Many of the traffic lights in my area have the same feature (except that it is a special signal that is not built into the lights, but is an additional add-on in the emergency vehicles). I, also, know that there is at least one person who has a device to use that red-light override in a private vehicle. On several occassions a couple of traffic lights that I go through regularly enough to know the way they cycle between red and green on the different approaches skipped the "next" approach due to get a green and then started the cycle over at the "beginning" (green for the most heavily trafficked approach). Once on one traffic light could be a glitch but three or four times each on multiple traffic lights in a couple of weeks suggests someone having a device (there were no emergency vehicles in the area on any of those occasions).
Its about time someone taught bikers than you can't always rely on being able to accelerate your way out of trouble
Nature has been trying, but dead people don't learn very well (motorcyclists who discover that they can't always rely on being able to accelerate their way out of trouble often fail to survive the experience...fortunately, there are many who realize it without having to actually experience it on a motorcycle).
So, I hack into it so that it takes the data I provide instead of data from its usual source. It now identifies 123 Third Street Someplace, NY as a destination that I prefer rather than the actual real world destination that the owner intended to go to.
My department is also split up over several different physical locations spread out over the netire country. However, there are very few projects that we work on across locations. We are primarily a support unit for other departments. Teleconferences have some use in allowing us to communicate how we resolve various issues so as to maintain a company wide consistent way of dealing with things.
Because this is not about whether they have secured your data, but about whether they have dotted their i's and crossed their t's on the forms for the bureaucrats. As long as they have done the latter, they will be able to get away with letting your data be spread all over the Internet.
Just because a two person company doesn't have an additional person whose job it is to manage the data they collect doesn't mean they don't secure your personal data, but it does mean they can't do business in the EU under this regulation.
Sometimes the cost of demonstrating that one is complying with a regulation is an excessive burden. I hope I never hear you complain in the future about corporations being too big and too powerful, since you are happy to see their smaller competition put out of business by government regulation.
The problem is that you are still visible. I did not say that video conferencing was never useful, just that it is not useful the way it is used in my department. And the advantages of a video conference are lost when there are 5-10 people in each room of the video conference, I can't see the gestures and body language clearly enough for it to be particularly useful (unless I am trying to read the interpersonal relations of the people on the other end, which may be useful when negotiating a contract or something similar, but serves no purpose when discussing how to fix particular computer problems).
So, it is not hard to have an additional person who is responsible for data management? When your company only consists of two people in the first place?
You are absolutely correct, any company that cannot afford to spend the money to be sure they are following 80 pages of regulations here and 80 pages of regulations there shouldn't be in business. Of course, don't then complain about corporations being too big and powerful, since you demanded that the government enact laws and regulations that made it so only large corporations could afford to do business.
I am not a scientist but my experience is similar. Our department has periodic video conferences that were started by our current boss. When he was asked by someone why we were doing video conferences (which required reserving a video conference room in another building from our work area) rather than just an ordinary teleconference (which could be done from our desks, although we usually gather in the conference room adjacent to our office area) his response was, "Well we have the technology, so we might as well use it." Which did not answer the question, which was, "What value does the video add to this meeting?" Personally, I find the video conferences even less useful than the ordinary teleconferences because at least with the teleconferences we can mute the phone and discuss how topics apply to us without having to listen to input from people at other locations input stuff that has nothing to do with our location and still listen to those topics where the experiences of those at other locations are relevant to us (which is rare).
It tries to claim jurisdiction over any company that handles the personal data of EU subjects. How exactly do they intend to enforce this over companies that have no physical presence within the EU?
I'm confused, who is the target market for this thing? They do not have the safety features of existing cars, so they cannot be used on the roads with existing cars. The justification for not including standard safety features is that they will never crash because, when every vehicle on the road is one of these, they will talk to each other and know where all the others are. The question is how do we get from where we are, to the place where every vehicle is one of these? Of course, the government and big businesses would love this because they would be able to track your every move.
