Or maybe put it another way, the question is not how many don't want the features, the question is how many will buy a different car to avoid having them. That second number is probably a lot less than 20%
"extra work for cleaning crews" How is it 'extra'? Cleaning crews are supposed to be cleaning and here is something to clean. That's just work, not 'extra work.' Now if the citizens would rather pay for more cleaning rather than do it themselves, I supposed that is their option. Just watch your step.
here is an interesting phrase from TFA: "is similar to the approach taken by a small number of scientists who hold that it is impossible to conceive of war without threatening the isolation of the Universe." Understanding that is an exercise best left to the individual reader.
"Communistic mass hysteria"? Not clear what that means. It looks like they played with the idea that making people think about society made people more susceptible to Communism. Probably true in some cases.
Probably the 'fuel station' would go the way of the dodo and other establishments like stores, restaurants, etc. will offer 'charge while you eat/shop/go to the bathroom/sleep' service in the parking lot.
This is pretty much the nature of the beast here. After all, they aren't going to be able to list 'a history of suicide bombing' as a reason for someone to be on the list. And if they had a lot of hard evidence the person would be in jail not trying to buy airline tickets. I'm not supporting the list or the decisions behind which person is on it, just saying this situation is pretty much what you would expect given this type of list.
How are issues with odors and other types of pollution resolved by the tort law as it stands now? Would a factory that started spewing poisonous gases be liable for any downwind damages? You are right though that "own air" is a poor choice of words.
That is interesting, I was unaware of the distinction between a safe combination and a key. I suppose I had just saw that a suspect could be compelled to 'open' a safe and made an assumption. Time to ask my lawyer!
I don't believe that anyone is compelled to divulge the combination to a safe
This is incorrect. There is case law involving safe combinations, and a suspect CAN be compelled to open a safe, or provide a safe means of opening it. This applies in circumstances where the state has reasonable belief that something relevant to the investigation is in there. For instance, if the legal wiretap records the suspect describing the incriminating contents of the safe, they can compel to suspect to provide the means to open it. This is the precedent that has been applied (in the US at least) to cases of digital encryption. What the investigators cannot do is compel because they want to go on a fishing expedition, they have to present some specific evidence that there is something relevant behind the encryption, or in the safe. Or at least, that is my understanding of the safe combination/encryption password laws at the moment.
Since this device was supposedly only available to governments (as if that somehow makes it OK), this is an interesting illustration of the objections in the US to teh plan to backdoor everyone's phone encryption. If the government has the ability, criminals will soon have it also.
“Overall, there's really nothing to see here. It's not terrible, it's not even 'bad, it's just... okay. A quiet little upgrade.”
Cue choir music and white spotlight! This is the way it should be! I've often observed, people use applications not the OS. The OS should make it easy, simple, fast, etc. for people to use their applications in the way that they want. No more, no less. When the OS gets in the way, it is a fail. The best, and best selling, versions of Windows were the ones that moved closer to this principle than their predecessors.
While true that this is a lot less worrisome than a remote attack, the fact that someone with an ethernet cable can bollix up the car it still attention worthy.
Could you clarify how you concluded this is a security patch only process? From what I see in the article this is simply regular full Android updates. In a linked article about Google's Nexus lines, they hint at a patch-only process but only after a device ages out of regular full Android updates.
So once a month you can lose root, have all new problems with data speeds, battery life, etc. introduced, and have new permanent applications installed. All wrapped up in nice shiny gratuitous interface changes.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe put it another way, the question is not how many don't want the features, the question is how many will buy a different car to avoid having them. That second number is probably a lot less than 20%
"extra work for cleaning crews" How is it 'extra'? Cleaning crews are supposed to be cleaning and here is something to clean. That's just work, not 'extra work.' Now if the citizens would rather pay for more cleaning rather than do it themselves, I supposed that is their option. Just watch your step.
Ah yes of course, I overlooked that.
That's an oddly specific reward. They really couldn't spring for $400,000?
here is an interesting phrase from TFA: "is similar to the approach taken by a small number of scientists who hold that it is impossible to conceive of war without threatening the isolation of the Universe." Understanding that is an exercise best left to the individual reader.
"Communistic mass hysteria"? Not clear what that means. It looks like they played with the idea that making people think about society made people more susceptible to Communism. Probably true in some cases.
Ohhhhh, sixty TWO miles! That's why my gas giant never worked!
Probably the 'fuel station' would go the way of the dodo and other establishments like stores, restaurants, etc. will offer 'charge while you eat/shop/go to the bathroom/sleep' service in the parking lot.
Uh oh, now I am afraid an HERV will suddenly get activated, pop out, and start infecting people.
This is pretty much the nature of the beast here. After all, they aren't going to be able to list 'a history of suicide bombing' as a reason for someone to be on the list. And if they had a lot of hard evidence the person would be in jail not trying to buy airline tickets. I'm not supporting the list or the decisions behind which person is on it, just saying this situation is pretty much what you would expect given this type of list.
How are issues with odors and other types of pollution resolved by the tort law as it stands now? Would a factory that started spewing poisonous gases be liable for any downwind damages? You are right though that "own air" is a poor choice of words.
Cleveland was saved since Mr Cleveland only runs every other election.
Maybe it was a planetoid
Possibly the balls were already available from some other use, and the other options would need to be custom made.
That is interesting, I was unaware of the distinction between a safe combination and a key. I suppose I had just saw that a suspect could be compelled to 'open' a safe and made an assumption. Time to ask my lawyer!
I don't believe that anyone is compelled to divulge the combination to a safe
This is incorrect. There is case law involving safe combinations, and a suspect CAN be compelled to open a safe, or provide a safe means of opening it. This applies in circumstances where the state has reasonable belief that something relevant to the investigation is in there. For instance, if the legal wiretap records the suspect describing the incriminating contents of the safe, they can compel to suspect to provide the means to open it. This is the precedent that has been applied (in the US at least) to cases of digital encryption. What the investigators cannot do is compel because they want to go on a fishing expedition, they have to present some specific evidence that there is something relevant behind the encryption, or in the safe. Or at least, that is my understanding of the safe combination/encryption password laws at the moment.
No, only URLS that return executable downloads.
Since this device was supposedly only available to governments (as if that somehow makes it OK), this is an interesting illustration of the objections in the US to teh plan to backdoor everyone's phone encryption. If the government has the ability, criminals will soon have it also.
“Overall, there's really nothing to see here. It's not terrible, it's not even 'bad, it's just... okay. A quiet little upgrade.”
Cue choir music and white spotlight! This is the way it should be! I've often observed, people use applications not the OS. The OS should make it easy, simple, fast, etc. for people to use their applications in the way that they want. No more, no less. When the OS gets in the way, it is a fail. The best, and best selling, versions of Windows were the ones that moved closer to this principle than their predecessors.
While true that this is a lot less worrisome than a remote attack, the fact that someone with an ethernet cable can bollix up the car it still attention worthy.
This sounds like normal shifting of the economic tides. Things change, and some people benefit and others have to find another path.
Yes. I think a lot of the start menu complainers here don't even know about the search function, either in Windows or in Unity.
Could you clarify how you concluded this is a security patch only process? From what I see in the article this is simply regular full Android updates. In a linked article about Google's Nexus lines, they hint at a patch-only process but only after a device ages out of regular full Android updates.
So once a month you can lose root, have all new problems with data speeds, battery life, etc. introduced, and have new permanent applications installed. All wrapped up in nice shiny gratuitous interface changes.
They probably thought it was a bicycle, Philly is an awful place for bike theft and destruction.