Will the car refuse to start if the camera is obscured and the driver can't be identified?
Probably... but only if the owner cannot be reached by phone/text message.
Although I realize it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where this would actually cause problems... perhaps the developers of this tech are anticipating that the number of actual complaints which arise as a result of actual experienced difficulty will be small enough that they can still afford to lose those customers' business.
If the police want to search your phone after you have clearly told them that you do not consent to any such search, then you can sue the cop. Politely inform the cop that you are aware that such a search without a warrant would be a violation of your constitutional rights, and that if the search is carried out in spite of this, then you will hold the officer accountable for that violation. This may or may not be considered by a dickhead police officer as a a threat, but if it is, again politely remind the officer that while you're not going to try to stop him from doing his job, you are informing him that you do not consent to such a search without a warrant, and that you will not allow your rights to be violated without also taking the matter before the courts.
Even a complete asshole police officer will probably just let you go at that point... as you've made it clear that you're not going to actively try to do anything to actually stop him from doing anything that he might think he needs to do right then and there, so he won't have a convenient excuse to throw handcuffs on you, and you've only reminded him of the potential lawful consequences for doing things that he's not supposed to. He'd have to genuinely believe that he was lawfully in the right to still carry out said search... but of course, as I said, you could sue the cop afterwards.
The question is, however, if you do not actually *do* anything to stop them from searching your phone, can your lack of doing anything be construed as implied consent? I mean, I might even say out loud, multiple times, that I don't want you to search my phone, but if I don't actually *DO* anything to stop you from searching, doesn't that mean that you could infer my actual intent from my actions, or lack thereof, and ignore what I'm saying as easily as if I were saying something that was complete nonsense?
Being true doesn't make something not defamation, it just makes it *exponentially* harder to win a suit on the grounds of alleged defamation. Basically, when the information is factual, the person being published about would have to show that either it was somehow more likely that the publisher was providing that information solely from sense of malice (eg, the information is relatively confidential and does not serve any kind of public interest, such as publishing that a person had cheated on their spouse), or else the factual information is provided in a way that a reasonable person might come to an unfactual wrong conclusion about the matter, usually because although the provided information is true, relevant facts are unstated which could significantly alter the kind of conclusion a reasonable person would come to. For example, suppose that a person has a legitimate medical reason to have a prescription for morphine, and they are required to be consuming fairly high dosages of it regularly, and then someone goes and publishes that this person appears to have a morphine addiction (which can be reasonably argued to be true, since they are only publishing that is how things *appear*) because of how often they (factually) use it, then even though the information can be considered factual, that person might reasonably be sued for defamation, but even then, since the person being published about was actually taking high dosages of morphine, the publisher of such information could probably claim genuine belief on their part as a defense and the defamation suit would likely fail. The onus would be on the person suing to show that the publisher had somehow deliberately framed the facts that they published in such a manner as to create an impression that is *not* factually true. This is not necessarily always impossible to do, but it would also probably not be a remotely easy thing for the person being published about to accomplish, no matter how much money they spent on lawyers.
I know that defamation suits can be filed (and sometimes even won) even if the information being published is true (if it's false, then one could further sue for libel) but it's my understanding that in the case where the published information is true, the onus is on the person who is suing to show that the *intent* of the publishers was to actually defame them... which of course is quite difficult to do in court. They would have to, using factual evidence, show how it was somehow considerably more probable that there was actually any malicious intent on the publisher's part than any claim the publisher the might make to contrary being true. Unless the publishers actually confess that this is the case, this will not be easy... no matter how good their lawyers are.
Perhaps you missed the point I said where the person holding the space is actively paying for the use of that space until a person that they are willing to surrender it to (because enough money has been offered) arrives at the location.
I just assumed it was referring to metered parking. Every city that I've lived i, the prime parking spots are always paid, or else on private property. I guess there's also free parking along the residential streets of the suburbs, but I wouldn't think that such parking would generally be in demand in the first place. Even the residential streets that are too close to any kind of major artery tend to have restrictions on who is allowed to park there... ie, you would need to have a tag hanging on your rear view mirror similar to a handicapped vehicle tag that indicates the vehicle is owned by a resident along that street, and untagged vehicles which are there for more than about 15 minutes or so will usually get ticketed, and sometimes even towed.
They'll still do it anyways... the government has a quite long track record of ignoring what courts might decide if that's not something they want to do. And what is the average person going to do about it if they still use it?
