Let's see how you feel about all that when the day comes that you're required by law to have cameras and microphones inside where you live, 'for your own safety', and 'for law enforcement purposes', and 'for National Security purposes'. That's what some jackasses in our government would like to see happen: Everyone under constant surveillance, anywhere and everywhere you are, even in your own home, even in your bathroom or bedroom. For your own 'safety', of course.
Anything truly worth doing is hard, and avoiding something because it takes effort just promotes overall laziness. We don't need more people in this world with lazy brains, it's bad enough that there are so many people with lazy bodies.
I'd say it's rather myopic. It's advocating lowering the bar instead of inspiring people to work harder to succeed. Pushing your mental limits has a positive effect on your cognitive abilities, just like pushing your body has on your physical abilities. Lowering the bar just promotes lazy brains.
By such a strict standard, there's nothing in the world that could possibly qualify other than an autonomous car
Exactly my point, actually. Everyone is so used to not having to think about how an elevator works, and all the features of the design that has evolved over decades and decades that make it work and keep people safe, and with trains, and how much skill a pilot of an airliner has to have even with automation to help -- they all, like you, are taking it for granted; you all automatically assume that an 'autonomous car' is going to be absolutely flawless 100% of the time as soon as you can buy one. Most of you have never designed any sort of system, so you never have had to think about what can go wrong, but then you scoff at people like me, call me a doom-sayer and nay-sayer and luddite, because I can and do understand what can go wrong with a system, and dare to point out that safety is more important than conveniece; human lives matter, and ironically, you'll have to have a human being capable and qualified to take control of such a machine at any time, to protect human lives!
You're assuming that an autonomous car won't have a way for the passengers to bring the vehicle to a complete stop?
LOL no, but there has to be more than a big red 'STOP' button! What if just stopping means the truck behind you plows into you and you DIE? Or ten people behind you DIE because you suddenly stopped, for whatever reason? What if swerving to the left or right is what's best, but it's not what your autonomous system would do? Then what? There has to be a full set of manual controls in order for people inside and outside the car to be safe! It really can't be any other way. Maybe in 50 or 60 years systems might be sophisticated enough to handle everything.. but what, then, about driving places you can't plan on driving to? Offroad? Just 'driving around' for fun, no actual destination? Or do we have to all give that up just so some of you don't have to be bothered about driving? I'm real sorry to have to be so blunt about it, but too many of you just don't seem to understand all the implications of this. You take personal transportation for granted, and you'll only really understand your mistake when it's all taken away from you, and all you have left is a box on wheels that can only take you where you tell it to, and you really have no choices about how it does that. I guarantee you, if and when that day comes you won't feel liberated by it, you'll feel trapped, and especially so if you can't control the vehicle yourself when (not if but, when) something goes wrong.
..I'm not at all sure if you're agreeing with what I'm saying or not.
Do you mind if I ask you a question? Whether you think they do it or not: theoretically would it bother you if, assuming you used a company-owned device (smartphone, laptop, etc) at home, on your network and in your non-paid off-work time, for very, very personal things (watching porn, sexy chat with your girlfriend or wife, etc)? Or even for non-potentially-objectionable personal things (paying bills, making purchases, watching shows, etc)? Even for making plain old phone calls on a company-owned smartphone; do you want your employer knowing all the people you make personal phone calls to? What about if it has GPS? Are you OK with your employer knowing where you go in your off-hours, or would that bug you?
I ask you all this because in my experience many people really don't go too deep into these subjects, and very often when you make them think about it, they get rather uncomfortable.
If you are required to have a work phone then you should never, never, ever use it for your personal business. I certainly hope I don't have to tell any of you that!
As I predicted, your responses are all systems that operate within a very much mechanically-limited scope, not anything like a free-ranging over-the-road vehicle that can literally go anywhere, including over a cliff, off a bridge, into a crowd of people, or into an immovable object (like a concrete abutment, or the side of a building) at fatal speeds; the rail systems of which you speak are not even 'autonomous', they have very simple control systems that are located both on and off the vehicle itself, with numerous failsafes built in -- the final one of which, I very much wish to point out, is a human element, since all rail systems are ultimately monitored by a human being, somewhere, who also has the ability to bring it to a complete stop. Not even close to the same thing as a so-called 'autonmous car'.
