With the limited information from your post, I guess that a sober driver also would not have been able to avoid this accident.
A sober driver would probably not have been driving as fast on a dirt and gravel road to have caused the car to flip as it came to a corner in the first place. It was determined that even though he had only had claimed to have had one glass of wine that night, a claim which was evidently substantiated by other people in the car, alcohol had still likely affected both his judgement and reaction time sufficiently that there was reason to conclude that it was a factor that contributed to the accident. The other contributing factor to the fatality was that my niece had not been wearing a seatbelt, while everyone else in the car had been. Others were only sore after the car flip, and were able to get out of the wrecked car, while my niece had been thrown right out of the vehicle.
Or was this one-glass-of-wine driver super sensitive to alcohol?
Entirely possible... everyone in the car was very young.. my niece had only just turned 18 at the time, and she and her friends had apparently been out celebrating her recent acceptance into the university she had been intending to attend. I know only that it was never refuted that he had only one glass of wine, but I also know that it was nonetheless concluded to have been a contributing factor.
The driver had to both pay a fine, and received a lifetime suspension of his driver's license (because in my jurisdiction, there *is* a zero tolerance policy on alcohol for drivers with less than 5 years of driving experience).
... authentication is that even if all of the security measures associated with storing and authenticating your fingerprint were utterly unbreachable, your fingerprints can still be taken without your consent, while if you do not want someone accessing data that is guarded by a a secure password, however, then barring vulnerabilities in the security facilities associated with it (which would apply equally to fingerprint security as well anyways), then that information can only be obtained by you voluntarily surrendering it.
I'm not saying that Sony shouldn't have to pay for their mistake... of course there should be punitive damages. My point is that Sony is rich enough to afford it unless the punitive damages were to exceed the net worth of the company, which they don't.
But for what it's worth, shoplifters don't typically go to jail either. They generally just pay a large fine, and that's it. Of course, they also get stuck with a criminal record that will typically stay with them for years to come.
...a film that treats North Korea as a whipping boy.
You know it was a comedy, right? (and not an overly good one, from what I've heard). You realize that the only reason NK is claiming that the film is insulting is because they seem to always want to find any reason they can that garners sympathy for them, right? The only thing this movie makes fun of is not North Korea, or its leader, but rather, it really only satirizes the popular mindset that people have about NK and its position with respect to the United States and the rest of the Western world.
In reality, from what I understand, there's nothing more insulting or offensive about this film than any other Seth Rogen film (which based on the films of his that I have seen, I admit may not be saying much in its favor)... but there's certainly no reason that NK should be take any kind of real offense because it for any reason other than that they just seem to want any excuse they can find to continue to have a mad-on at the Western world.
Rather than make yourself sound like you simply have nothing better to do than call someone names that you don't agree with, do you want to elaborate on exactly how you think that my points are so invalid as to be devoid of illustrating an ability to reason, as you allege?
It's not like Sony doesn't have money.... they can pay for the song's inclusion and all is good.
I don't defend Sony here, but it's also entirely possible that this was just a mistake... someone at Sony might have thought they had already secured permission, because it was something they intended to do, and they just put in the sound track without thinking about it, and afterwards, nobody else thought to double-check. It's a really stupid mistake, and one they should most definitely pay for, certainly, but it's not like Sony can't reasonably afford to pay for permission to include the work unless the artist was never willing to give Sony permission in the first place, at any price.
Personally, I think the whole notion of "legally sober" is absurd, and should be abandoned.... it would simplify things tremendously if they just moved to zero-tolerance system, so the issue of trying to judge how impaired one might be wouldn't arise in the first place.
Life becomes a whole lot simpler where if you drink, you don't drive.
Period.
I dunno... maybe it's because I've lost 3 family members to vehicle accidents where alcohol was determined to have been a contributing factor (one of the drivers, the one who killed my niece, and the incident with which I had the greatest level of direct personal involvement, had evidently only had one glass of wine that evening, only further exemplifying the notion that no truly objective standard exists for one to decide if they should be okay to drive or not anyways, so if they moved to a zero tolerance system, nobody should ever be confused on whether it is safe or not for them to drive).
Certainly it's a respectable skill, and it's no disrespect to people who work very hard at some tasks to improve that, but at its core, good video game playing is ultimately about having good mental reflexes and strongly developed hand-eye coordination. To excel, this can require no less time than it takes for an Olympic athlete to train, but that doesn't mean it should be an Olympic event any more than a spelling bee should be.