If you are sitting in your car at a parking meter, and keep putting change into the meter to keep it from running out until somebody who has offered you enough money for your presumably prime parking position comes along and you vacate that spot for them, are you still considered to be loitering in the interim?
If they are holding the space, and properly paying for it until somebody who has offered them sufficient money for that space arrives, then aside from encouraging people to use their phones while driving, which is generally considered an unsafe practice, what are they doing wrong, exactly?
Aren't there still going to be problems of scaling this thing? It seems like they are talking about something that is about an order of magnitude or more larger than transistors today, and that's going to limit the complexity of a circuit.
Do the definitions of the terms involved stipulate that anything that was genuinely dead in the past, but is, in some way, no longer considered as dead anymore necessarily be considered undead?
I was suggesting that the alternative to the universe not being created by god would be that it was created by one... and that to a person who has adopted either world view, the other generally seems absurd.. Other options, which may exist for purposes of speculation, generally preclude that anything exists at all.
Absolutely nothing, but a lot of people seem to think that the idea of a God having created it all is absurd, and I only suggest that it's no more absurd than the alternative...
I see. In that case, the existence of anything can imply just about any insane idea one can come up with.
Just about, yep... and why I consider the notion that this universe came into existence from nothing and caused by nothing to be about as insane as the idea that some being that we might refer to as God spoke it into existence. In the end, we choose which insane theory to accept as fact, and then we interpret our reality based on that assumption.
The fact that you cannot conceive of any other possibility...
Whoever said I couldn't conceive of another possibility? The apparent fact that this universe appears to contain all of the necessary ingredients to have come into existence spontaneously can certainly evidence that this universe does not appear to need any kind of creator.... and may even imply it, but its implication is still not proof. In the end, you will decide which implication you would like to accept as more likely, but in reality, neither is. I accept that... do you?
One could equally argue that any apparent evidence (which is only our own interpretation of the information we receive, and is subject to our perceptions and preconceptions about the nature of reality and anything which may exist beyond it) that the universe doesn't seem to need a creator is prohibiting some from conceiving of the possibility that it may, in fact, have happened exactly that way. It's entirely physically possible that any belief in God is simply a result of self-delusion, but it seems to me to be equally possible that any disbelief in God is just as much of a self-delusion.
And of course, none of this has any bearing on how old the universe is, or how old it appears to be. Bear in mind that even if creation were literally true... Adam, for example, was created as a fully formed adult, and by all outward appearances (by the processes that we experience today) would have appeared to have been born many years earlier... and any alleged discrepancy between artificial appearance of age and actual age would not have been done out of any sense of a desire to deceive anyone on the part of the creator, but would in fact be more of a form of self-deception... arising out of one's own preconceptions that the limits of ones own perceptions about reality (such as an intelligent adult human existing meaning that he was born some time ago, and not just recently manufactured) might accurately be equally applicable to things which may be outside of the human experience entirely. I don't suggest this to imply that there is a rational basis to think that the universe is much younger than it appears, I only suggest it to note that once a person has fully considered the possibilities, it is anything but inconceivable.
As I said, however... every individual forms their own preconceptions about what they think the origin of the universe might be, and any further conclusion that they come to after that decision will be tainted by that belief unless or until they can be convinced to alter it... something which is generally not an easy thing to do.
I said implies... not proves. And it only implies there is a creator for God if you presume that God is subject to the same rules of information organization as this universe appears to be.
That is necessarily no more true than an author who wants to write a story is compelled to fully develop and narrate all of the backstories for all of characters in the story before the story itself can begin.
Nonetheless, the premise that the universe is old is certainly true for all practical and testable purposes, and so even if it were not actually old, arguing about it is a waste of time at best.
I would argue that mathematics didn't even exist until after the idea of zero was thought of... certainly many of the foundations of what could form mathematics were already in place, but the notion of an additive identity value is pretty axiomatic to mathematics. I'd suggest that what existed before zero was thought up wasn't mathematics at all... but may be best described as what we would now consider arithmetic.
Just because we don't know doesn't mean God Did It.
True... but just because we believe we *do* know, and even if we have a perfectly justifiable reason for believing that we do know, doesn't mean that God didn't do it.
Whether "God Did It" or not is actually entirely irrellevant to how old the universe at least appears to be by all standards that we can measure... and personally, I think whether or not that appearance belies its "actual" age or not is entirely irrelevant. How old the world actually is, or understanding how we supposedly evolved from single-celled organisms just doesn't really matter when you get down to brass tacks, What really matters in this life is every individual living their life in the best way that they know how... today. And I really see a lot of this disagreement about this kind of crap as wholly irrelevant to that purpose. If anything it detracts from it.