Okay.. and after reading that article, the conclusion I come to, is that adblockers have nothing to do with the problem in the first place, the entire premise of online advertising is wrong and broken to start with, coupled with one simple and immutable fact about human beings: There are people who look at ads, and there are people who don't look at ads, and you can't get one to be the other regardless of how much you try. I'm a non-ad-viewer; online, if an adblocker doesn't block something, my brain is disciplined to just plain not register them anymore; even if I see it with my eyes, it doesn't make it into long-term memory. I have a TiVo DVR, and the undocumented 30-second skip function is turned on; I expertly click through commericals, and what little I see of them, 99% of the time, doesn't stick either. If, online, they started requiring a site I use to view a video advertisement all the way through before continuing on to the site? I'd either leave the room, change to a different tab, or if they were too obnoxious about it (say, for instance, they required you to interact with the ad, or it goes on playing forever) I'd just stop using the site out of frustration and disgust. Nothing is going to change my sentiments towards such things; I feel they are an abomination and I simply won't tolerate them. I know I'm far from alone in feeling that way about advertisements, too. Then there are the people who view commercials on TV as part of the entertainment. I'd imagine many of them think online ads are just fine, and actually pay attention to them. They're not going to get me, and I sure don't get them, either. However the ad-viewing types must also have a breaking point where you'd alienate them enough that they'd look elsewhere instead of enduring an overbearing ad; making ads more in-your-face than they already are isn't going to change the mind or habits of someone in my column, but it sure might drive the people in the other column away, making their 'ad revenue' problem even worse. Seems that they have limited choices in what they can do about this: They can accept the legitimate ad revenue they can get, and try to detect and exclude the fraudulent traffic, or they can risk getting more obnoxious with the ads and potentially lose their willing audience, or perhaps everything goes pay-only if you want access to a site, or they just take the loss (if they can bear it) and let people have content for free, and find some other way to get paid. Guess advertisers choices aren't really that great, but you'll excuse me for not having much sympathy for them, being one in the 'non-ad-viewing' column, who despises having anyone try to sell me anything at all, even if I might be interested.
Of course the problem goes well beyond TV and the Internet if you ask me. I can't easily estimate the amount of waste paper in my physical mailbox that goes straight into the recycle bin every month, and how offensive it is to me that money and resources are being wasted on that, and I have no way of stopping it being delivered to me; there is no 'adblocker' of any kind for your snailmailbox.:-(
'aldousd666' is modded as 'funny' when he should be modded as 'insightful'; we see in TFA exactly what I and others have predicted, well in advance, fortunately, of it actually affecting anyone: You ruin encryption for everyone, then the Bad Guys will just get their own, non-ruined encryption, and you're back where you started from.
o Making speeding against the law doesn't stop people from speeding. o Making pickpocketing illegal doesn't stop people from pickpocketing. o It being against the law to drink under the legal drinking age doesn't stop underage drinking. o Requiring technology companies to have a 'backdoor' in their encryption won't stop criminals from using non-compromised encryption.
How much more clear does this have to be for anyone to understand it?
Memo to FBI, NSA, and other overeager, overreaching, anal-retentive, power-hungry types: You're being stupid, and your stupidity will be everyone's undoing. Or do you want to give up now and admit to the World that the so-called, self-styled 'islamic state' is smarter than you are?
As I understand them, current adblockers don't even pull in the content from the Internet in the first place. Why not write an adblocker that gets the content, but doesn't render it to the screen? Unwanted Flash content (yes, I know, Flash is going away soon, hurray!) could be executed in a sandbox, that also isn't rendered to the user's screen. Yes, I'm advocating being very sneaky about this; I'm proposing an adblocker that, unless you're sitting in front of the browser using it, can't be detected. I'm also working under the assumption that most people don't pay any attention to Internet ads in the first place, and that the difference between them and people who use adblockers is just the adblocker. Why can't an adblocker be written this way?
