Both of those are discrete skills. We all cant know it all. I know tons of programmers that know fuck-all about real hardware. I hand built a bunch of comps for my CS classmates in college. The university sold 3COM 905Bs and these idiots were using 56k modems across the university switchboard because they were afraid to crack the case.
"Yes, that also means that anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat"
Empathy clashes with survivalist instinct. I can gnaw on the bones of a cow and feel empathy for it, but that doesn't mean im going to stop eating meat. At the base level, our brains see nothing wrong with killing these animals for food. We are the stronger species, we win. Empathy is evolutionarily expensive.
Since the 4th is a prohibition on action, shouldn't their gaze be constrained to relevant and actionable data? The train of thought that if a third party has it, the government can also see it seems a huge stretch to me. Shouldnt the government be prohibited from gazing at 3rd party's data without documented cause??
Dredd is a great mix of authority and street justice, thats why people find it appealing. No one REALLY wants a Dredd or even Robocop (as programmed by OCP).
Even if a movie was playing on the device, it doesnt prove it caused the crash. Thats the whole point, you not only have to prove that the device was playing something distracting but that I was looking at it AND it was the main source of distractions. Your argument is basically, "thats messy, lets just blanket everything in law, instead of respecting Liberty." Disclaimer: I have no desire to watch movies in my car, BUT I DO want to be able to add displays and work on HUDs without worrying about knee-jerk law.
It SERIOUSLY infringes Liberty for Safety using undefined fear. There is NOTHING dangerous about having a non-interlocked display, its the USE that can possibly be dangerous. If i get in an accident and you can prove i was watching a movie, by all means throw the book at me. But the law, as written is overly broad and needs serious review to address its Liberty shortcomings.
"That's why the law exists -- to keep everyone on the planet from developing entertainment devices that you can use while driving. The law apparently considers any "entertainment" or "business application" to be distracting, regardless of your own beliefs about what you think you can do in a "safe and reasonable manner" - your opinion doesn't matter, the law has already decided it for you. You may not like it and you may not agree, but you'll still get a ticket if caught watching TV while driving."
The law is quite egregious in limiting innovation in this space. Its short-sighted and its application is horrible. The law wont be able to stand in its current form for long.
Why? Can you articulate an answer that can avoid the CCTV argument? (CCTV is everywhere you are likely to encounter a google glass wearer, so whats the difference?)
Slashdot Mirror
The guy was handed a total monopoly and LOST IT. But yeah, he knows how to make money.......
The idea of paying a subscription for word processing is stupid.
You know how you keep a secret in a world where information is absolutely trivial to transmit?
Both of those are discrete skills. We all cant know it all. I know tons of programmers that know fuck-all about real hardware. I hand built a bunch of comps for my CS classmates in college. The university sold 3COM 905Bs and these idiots were using 56k modems across the university switchboard because they were afraid to crack the case.
Government should fear the citizenry, not the other way around.
You can hack all you want, you just can't talk about it. Ask Geohot.
This is what happens when you rely on third parties to clean up the messy details.
"Yes, that also means that anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat"
Empathy clashes with survivalist instinct. I can gnaw on the bones of a cow and feel empathy for it, but that doesn't mean im going to stop eating meat. At the base level, our brains see nothing wrong with killing these animals for food. We are the stronger species, we win. Empathy is evolutionarily expensive.
Xbox One is using DDR3 with eDRAM, only Sony went with GDDR5.
Many companies try to get you to install their Download Manager. Valve is not unique in this.
Someone made a 'derringer' style pistol out of a cell phone case once, so cops use that as an excuse nationwide.
Since the 4th is a prohibition on action, shouldn't their gaze be constrained to relevant and actionable data? The train of thought that if a third party has it, the government can also see it seems a huge stretch to me. Shouldnt the government be prohibited from gazing at 3rd party's data without documented cause??
Dredd is a great mix of authority and street justice, thats why people find it appealing. No one REALLY wants a Dredd or even Robocop (as programmed by OCP).
TO be fair, a verdict either way brings us no closer to the actual Truth.
You are an idiot.
Even if a movie was playing on the device, it doesnt prove it caused the crash. Thats the whole point, you not only have to prove that the device was playing something distracting but that I was looking at it AND it was the main source of distractions. Your argument is basically, "thats messy, lets just blanket everything in law, instead of respecting Liberty." Disclaimer: I have no desire to watch movies in my car, BUT I DO want to be able to add displays and work on HUDs without worrying about knee-jerk law.
It SERIOUSLY infringes Liberty for Safety using undefined fear. There is NOTHING dangerous about having a non-interlocked display, its the USE that can possibly be dangerous. If i get in an accident and you can prove i was watching a movie, by all means throw the book at me. But the law, as written is overly broad and needs serious review to address its Liberty shortcomings.
This is NOT how we determine road speed.
Which pises me off that they had to spend money to change a law that was enacted without proper exemptions.
Anything that comes from a car OEM is basically A-OK.
The law is terrible, stop trying to make things fit into it.
"That's why the law exists -- to keep everyone on the planet from developing entertainment devices that you can use while driving. The law apparently considers any "entertainment" or "business application" to be distracting, regardless of your own beliefs about what you think you can do in a "safe and reasonable manner" - your opinion doesn't matter, the law has already decided it for you. You may not like it and you may not agree, but you'll still get a ticket if caught watching TV while driving." The law is quite egregious in limiting innovation in this space. Its short-sighted and its application is horrible. The law wont be able to stand in its current form for long.
This sort of thing is usually addressed with an 'OEM clause'. Basically if a big company makes it, its exempt through liability.
Why? Can you articulate an answer that can avoid the CCTV argument? (CCTV is everywhere you are likely to encounter a google glass wearer, so whats the difference?)
Talking on a cellphone whilst driving is NOT illegal. What is illegal is holding it in your hand while you talk and drive.