Because by allowing Al Gore to make himself the voice of the movement, they now have the same amount of credibility that Al Gore has: none. Additionally, since Al Gore sounded like he was exaggerating, this made those on the other side sound reasonable. It's like the guy who is trying to warn people that there are wolves in the next valley saying "See, we need to prepare for wolves," when some other guy who claims that there is one right outside the door. When people open the door and discover that there are isn't a wolf outside the door, they aren't going to take seriously the guy who says, "I know I never said there wasn't a wolf outside the door when the boy said there was, but there really are wolves the next valley that we need to prepare for." Especially when they dismissed those who questioned the guy who said the wolves were right outside the door as being head-in-the-sand deniers.
The other thing is that Al Gore made it obvious that the Alarmists whole game was about giving central planners control over the economy more than it was about global warming.
It is not a question of fighting, it is a question of supporting. Since they supported Al Gore's message, they have the same credibility that Al Gore has on the issue.
Why would anyone expect fromer Senator Dodd to be investigated for this? This is the man who, along with a few others, stood in the way of anyone doing anything about the problems with the financial systems in this country until it all blew up. Then he was asked to write the law that would "fix" the problem that led to the meltdown.
Al Gore lied and exagerated in order to get people to demand that governments force companies to give businesses that he was invested in money. Those who sided with Al Gore lost their credibility by not pointing out that he was exagerating and lying. They were hoping to steamroller people into adopting their preferred solution to a poorly defined problem. They failed and are now trying to back away from Al Gore (and those like him) by claiming that they never said any of the exagerations that he made. That may be true, but they were praising him for the effort he was making on behalf of their cause before people realized how over the top he was.
It doesn't matter whose idea it was originally, Al Gore made a fortune off of it (and other "green solutions").
However, the Cap & Trade idea was proposed by members of the GOP to address a real pollutant(SO2), not a natural byproducts of living(CO2).
Because Al Gore destroyed the credibility of their argument. There were many "credible sources" who acclaimed Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" even though it was full of misleading information and outright untruths, who, now that it is known that Al Gore was lying, don't want to be lumped in with him. Sorry, you were willing to sell your integrity to someone who was using your cause for political and financial gain when you thought it would advance your cause, now that they have been revealed you want me to judge your position separately from them, not going to happen.
Once you have compromised your integrity for short term gain, it's a tough row to get it back. There is no more referring to generic "credible sources", give me specific names and we will judge them on their merits and whether or not they distanced themselves from the Alarmists before the Alarmists were revealed as self serving liars.
Yes, to some degree, except that, while it is possible to be arrested for something that they later realize you did not do, how can I be convicted for saying I did not commit a crime that they never prove I committed? If they never prove that I committed the crime, how do they prove I was lying when I say that I did not do it?
That would work, except that life expectancy would decrease without electricity. First, as someone else point out, getting rid of electricity would do away with most modern medicine (without electrcity you could not manufacture most modern medicine). Additionally, getting rid of electricity would reduce the amount of food we as humans are able to produce, which would lead to famine. So, if we got rid of electricity, that would reduce the human population drastically. Oh and there would be no world dominance. Of course if any effort was made to maintain industrialization in the absence of electricity it would mean a significant increase in other pollutants as the harnessing of electricity allowed humans to reduce the pollution generated by their industrial plants.
Not to be a total dick, but they weren't telling you that "sky is falling" as you are pretending. At least not the credible sources.
Maybe not, but they were perfectly willing to stand by and remain silent while "non-credible" sources were using their data to scream that "the sky is falling". Please tell me the credible source who called Al Gore to task for his over the top advertisement for his carbon credits business, "An Inconvenient Truth".
She went to jail because they "proved" she lied when she said that she did not commit insider trading. Yet, they failed to prove that she committed insider trading.