Tell you what, buddy: You name ALL the other current technologies that roam around free with a human trapped inside, who has NO control over what happens to them. I'll be happy to show you how completely wrong you are about all of them, assuming you come up with ANY.
Bridges puts human lives at stake. They typically just stand there without continuous supervision.
Elevators put human lives at stake, but again there is no human supervisor.
If you look around you you will realize that there are thousands of automated things in society that we trust our lives with. Everything from traffic lights to fire alarms.
When you call 911 or 112 you rely on automation to send you phone call to the right destination.
You moron.. Bridges don't move. Elevators go up and down a track and have this little feature called an 'emergency brake' in case the cable snaps. Calling 911 doesn't risk running you into a concrete abutment at 100mph. All the other class of things you mentioned DO NOT GO ANYWHERE WITH A HUMAN TRAPPED INSIDE. Stop making invalid, illogical arguments. You are dumb!
Nice to see that there are some on Slashdot who are thinking straight. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Where human lives are at stake you must have a human being as the final unimpeachable failsafe system, and in an over-the-road vehicle, that means you must have a full set of manual controls, and the operator of said vehicle must be educated, trained, tested, and licensed (as well as insured) at all times. To do otherwise is sheer madness, and so far as I'm concerned, anyone who actually believes that an 'autonomous car' can be solely in control 100% of the time, and have no direct manual controls for a human, is not thinking clearly at all. It's Science Fantasy, plain and simple, and it has no place in the Real World. An 'autonomous helper' in your car? Sure. Having a 'Jeeves' that you just tell where you want to go, then take a nap? Absolutely not, and we see here a glimpse that the vast majority of people think exactly the same way.
Why do people keep making the same mistakes over and over again, ad infinitum?
If you're so damned worried about what your kid might see on the Internet, then maybe, I dunno, you should supervise all their time using the Internet, instead of expecting some total strangers on some allegedly 'kid-safe' search site to do it for you?
I think you should be more cognizant of the difference between 'trolling' and 'bitter sarcasm', of which that comment (and his next one) are the latter.
That's a bunch of crap, Google is far from being objective on the subject and as such is to be disregarded, and the appropriate officials and experts are all saying what I've said all along: Human beings must be one of the failsafe systems in any so-called 'autonomous car', which means there must always be a full set of manual controls and all operators must be qualified to manually control the vehicle. Too many of you seem to not understand the importance of theorizing on What Might Go Wrong when designing any system. You cannot have an open-road vehicle that cannot be directly controlled by human occupants, it is unsafe and an insane concept. I am far from being alone in thinking this way, and the rest of you are in the minority, even if you don't realize that yet. The public-at-large has not yet chimed in on this subject, and when they do you'll see that the vast majority of people are not going to ever be comfortable getting into a car that has no controls for a human being.
Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access.
No, for these people, it will not. Autonomous cars will always require an educated, trained, tested, licensed, and insured driver at the controls (the full set of manual controls, that is) at all times, so anyone who is excluded from being a licensed driver (too young, too old, too impaired) will not be able to operate a so-called 'autonomous car'; they will still have to get someone else who is properly licensed to go with them, or call or a cab, or take the bus. To allow otherwise would put the public safety at risk. Get used it it, people, that's just the way it's got to be.
Don't think for a moment that thought hasn't occurred to me. I'm hoping that doesn't happen. It'll put me in the very uncomfortable position of having to choose between two different versions of my own conscience: Voting for someone who might actually win just to keep that jackass out of the Whitehouse, and voting for someone who doesn't have a snowballs' chance in hell so neither I nor anyone else will be able to point a finger at me and say I'm partly to blame for supporting the agenda of someone I don't agree with in the first place. Pretty much no matter what I do I can't win, and refusing to vote at all just makes me part of the growing problem of people who just don't give a damn enough to participate in the system.
lmost hilarious that you think Trump will start WW3 when Hillary has basically promised the military defense industry she would do exactly that.
Go ahead and keep believing your Goldman Sachs / CFR puppet is a progressive just because she has a vagina. And keep believing that Trump is a villain because he doesn't want millions of religious fundamentalists to enter the voting pool.