Your examples are illustrations of people living nearby, but who are still not actually *on* the property.... if all of the signal jamming they want to do of third-party wifi were somehow restricted to only being within the confines of their own buildings, would they be breaking any FCC rules?
I don't know if you noticed or not, but my comment was a response to a particular question that was the parent of my own above post, and was not simply posted as commentary upon the article itself. That poster asked about using epaper, and I simply explained why epaper might not always be adequate. If my post is offtopic, then so is asking questions about the viability of alternative technologies in the first place.
You are not thinking this through to its logical conclusion. Who will own such machines? What would be the incentive for that person to not expect payment?
1. e-paper has a positively abysmal screen update time
I use my tablet a lot for reading highly technical articles, and I often end up flipping back and forth between different pages of the text while I am reading, usually between a page with a figure or code listing and an explanation that follows or precedes it. I'd rather not add an easily perceptible delay between the time that I slide my finger one way or the other to advance or go back a page and the time it takes to actually show it.
2. e-paper's full color support is poor.
Many of the articles that I read come with slides which I also view on the tablet, and color is very useful at conveying information. Some progress has been made on this front, but for most practical purposes, epaper is generally monochrome.
But certainly, if they ever get around to making a non-emissive display technology with a fast enough screen update time that you can't notice any delay between your actions and when the screen update is complete, and they provide respectable full color support, I'll be all over it. The only reason I use a tablet instead of hard copy at all is portability.
I don't dispute that point.. my argument is only that it may be less about hating captivity specifically, and more about simply not having enough to do. This should be alleviated somewhat in the wildlife sanctuary the creature is going to be relocated to, depending on how large a region she has to explore.
How am I following the example of history? Historically, when jobs have been replaced by automation, this has resulted in *MORE* jobs being created.... I am suggesting that this will no longer be the case because of the ushering in of an era where practically any task imaginable that a human being is capable of will be done equally well, if not better, by a tireless machine that will never eat, sleep, go on strike, or require being treated with human dignity.
I don't dispute that they don't want to be there, but it may be far less of a hatred of being in a cage, per se, and much more a matter of simple boredom.
Legally speaking, identity theft is the assumption of another person's identity for the purposes of defrauding either that individual or some agency.
It's my understanding that purpose, when used in legalese and referring to criminal activity, simply refers to any intent on the part of the perpetrator, or any intent that can reasonably be assumed, barring extenuating circumstances, and additionally may even include even entirely unintentional consequences that happen to arise or else are very likely to arise as a result of the activity.
It doesn't matter if you "blame automation" or not... as smarter and smarter robots get made, we'd be talking about a future where as much as 80% of today's even very high skilled jobs, and essentially 100% of the low-skill ones, will be taken over by machines, leaving an unsustainable number of people unemployed, and with no ability to sustain themselves without resorting to crime, because the economy is not just going to magically disappear simply because it might seem that an advanced enough technology might make such a thing possible. This is a pretty damn large problem, and it's not going to go away just because automation has always ultimately resulted in more jobs in the past because we are talking about a completely different order of magnitude of scale here, and while we may be on the technological cusp of something like that happening within the next couple of decades, we are not anywhere *close* to being socially ready to accommodate that kind of change.
That's what I think people are really afraid of when it comes to very large scale automation of traditionally very high skill jobs, and not just the notion of losing their "precious capitalism", as was suggested above. And unfortunately, the people who have the greatest incentive to want to avoid it also have virtually no ability to influence such an outcome.
You accuse me of failing to see why an economy could become obsolete, but you appear to fail to see the all-too-probable scenario that it will not. In your hypothetical future, there may certainly not be any kind of real need for any kind of economy if everyone were willing to play by such rules, but you fail to illustrate exactly what would motivate the people with the most money and power to want to give that economy up in the first place.
Even with today's technology all 7.5 billion of us could live like kings and queens. It is pure pure greed and arrogance that prevents it.
Quite possibly... but why do you think better technology will change that situation? If anything, wouldn't it only make matters worse?
With machines doing the work, the free abundance is even more obvious.
With machines doing the work, there will be fewer jobs available for human beings, which in and of itself is not a problem except for this annoying fact that people need money to live.
