So if there was something there obstructing his path (such as a pedestrian or a stray animal), would he still receive part of the blame?
No the blame would be on the pedestrian for illegally obstructing traffic. Animals can't be held accountable under the law, although their owners can be.
Obviously the car behind didn't ram him on purpose, but he still obstructed the roadway. Which is illegal in many parts of the world. In this case it contributed to an accident.
He shares an equal part of the blame. When the light turns green you're supposed to move. But he was texting which resulted in his car being in the wrong place, so it got hit.
This does not make sense. The e-mail address a customer gives LinkedIn contains no information about what server the account is on or what protocol it can be accessed with. And it certainly doesn't contain the password, unless you use the same password on multiple sites.
Yes, it does. If you user fills out the form as SomeDouche@gmail.com then linkedin goes to gmail.com and logs in with the credentials supplied by the user. It's not rocket science.
If you start authenticating via biometrics like fingerprints then you'll have a lot tougher time arguing it wasn't your doing.
Effectively as I see it the real risk here is the erosion of anonymity, there's a danger given the points you make that it will be much easier to suggest in court someone was tied to some specific thing on the internet.
Your fingerprint can be stolen just like any other password, and since it's unchangeable and you leave it behind on any glass surface you touch (hello touchscreens) you have a much better Plausible Deniability than you would with a normal password.
As someone who spends time driving through a city. I would be all in favor of banning the use of phones in public. A lot of pedestrians (and drivers) care more about text messages than they do for their own lives, or anyone elses.
Slashdot Mirror
We will run out of the materials to build solar and wind farms long before we run out of uranium to fuel reactors.
I carry a phone with no contract or data plan. I can text and surf only from wifi.
You're too poor to be out shopping in that case.
I'm curious to know how it will handle apartments, though.
A cannon to launch the parcel through the window?
Personally I think it's a scam. The site operator will simply take the bitcoins for themselves.
This is one occasion where I have no sympathy for the scam victims.
Government officials should live in fear of their lives.
Says the person living in fear of other /. users.
If your cat came into my yard to attack other animals, I'd shoot it.
If I saw you cat out hunting native fauna I'd shoot it.
Quit being an irresponsible moron.
Maybe they've cut off some town in Alabama right now while they kill the population and we'll never even know about it.
and nothing of value was lost.
But I support your right to be an idiot as long as it doesn't interfere with me.
People who don't vaccinate ARE hurting people. In Australia we are constantly fighting measles, which only exists due to anti-vaxxers. A quick Google search brought up this: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/chief-doctor-writes-to-queensland-parents-urging-measles-vaccination-20131014-2vh8b.html Anti-vaxxers have a lot to answer for.
I'd start killing people long before submitting to that tyranny.
Really??
all the bad things governments and corporations are already doing are ok, but vaccinations is where you draw the line.
I call bullshit.
Anti-vaxxers are psychopathic, no surprise they would resort to outright murder if their chosen method of harming society were placed at risk.
Who the hell do you think you are to demand a right to adversely affect the health of everyone around you?
If you don't want to vaccinate then fine, go live out in the desert far away from civilization.
Sorry, but did you not think of asking your ISP or hitting Google before asking a major tech news site?
If people knew how to Google, 1st level tech support wouldn't exist.
The drivers are also idiots.
Of course, they're iPhone users.
If the light is green for the cars then this is obviously not the case.
So if there was something there obstructing his path (such as a pedestrian or a stray animal), would he still receive part of the blame?
No the blame would be on the pedestrian for illegally obstructing traffic. Animals can't be held accountable under the law, although their owners can be.
Obviously the car behind didn't ram him on purpose, but he still obstructed the roadway. Which is illegal in many parts of the world. In this case it contributed to an accident.
A "good cop" is one who busts everyone but me. i.e corrupt :D
He shares an equal part of the blame. When the light turns green you're supposed to move. But he was texting which resulted in his car being in the wrong place, so it got hit.
What an ass hat. Bunch of people harming no one stopped at a light and he screws up their day.
He's ticketing the assholes who like to sit on the green light because they're too busy texting to drive a car.
I used to mod trolls as +1, but I haven't gotten anymore mods points for a very long time.
This does not make sense.
The e-mail address a customer gives LinkedIn contains no information about what server the account is on or what protocol it can be accessed with.
And it certainly doesn't contain the password, unless you use the same password on multiple sites.
Yes, it does. If you user fills out the form as SomeDouche@gmail.com then linkedin goes to gmail.com and logs in with the credentials supplied by the user. It's not rocket science.
http://s3.danscomp.net/linked-in_email_login.jpg
When I login to my Linked-in account I'm given the option to supply them with my email credentials.
http://s3.danscomp.net/linked-in_email_login.jpg
Pretty obvious that you're handing them access to your email account. The plaintiffs are idiots.
This way, there is no way to recover any usable fingerprint data.
Ummm...except reading the actual output from the scanning device.
Personally I just cut their fingers off.
If you start authenticating via biometrics like fingerprints then you'll have a lot tougher time arguing it wasn't your doing.
Effectively as I see it the real risk here is the erosion of anonymity, there's a danger given the points you make that it will be much easier to suggest in court someone was tied to some specific thing on the internet.
Your fingerprint can be stolen just like any other password, and since it's unchangeable and you leave it behind on any glass surface you touch (hello touchscreens) you have a much better Plausible Deniability than you would with a normal password.
As someone who spends time driving through a city. I would be all in favor of banning the use of phones in public. A lot of pedestrians (and drivers) care more about text messages than they do for their own lives, or anyone elses.