You're a propaganda puppet. Your moral platform has been so totally replaced by the party platform that you believe batshit crazy things like (for example) immigration is good for the working class.
Keep on believing what you're told. That's a good (unthinking) lad.
It never ceases to amuse me how so many people will stop reading where they feel like, instead of reading everything written so they can get the full, accurate meaning. Of course you're going to mistakenly believe that when I say 'Trump can't be POTUS' you take that to mean 'he's voting for Clinton' when you stop reading mid-sentence!
Re-iterating for the benefit of the latecomers: I said I don't like any of them. This may be taken to imply that I am not voting for any of them, either.
Now, then: Could everyone please read everything someone has to say, before sticking both feet in your mouths? Thanks.
Friend, I am only a few years younger than you, and believe you me, I have a sense of humor (although it's sometimes rather sick and twisted), but please, reassure me you're kidding about this!
Donald Trump needs to go. He'll destroy this country and maybe start World War 3. Not qualified in any way shape or form to be POTUS. Not that any candidate from any party is either, but he's literally the worst of the worst.
AT&T and pretty much all other providers of connectivity to the Internet are all living in a house of cards, and I think they know that; all it'll take is one good stiff breeze to knock it all down, they know it's inevitable, but they're thrashing around in defiance of it anyway. Just like the recording industry with the advent of the MP3, they all realize that they're operating under an outdated business model, and rather than accept that and adapt, they're fighting it with anything they can come up with.
Roll over in this case and find a better case to take the fight over.
See, that's exactly the wrong thing to do because it sets a precedent; then the feds can come back later and say "You did this before, you have no excuse not to do it now", or worse, they'll use the precedent to say "See, they're willing to do it when we ask, so they should just make their products so we can bypass it when we want to without having to ask them to help". From there they'd legislate that all companies provide federal backdoors to encrypted devices; then we're cooked, nothing would ever be private or secure ever again.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see how you feel about all that when the day comes that you're required by law to have cameras and microphones inside where you live, 'for your own safety', and 'for law enforcement purposes', and 'for National Security purposes'. That's what some jackasses in our government would like to see happen: Everyone under constant surveillance, anywhere and everywhere you are, even in your own home, even in your bathroom or bedroom. For your own 'safety', of course.
Anything truly worth doing is hard, and avoiding something because it takes effort just promotes overall laziness. We don't need more people in this world with lazy brains, it's bad enough that there are so many people with lazy bodies.
The reasoning is kind of weird.
I'd say it's rather myopic. It's advocating lowering the bar instead of inspiring people to work harder to succeed. Pushing your mental limits has a positive effect on your cognitive abilities, just like pushing your body has on your physical abilities. Lowering the bar just promotes lazy brains.
By such a strict standard, there's nothing in the world that could possibly qualify other than an autonomous car
Exactly my point, actually. Everyone is so used to not having to think about how an elevator works, and all the features of the design that has evolved over decades and decades that make it work and keep people safe, and with trains, and how much skill a pilot of an airliner has to have even with automation to help -- they all, like you, are taking it for granted; you all automatically assume that an 'autonomous car' is going to be absolutely flawless 100% of the time as soon as you can buy one. Most of you have never designed any sort of system, so you never have had to think about what can go wrong, but then you scoff at people like me, call me a doom-sayer and nay-sayer and luddite, because I can and do understand what can go wrong with a system, and dare to point out that safety is more important than conveniece; human lives matter, and ironically, you'll have to have a human being capable and qualified to take control of such a machine at any time, to protect human lives!
You're assuming that an autonomous car won't have a way for the passengers to bring the vehicle to a complete stop?
