dutchman has been sentenced to jail for insulting the king on facebook:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

Apparently the guy faked photos, which arguably might be covered under regular libel laws, but he was imprisoned under
a special "lese majeste law that dates from 1881 and carries sentences of up to five years jail or a fine of 20,000 euros ($22,200; £16,700)."

Could be his head. Actually somebody photoshop the King of the Netherlands into Alice in Wonderland.

And in the supposedly "liberal" Netherlands a Dutchman has been sentenced to jail for insulting the king on facebook:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

Apparently the guy faked photos, which arguably might be covered under regular libel laws, but he was imprisoned under
a special "lese majeste law that dates from 1881 and carries sentences of up to five years jail or a fine of 20,000 euros ($22,200; £16,700)."

In which case, "radiation workers" should have a lower incidence of cancer than the rest of the population. Statistical populations already exist, and have been studied.

More blatant ignorance from the Beeb. The author cites melanoma, which is overwhelmingly caused by sun exposure and is not tied to ionizing radiation. Then there is the 'possible' increase in prostate cancer in pilots....didn't even consider the lifestyle of pilots. I sometimes wonder if these authors even stop to think about what they are spewing. There are studies that link prolonged sitting of truck drivers to prostate cancer, but instead lets assume a cancer that has historically no tie to ionizing radiation might be due to the small amount of exposure from air travel. SMFH.