Slashdot Mirror
Many of the traffic lights in my area have the same feature (except that it is a special signal that is not built into the lights, but is an additional add-on in the emergency vehicles). I, also, know that there is at least one person who has a device to use that red-light override in a private vehicle. On several occassions a couple of traffic lights that I go through regularly enough to know the way they cycle between red and green on the different approaches skipped the "next" approach due to get a green and then started the cycle over at the "beginning" (green for the most heavily trafficked approach). Once on one traffic light could be a glitch but three or four times each on multiple traffic lights in a couple of weeks suggests someone having a device (there were no emergency vehicles in the area on any of those occasions).
Its about time someone taught bikers than you can't always rely on being able to accelerate your way out of trouble
Nature has been trying, but dead people don't learn very well (motorcyclists who discover that they can't always rely on being able to accelerate their way out of trouble often fail to survive the experience...fortunately, there are many who realize it without having to actually experience it on a motorcycle).
So, I hack into it so that it takes the data I provide instead of data from its usual source. It now identifies 123 Third Street Someplace, NY as a destination that I prefer rather than the actual real world destination that the owner intended to go to.
My department is also split up over several different physical locations spread out over the netire country. However, there are very few projects that we work on across locations. We are primarily a support unit for other departments. Teleconferences have some use in allowing us to communicate how we resolve various issues so as to maintain a company wide consistent way of dealing with things.
Because this is not about whether they have secured your data, but about whether they have dotted their i's and crossed their t's on the forms for the bureaucrats. As long as they have done the latter, they will be able to get away with letting your data be spread all over the Internet.
Just because a two person company doesn't have an additional person whose job it is to manage the data they collect doesn't mean they don't secure your personal data, but it does mean they can't do business in the EU under this regulation.
Sometimes the cost of demonstrating that one is complying with a regulation is an excessive burden. I hope I never hear you complain in the future about corporations being too big and too powerful, since you are happy to see their smaller competition put out of business by government regulation.
The problem is that you are still visible. I did not say that video conferencing was never useful, just that it is not useful the way it is used in my department. And the advantages of a video conference are lost when there are 5-10 people in each room of the video conference, I can't see the gestures and body language clearly enough for it to be particularly useful (unless I am trying to read the interpersonal relations of the people on the other end, which may be useful when negotiating a contract or something similar, but serves no purpose when discussing how to fix particular computer problems).
So, it is not hard to have an additional person who is responsible for data management? When your company only consists of two people in the first place?
You are absolutely correct, any company that cannot afford to spend the money to be sure they are following 80 pages of regulations here and 80 pages of regulations there shouldn't be in business. Of course, don't then complain about corporations being too big and powerful, since you demanded that the government enact laws and regulations that made it so only large corporations could afford to do business.
Like most people on slashdot, you think of big companies like Google or Amazon or Facebook, but what about a small two or three person startup?
Well, it will certainly quell those little inconvenient job creators called small businesses.
I am not a scientist but my experience is similar. Our department has periodic video conferences that were started by our current boss. When he was asked by someone why we were doing video conferences (which required reserving a video conference room in another building from our work area) rather than just an ordinary teleconference (which could be done from our desks, although we usually gather in the conference room adjacent to our office area) his response was, "Well we have the technology, so we might as well use it." Which did not answer the question, which was, "What value does the video add to this meeting?" Personally, I find the video conferences even less useful than the ordinary teleconferences because at least with the teleconferences we can mute the phone and discuss how topics apply to us without having to listen to input from people at other locations input stuff that has nothing to do with our location and still listen to those topics where the experiences of those at other locations are relevant to us (which is rare).
It tries to claim jurisdiction over any company that handles the personal data of EU subjects. How exactly do they intend to enforce this over companies that have no physical presence within the EU?
I'm confused, who is the target market for this thing? They do not have the safety features of existing cars, so they cannot be used on the roads with existing cars. The justification for not including standard safety features is that they will never crash because, when every vehicle on the road is one of these, they will talk to each other and know where all the others are. The question is how do we get from where we are, to the place where every vehicle is one of these? Of course, the government and big businesses would love this because they would be able to track your every move.