LOL no, but there has to be more than a big red 'STOP' button! What if just stopping means the truck behind you plows into you and you DIE? Or ten people behind you DIE because you suddenly stopped, for whatever reason? What if swerving to the left or right is what's best, but it's not what your autonomous system would do? Then what? There has to be a full set of manual controls in order for people inside and outside the car to be safe! It really can't be any other way. Maybe in 50 or 60 years systems might be sophisticated enough to handle everything.. but what, then, about driving places you can't plan on driving to? Offroad? Just 'driving around' for fun, no actual destination? Or do we have to all give that up just so some of you don't have to be bothered about driving? I'm real sorry to have to be so blunt about it, but too many of you just don't seem to understand all the implications of this. You take personal transportation for granted, and you'll only really understand your mistake when it's all taken away from you, and all you have left is a box on wheels that can only take you where you tell it to, and you really have no choices about how it does that. I guarantee you, if and when that day comes you won't feel liberated by it, you'll feel trapped, and especially so if you can't control the vehicle yourself when (not if but, when) something goes wrong.
..I'm not at all sure if you're agreeing with what I'm saying or not.
Do you mind if I ask you a question? Whether you think they do it or not: theoretically would it bother you if, assuming you used a company-owned device (smartphone, laptop, etc) at home, on your network and in your non-paid off-work time, for very, very personal things (watching porn, sexy chat with your girlfriend or wife, etc)? Or even for non-potentially-objectionable personal things (paying bills, making purchases, watching shows, etc)? Even for making plain old phone calls on a company-owned smartphone; do you want your employer knowing all the people you make personal phone calls to? What about if it has GPS? Are you OK with your employer knowing where you go in your off-hours, or would that bug you?
I ask you all this because in my experience many people really don't go too deep into these subjects, and very often when you make them think about it, they get rather uncomfortable.
If you are required to have a work phone then you should never, never, ever use it for your personal business. I certainly hope I don't have to tell any of you that!
As I predicted, your responses are all systems that operate within a very much mechanically-limited scope, not anything like a free-ranging over-the-road vehicle that can literally go anywhere, including over a cliff, off a bridge, into a crowd of people, or into an immovable object (like a concrete abutment, or the side of a building) at fatal speeds; the rail systems of which you speak are not even 'autonomous', they have very simple control systems that are located both on and off the vehicle itself, with numerous failsafes built in -- the final one of which, I very much wish to point out, is a human element, since all rail systems are ultimately monitored by a human being, somewhere, who also has the ability to bring it to a complete stop. Not even close to the same thing as a so-called 'autonmous car'.
Okay.. and after reading that article, the conclusion I come to, is that adblockers have nothing to do with the problem in the first place, the entire premise of online advertising is wrong and broken to start with, coupled with one simple and immutable fact about human beings: There are people who look at ads, and there are people who don't look at ads, and you can't get one to be the other regardless of how much you try. I'm a non-ad-viewer; online, if an adblocker doesn't block something, my brain is disciplined to just plain not register them anymore; even if I see it with my eyes, it doesn't make it into long-term memory. I have a TiVo DVR, and the undocumented 30-second skip function is turned on; I expertly click through commericals, and what little I see of them, 99% of the time, doesn't stick either. If, online, they started requiring a site I use to view a video advertisement all the way through before continuing on to the site? I'd either leave the room, change to a different tab, or if they were too obnoxious about it (say, for instance, they required you to interact with the ad, or it goes on playing forever) I'd just stop using the site out of frustration and disgust. Nothing is going to change my sentiments towards such things; I feel they are an abomination and I simply won't tolerate them. I know I'm far from alone in feeling that way about advertisements, too. Then there are the people who view commercials on TV as part of the entertainment. I'd imagine many of them think online ads are just fine, and actually pay attention to them. They're not going to get me, and I sure don't get them, either. However the ad-viewing types must also have a breaking point where you'd alienate them enough that they'd look elsewhere instead of enduring an overbearing ad; making ads more in-your-face than they already are isn't going to change the mind or habits of someone in my column, but it sure might drive the people in the other column away, making their 'ad revenue' problem even worse. Seems that they have limited choices in what they can do about this: They can accept the legitimate ad revenue they can get, and try to detect and exclude the fraudulent traffic, or they can risk getting more obnoxious with the ads and potentially lose their willing audience, or perhaps everything goes pay-only if you want access to a site, or they just take the loss (if they can bear it) and let people have content for free, and find some other way to get paid. Guess advertisers choices aren't really that great, but you'll excuse me for not having much sympathy for them, being one in the 'non-ad-viewing' column, who despises having anyone try to sell me anything at all, even if I might be interested.
