Slashdot Mirror

You can see it in action.

https://petapixel.com/2015/07/...
http://fox13now.com/2016/06/21...
https://www.azcentral.com/stor...

Case in point: Utah just dropped mandatory safety inspections for cars because people didn't like them. Eleven other states don't require any kind of safety inspection. That's somewhat OK in cars, where if something goes horribly wrong your car mostly coasts to the side of the road. With flight, if something goes horribly wrong you mostly die. So yeah, going from that to aircraft-level maintenance ain't going to happen normal drivers. http://fox13now.com/2017/03/26... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It doesn't affect 87% of all Muslims, so it isn't a ban, and it affects the 10% Christian populations of those countries and other religions, so it isn't a religious thing.

Section 5 (b) of the executive order:
"Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."

Considering every one of these countries are majority Muslim, this is indeed a religious thing.

Muslims in the US have come out in favor of extreme vetting

And yet, more speak out in opposition.

some Muslim *countries* have come out in favor of the ban

Oh good. The countries who actually have originated people who commit terrorist acts on US soil in the past 40 years aren't upset because they weren't on the ban list. This makes the US safer how, again?

and the president's approval rating has jumped 5 points

So polls by media outlets with a conservative lean that support your position are trustworthy, but all others are "fake news" put out by the "mainstream media". Just want to make sure I've got the logic sorted out here.

And for the record, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

"Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrant's or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea

The act was invoked as a direct reaction to the civil war in Syria, the formation of ISIS, its subsequent offensive into Iraq, and the annexation of Crimea. All major regional events. The act was invoked this time to block entry by terrorists from countries with no recent major events. Technically the president has the power under the act to say, "only caucasian females with blonde hair weighing between 100 and 140 pounds may enter the US," but he still has to justify it.

Can someone explain how this is anything to get worked up over?

In the simplest terms, because executive orders that very blatantly do not help any of the things they say they are for are not a good thing.

Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.

Well, that ended pretty predictably. At least the pro-Trump diehard posts are consistent in their straw man demonizing.

It's obvious that she's taking a year off only because it's a presidential election year. I'd want to avoid being part of a circus as well

America's princesses have Secret Service protection even after daddy leaves White House. And the children are not part of the "circus" — unless they place themselves there — it is considered very bad form to target them otherwise. Not that Democrats haven't, but a Democratic princess is safe.

In other words, your excuse for her is not.

You are hearby notified to cease and desist the use of the trademark "Comic Con". For a proper license please contact San Diego Comic-Con.

Reaction time to a specific, anticipated event, you're likely right. But there's one crucial element to navigation that humans can do that computers currently can't - make arbitrary, seemingly illogical decisions in the heat of the moment. Take GP's hypothetical about the cliffside road - most humans, thanks to self-preservation instinct, will choose to rear-end the other car rather than drive off the ledge; what would a computer that is programmed to "avoid contact with other cars at all costs" do in that situation? Hyperbole aside, there's no way of knowing until we put one in that real world situation.

Yes. Humans would never drive off a cliff, thanks to this self-preservation instinct. A self-driving car, on the other hand, could make such mistakes, because the engineers would never think of a scenario slashdotters come up with 5 seconds after seeing a story about self-driving cars. They would certainly never put their algorithms to the test. If it compiles, ship it. Right?

Relevant quote from the last link:

So confident is Volvo in this safety mechanism, it says that if the lead vehicle were to drive off a cliff, the next vehicle could stop before reaching the edge.