"Oh, but we can replace our capitalistic system with a socialized one", you might say... except the reality of a socialized system that can take care of people who are not able to work requires a majority of the population to be paying taxes, which requires that they are earning an income. in a situation where most people cannot find work at all because all of their jobs have been replaced by increasingly intelligent machines, any attempt at a social welfare system to support them would collapse almost immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
A sober driver would probably not have been driving as fast on a dirt and gravel road to have caused the car to flip as it came to a corner in the first place. It was determined that even though he had only had claimed to have had one glass of wine that night, a claim which was evidently substantiated by other people in the car, alcohol had still likely affected both his judgement and reaction time sufficiently that there was reason to conclude that it was a factor that contributed to the accident. The other contributing factor to the fatality was that my niece had not been wearing a seatbelt, while everyone else in the car had been. Others were only sore after the car flip, and were able to get out of the wrecked car, while my niece had been thrown right out of the vehicle.
Entirely possible... everyone in the car was very young.. my niece had only just turned 18 at the time, and she and her friends had apparently been out celebrating her recent acceptance into the university she had been intending to attend. I know only that it was never refuted that he had only one glass of wine, but I also know that it was nonetheless concluded to have been a contributing factor.
The driver had to both pay a fine, and received a lifetime suspension of his driver's license (because in my jurisdiction, there *is* a zero tolerance policy on alcohol for drivers with less than 5 years of driving experience).
... authentication is that even if all of the security measures associated with storing and authenticating your fingerprint were utterly unbreachable, your fingerprints can still be taken without your consent, while if you do not want someone accessing data that is guarded by a a secure password, however, then barring vulnerabilities in the security facilities associated with it (which would apply equally to fingerprint security as well anyways), then that information can only be obtained by you voluntarily surrendering it.
I'm not saying that Sony shouldn't have to pay for their mistake... of course there should be punitive damages. My point is that Sony is rich enough to afford it unless the punitive damages were to exceed the net worth of the company, which they don't.
But for what it's worth, shoplifters don't typically go to jail either. They generally just pay a large fine, and that's it. Of course, they also get stuck with a criminal record that will typically stay with them for years to come.
You know it was a comedy, right? (and not an overly good one, from what I've heard). You realize that the only reason NK is claiming that the film is insulting is because they seem to always want to find any reason they can that garners sympathy for them, right? The only thing this movie makes fun of is not North Korea, or its leader, but rather, it really only satirizes the popular mindset that people have about NK and its position with respect to the United States and the rest of the Western world.
In reality, from what I understand, there's nothing more insulting or offensive about this film than any other Seth Rogen film (which based on the films of his that I have seen, I admit may not be saying much in its favor)... but there's certainly no reason that NK should be take any kind of real offense because it for any reason other than that they just seem to want any excuse they can find to continue to have a mad-on at the Western world.
Rather than make yourself sound like you simply have nothing better to do than call someone names that you don't agree with, do you want to elaborate on exactly how you think that my points are so invalid as to be devoid of illustrating an ability to reason, as you allege?
It's not like Sony doesn't have money.... they can pay for the song's inclusion and all is good.
I don't defend Sony here, but it's also entirely possible that this was just a mistake... someone at Sony might have thought they had already secured permission, because it was something they intended to do, and they just put in the sound track without thinking about it, and afterwards, nobody else thought to double-check. It's a really stupid mistake, and one they should most definitely pay for, certainly, but it's not like Sony can't reasonably afford to pay for permission to include the work unless the artist was never willing to give Sony permission in the first place, at any price.
Personally, I think the whole notion of "legally sober" is absurd, and should be abandoned.... it would simplify things tremendously if they just moved to zero-tolerance system, so the issue of trying to judge how impaired one might be wouldn't arise in the first place.
Life becomes a whole lot simpler where if you drink, you don't drive.
Period.
I dunno... maybe it's because I've lost 3 family members to vehicle accidents where alcohol was determined to have been a contributing factor (one of the drivers, the one who killed my niece, and the incident with which I had the greatest level of direct personal involvement, had evidently only had one glass of wine that evening, only further exemplifying the notion that no truly objective standard exists for one to decide if they should be okay to drive or not anyways, so if they moved to a zero tolerance system, nobody should ever be confused on whether it is safe or not for them to drive).
Certainly it's a respectable skill, and it's no disrespect to people who work very hard at some tasks to improve that, but at its core, good video game playing is ultimately about having good mental reflexes and strongly developed hand-eye coordination. To excel, this can require no less time than it takes for an Olympic athlete to train, but that doesn't mean it should be an Olympic event any more than a spelling bee should be.
... is why cinema frame rates seem generally comfortable to watch, while video game frame rates at around the same number are problematic?
Your examples are illustrations of people living nearby, but who are still not actually *on* the property.... if all of the signal jamming they want to do of third-party wifi were somehow restricted to only being within the confines of their own buildings, would they be breaking any FCC rules?