:-(
Of course the problem goes well beyond TV and the Internet if you ask me. I can't easily estimate the amount of waste paper in my physical mailbox that goes straight into the recycle bin every month, and how offensive it is to me that money and resources are being wasted on that, and I have no way of stopping it being delivered to me; there is no 'adblocker' of any kind for your snailmailbox.
'aldousd666' is modded as 'funny' when he should be modded as 'insightful'; we see in TFA exactly what I and others have predicted, well in advance, fortunately, of it actually affecting anyone: You ruin encryption for everyone, then the Bad Guys will just get their own, non-ruined encryption, and you're back where you started from.
o Making speeding against the law doesn't stop people from speeding.
o Making pickpocketing illegal doesn't stop people from pickpocketing.
o It being against the law to drink under the legal drinking age doesn't stop underage drinking.
o Requiring technology companies to have a 'backdoor' in their encryption won't stop criminals from using non-compromised encryption.
How much more clear does this have to be for anyone to understand it?
Memo to FBI, NSA, and other overeager, overreaching, anal-retentive, power-hungry types: You're being stupid, and your stupidity will be everyone's undoing. Or do you want to give up now and admit to the World that the so-called, self-styled 'islamic state' is smarter than you are?
As I understand them, current adblockers don't even pull in the content from the Internet in the first place. Why not write an adblocker that gets the content, but doesn't render it to the screen? Unwanted Flash content (yes, I know, Flash is going away soon, hurray!) could be executed in a sandbox, that also isn't rendered to the user's screen. Yes, I'm advocating being very sneaky about this; I'm proposing an adblocker that, unless you're sitting in front of the browser using it, can't be detected. I'm also working under the assumption that most people don't pay any attention to Internet ads in the first place, and that the difference between them and people who use adblockers is just the adblocker. Why can't an adblocker be written this way?
Tell you what, buddy: You name ALL the other current technologies that roam around free with a human trapped inside, who has NO control over what happens to them. I'll be happy to show you how completely wrong you are about all of them, assuming you come up with ANY.
Bridges puts human lives at stake. They typically just stand there without continuous supervision. Elevators put human lives at stake, but again there is no human supervisor. If you look around you you will realize that there are thousands of automated things in society that we trust our lives with. Everything from traffic lights to fire alarms. When you call 911 or 112 you rely on automation to send you phone call to the right destination.
You moron.. Bridges don't move. Elevators go up and down a track and have this little feature called an 'emergency brake' in case the cable snaps. Calling 911 doesn't risk running you into a concrete abutment at 100mph. All the other class of things you mentioned DO NOT GO ANYWHERE WITH A HUMAN TRAPPED INSIDE. Stop making invalid, illogical arguments. You are dumb!
I must conclude the 25% simply don't understand technology well enough to realize how dangerous it would be.
Having control over one's transport is a core component of liberal (as in liberty) society.
Thank You for restoring my faith in human intelligence and wisdom!
Nice to see that there are some on Slashdot who are thinking straight. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Where human lives are at stake you must have a human being as the final unimpeachable failsafe system, and in an over-the-road vehicle, that means you must have a full set of manual controls, and the operator of said vehicle must be educated, trained, tested, and licensed (as well as insured) at all times. To do otherwise is sheer madness, and so far as I'm concerned, anyone who actually believes that an 'autonomous car' can be solely in control 100% of the time, and have no direct manual controls for a human, is not thinking clearly at all. It's Science Fantasy, plain and simple, and it has no place in the Real World. An 'autonomous helper' in your car? Sure. Having a 'Jeeves' that you just tell where you want to go, then take a nap? Absolutely not, and we see here a glimpse that the vast majority of people think exactly the same way.
Why do people keep making the same mistakes over and over again, ad infinitum?
If you're so damned worried about what your kid might see on the Internet, then maybe, I dunno, you should supervise all their time using the Internet, instead of expecting some total strangers on some allegedly 'kid-safe' search site to do it for you?