Because by allowing Al Gore to make himself the voice of the movement, they now have the same amount of credibility that Al Gore has: none. Additionally, since Al Gore sounded like he was exaggerating, this made those on the other side sound reasonable. It's like the guy who is trying to warn people that there are wolves in the next valley saying "See, we need to prepare for wolves," when some other guy who claims that there is one right outside the door. When people open the door and discover that there are isn't a wolf outside the door, they aren't going to take seriously the guy who says, "I know I never said there wasn't a wolf outside the door when the boy said there was, but there really are wolves the next valley that we need to prepare for." Especially when they dismissed those who questioned the guy who said the wolves were right outside the door as being head-in-the-sand deniers.
The other thing is that Al Gore made it obvious that the Alarmists whole game was about giving central planners control over the economy more than it was about global warming.
You are welcome to your opinion but I am not interested in paying for it.
It is not a question of fighting, it is a question of supporting. Since they supported Al Gore's message, they have the same credibility that Al Gore has on the issue.
Why would anyone expect fromer Senator Dodd to be investigated for this? This is the man who, along with a few others, stood in the way of anyone doing anything about the problems with the financial systems in this country until it all blew up. Then he was asked to write the law that would "fix" the problem that led to the meltdown.
Al Gore lied and exagerated in order to get people to demand that governments force companies to give businesses that he was invested in money. Those who sided with Al Gore lost their credibility by not pointing out that he was exagerating and lying. They were hoping to steamroller people into adopting their preferred solution to a poorly defined problem. They failed and are now trying to back away from Al Gore (and those like him) by claiming that they never said any of the exagerations that he made. That may be true, but they were praising him for the effort he was making on behalf of their cause before people realized how over the top he was.
It doesn't matter whose idea it was originally, Al Gore made a fortune off of it (and other "green solutions").
However, the Cap & Trade idea was proposed by members of the GOP to address a real pollutant(SO2), not a natural byproducts of living(CO2).
Because Al Gore destroyed the credibility of their argument. There were many "credible sources" who acclaimed Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" even though it was full of misleading information and outright untruths, who, now that it is known that Al Gore was lying, don't want to be lumped in with him. Sorry, you were willing to sell your integrity to someone who was using your cause for political and financial gain when you thought it would advance your cause, now that they have been revealed you want me to judge your position separately from them, not going to happen.
Once you have compromised your integrity for short term gain, it's a tough row to get it back. There is no more referring to generic "credible sources", give me specific names and we will judge them on their merits and whether or not they distanced themselves from the Alarmists before the Alarmists were revealed as self serving liars.
Yes, to some degree, except that, while it is possible to be arrested for something that they later realize you did not do, how can I be convicted for saying I did not commit a crime that they never prove I committed? If they never prove that I committed the crime, how do they prove I was lying when I say that I did not do it?
That would work, except that life expectancy would decrease without electricity. First, as someone else point out, getting rid of electricity would do away with most modern medicine (without electrcity you could not manufacture most modern medicine). Additionally, getting rid of electricity would reduce the amount of food we as humans are able to produce, which would lead to famine. So, if we got rid of electricity, that would reduce the human population drastically. Oh and there would be no world dominance. Of course if any effort was made to maintain industrialization in the absence of electricity it would mean a significant increase in other pollutants as the harnessing of electricity allowed humans to reduce the pollution generated by their industrial plants.
Not to be a total dick, but they weren't telling you that "sky is falling" as you are pretending. At least not the credible sources.
Maybe not, but they were perfectly willing to stand by and remain silent while "non-credible" sources were using their data to scream that "the sky is falling". Please tell me the credible source who called Al Gore to task for his over the top advertisement for his carbon credits business, "An Inconvenient Truth".
She went to jail because they "proved" she lied when she said that she did not commit insider trading. Yet, they failed to prove that she committed insider trading.