I don't know if you noticed or not, but my comment was a response to a particular question that was the parent of my own above post, and was not simply posted as commentary upon the article itself. That poster asked about using epaper, and I simply explained why epaper might not always be adequate. If my post is offtopic, then so is asking questions about the viability of alternative technologies in the first place.
You are not thinking this through to its logical conclusion. Who will own such machines? What would be the incentive for that person to not expect payment?
And how do you suppose that people without jobs are going to eat, exactly?
1. e-paper has a positively abysmal screen update time
I use my tablet a lot for reading highly technical articles, and I often end up flipping back and forth between different pages of the text while I am reading, usually between a page with a figure or code listing and an explanation that follows or precedes it. I'd rather not add an easily perceptible delay between the time that I slide my finger one way or the other to advance or go back a page and the time it takes to actually show it.
2. e-paper's full color support is poor.
Many of the articles that I read come with slides which I also view on the tablet, and color is very useful at conveying information. Some progress has been made on this front, but for most practical purposes, epaper is generally monochrome.
But certainly, if they ever get around to making a non-emissive display technology with a fast enough screen update time that you can't notice any delay between your actions and when the screen update is complete, and they provide respectable full color support, I'll be all over it. The only reason I use a tablet instead of hard copy at all is portability.
I don't dispute that point.. my argument is only that it may be less about hating captivity specifically, and more about simply not having enough to do. This should be alleviated somewhat in the wildlife sanctuary the creature is going to be relocated to, depending on how large a region she has to explore.
[nt]
How am I following the example of history? Historically, when jobs have been replaced by automation, this has resulted in *MORE* jobs being created.... I am suggesting that this will no longer be the case because of the ushering in of an era where practically any task imaginable that a human being is capable of will be done equally well, if not better, by a tireless machine that will never eat, sleep, go on strike, or require being treated with human dignity.
I don't dispute that they don't want to be there, but it may be far less of a hatred of being in a cage, per se, and much more a matter of simple boredom.
C'mon... if they're going to name something that, it should really be 450 feet long, shouldn't it?
How do you think that people with no money will be able to make their own economy exactly?
Legally speaking, identity theft is the assumption of another person's identity for the purposes of defrauding either that individual or some agency.
It's my understanding that purpose, when used in legalese and referring to criminal activity, simply refers to any intent on the part of the perpetrator, or any intent that can reasonably be assumed, barring extenuating circumstances, and additionally may even include even entirely unintentional consequences that happen to arise or else are very likely to arise as a result of the activity.
Exactly what law is being broken when cops lie or create fake instagram accounts?
It doesn't matter if you "blame automation" or not... as smarter and smarter robots get made, we'd be talking about a future where as much as 80% of today's even very high skilled jobs, and essentially 100% of the low-skill ones, will be taken over by machines, leaving an unsustainable number of people unemployed, and with no ability to sustain themselves without resorting to crime, because the economy is not just going to magically disappear simply because it might seem that an advanced enough technology might make such a thing possible. This is a pretty damn large problem, and it's not going to go away just because automation has always ultimately resulted in more jobs in the past because we are talking about a completely different order of magnitude of scale here, and while we may be on the technological cusp of something like that happening within the next couple of decades, we are not anywhere *close* to being socially ready to accommodate that kind of change.
That's what I think people are really afraid of when it comes to very large scale automation of traditionally very high skill jobs, and not just the notion of losing their "precious capitalism", as was suggested above. And unfortunately, the people who have the greatest incentive to want to avoid it also have virtually no ability to influence such an outcome.
You accuse me of failing to see why an economy could become obsolete, but you appear to fail to see the all-too-probable scenario that it will not. In your hypothetical future, there may certainly not be any kind of real need for any kind of economy if everyone were willing to play by such rules, but you fail to illustrate exactly what would motivate the people with the most money and power to want to give that economy up in the first place.
Quite possibly... but why do you think better technology will change that situation? If anything, wouldn't it only make matters worse?
With machines doing the work, there will be fewer jobs available for human beings, which in and of itself is not a problem except for this annoying fact that people need money to live.
"Oh, but we can replace our capitalistic system with a socialized one", you might say... except the reality of a socialized system that can take care of people who are not able to work requires a majority of the population to be paying taxes, which requires that they are earning an income. in a situation where most people cannot find work at all because all of their jobs have been replaced by increasingly intelligent machines, any attempt at a social welfare system to support them would collapse almost immediately.