I think you should be more cognizant of the difference between 'trolling' and 'bitter sarcasm', of which that comment (and his next one) are the latter.
That's a bunch of crap, Google is far from being objective on the subject and as such is to be disregarded, and the appropriate officials and experts are all saying what I've said all along: Human beings must be one of the failsafe systems in any so-called 'autonomous car', which means there must always be a full set of manual controls and all operators must be qualified to manually control the vehicle. Too many of you seem to not understand the importance of theorizing on What Might Go Wrong when designing any system. You cannot have an open-road vehicle that cannot be directly controlled by human occupants, it is unsafe and an insane concept. I am far from being alone in thinking this way, and the rest of you are in the minority, even if you don't realize that yet. The public-at-large has not yet chimed in on this subject, and when they do you'll see that the vast majority of people are not going to ever be comfortable getting into a car that has no controls for a human being.
Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access.
No, for these people, it will not. Autonomous cars will always require an educated, trained, tested, licensed, and insured driver at the controls (the full set of manual controls, that is) at all times, so anyone who is excluded from being a licensed driver (too young, too old, too impaired) will not be able to operate a so-called 'autonomous car'; they will still have to get someone else who is properly licensed to go with them, or call or a cab, or take the bus. To allow otherwise would put the public safety at risk. Get used it it, people, that's just the way it's got to be.
Now you too can have your own little NSA! Spy on your network just like the big boys!
Don't think for a moment that thought hasn't occurred to me. I'm hoping that doesn't happen. It'll put me in the very uncomfortable position of having to choose between two different versions of my own conscience: Voting for someone who might actually win just to keep that jackass out of the Whitehouse, and voting for someone who doesn't have a snowballs' chance in hell so neither I nor anyone else will be able to point a finger at me and say I'm partly to blame for supporting the agenda of someone I don't agree with in the first place. Pretty much no matter what I do I can't win, and refusing to vote at all just makes me part of the growing problem of people who just don't give a damn enough to participate in the system.
lmost hilarious that you think Trump will start WW3 when Hillary has basically promised the military defense industry she would do exactly that. Go ahead and keep believing your Goldman Sachs / CFR puppet is a progressive just because she has a vagina. And keep believing that Trump is a villain because he doesn't want millions of religious fundamentalists to enter the voting pool. You're a propaganda puppet. Your moral platform has been so totally replaced by the party platform that you believe batshit crazy things like (for example) immigration is good for the working class. Keep on believing what you're told. That's a good (unthinking) lad.
It never ceases to amuse me how so many people will stop reading where they feel like, instead of reading everything written so they can get the full, accurate meaning. Of course you're going to mistakenly believe that when I say 'Trump can't be POTUS' you take that to mean 'he's voting for Clinton' when you stop reading mid-sentence!
Re-iterating for the benefit of the latecomers: I said I don't like any of them. This may be taken to imply that I am not voting for any of them, either.
Now, then: Could everyone please read everything someone has to say, before sticking both feet in your mouths? Thanks.
Friend, I am only a few years younger than you, and believe you me, I have a sense of humor (although it's sometimes rather sick and twisted), but please, reassure me you're kidding about this!
Donald Trump needs to go. He'll destroy this country and maybe start World War 3. Not qualified in any way shape or form to be POTUS. Not that any candidate from any party is either, but he's literally the worst of the worst.
AT&T and pretty much all other providers of connectivity to the Internet are all living in a house of cards, and I think they know that; all it'll take is one good stiff breeze to knock it all down, they know it's inevitable, but they're thrashing around in defiance of it anyway. Just like the recording industry with the advent of the MP3, they all realize that they're operating under an outdated business model, and rather than accept that and adapt, they're fighting it with anything they can come up with.
Roll over in this case and find a better case to take the fight over.
See, that's exactly the wrong thing to do because it sets a precedent; then the feds can come back later and say "You did this before, you have no excuse not to do it now", or worse, they'll use the precedent to say "See, they're willing to do it when we ask, so they should just make their products so we can bypass it when we want to without having to ask them to help". From there they'd legislate that all companies provide federal backdoors to encrypted devices; then we're cooked, nothing would ever be private or secure ever again.