I'd suggest that evidence of creation is found in the fact that anything exists at all, in the same way that the existence of anything which appears organized enough to convey information implies that an intelligence was behind it (or do you presume, for instance, that cave drawings may have actually just formed there by entirely natural processes?)
Of course, that does not necessarily prove creation is the truth, mind you, since there are alternative conjectures on the origin of everything, some of which we appear to have found present-day evidence to support, but all that evidence is really just that... evidence. Evidence to support a conjecture about something that will, for all practical purposes forever, transcend all human experience. We individually collect what evidence we can come across and in the end, we still choose what we want to believe, whether that choice is based on faith or on something that might conventionally be considered more tangible.
But if you think that faith isn't worth actually basing any beliefs off of, then one is advocating, for instance, that it would be unwise for any married person to believe in the fidelity of their spouse, for example, without almost constant supervision and routine physical exams. Such an arrangement between spouses, if it were to exist (and perhaps it does), is nothing less than a mockery of what marriage is, or at least what marriage is supposed to be. So clearly faith is practical for belief in at least some things.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably... but only if the owner cannot be reached by phone/text message.
Although I realize it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where this would actually cause problems... perhaps the developers of this tech are anticipating that the number of actual complaints which arise as a result of actual experienced difficulty will be small enough that they can still afford to lose those customers' business.
Only if your car has no way to reach you by phone. It will still ask you for confirmation.
Keys can be stolen... sometimes without the person even being aware of it until the car has been taken.
If the police want to search your phone after you have clearly told them that you do not consent to any such search, then you can sue the cop. Politely inform the cop that you are aware that such a search without a warrant would be a violation of your constitutional rights, and that if the search is carried out in spite of this, then you will hold the officer accountable for that violation. This may or may not be considered by a dickhead police officer as a a threat, but if it is, again politely remind the officer that while you're not going to try to stop him from doing his job, you are informing him that you do not consent to such a search without a warrant, and that you will not allow your rights to be violated without also taking the matter before the courts.
Even a complete asshole police officer will probably just let you go at that point... as you've made it clear that you're not going to actively try to do anything to actually stop him from doing anything that he might think he needs to do right then and there, so he won't have a convenient excuse to throw handcuffs on you, and you've only reminded him of the potential lawful consequences for doing things that he's not supposed to. He'd have to genuinely believe that he was lawfully in the right to still carry out said search... but of course, as I said, you could sue the cop afterwards.
What do you do if refusal to cooperate with law enforcement is construed as obstruction of justice?
The question is, however, if you do not actually *do* anything to stop them from searching your phone, can your lack of doing anything be construed as implied consent? I mean, I might even say out loud, multiple times, that I don't want you to search my phone, but if I don't actually *DO* anything to stop you from searching, doesn't that mean that you could infer my actual intent from my actions, or lack thereof, and ignore what I'm saying as easily as if I were saying something that was complete nonsense?
Being true doesn't make something not defamation, it just makes it *exponentially* harder to win a suit on the grounds of alleged defamation. Basically, when the information is factual, the person being published about would have to show that either it was somehow more likely that the publisher was providing that information solely from sense of malice (eg, the information is relatively confidential and does not serve any kind of public interest, such as publishing that a person had cheated on their spouse), or else the factual information is provided in a way that a reasonable person might come to an unfactual wrong conclusion about the matter, usually because although the provided information is true, relevant facts are unstated which could significantly alter the kind of conclusion a reasonable person would come to. For example, suppose that a person has a legitimate medical reason to have a prescription for morphine, and they are required to be consuming fairly high dosages of it regularly, and then someone goes and publishes that this person appears to have a morphine addiction (which can be reasonably argued to be true, since they are only publishing that is how things *appear*) because of how often they (factually) use it, then even though the information can be considered factual, that person might reasonably be sued for defamation, but even then, since the person being published about was actually taking high dosages of morphine, the publisher of such information could probably claim genuine belief on their part as a defense and the defamation suit would likely fail. The onus would be on the person suing to show that the publisher had somehow deliberately framed the facts that they published in such a manner as to create an impression that is *not* factually true. This is not necessarily always impossible to do, but it would also probably not be a remotely easy thing for the person being published about to accomplish, no matter how much money they spent on lawyers.
I know that defamation suits can be filed (and sometimes even won) even if the information being published is true (if it's false, then one could further sue for libel) but it's my understanding that in the case where the published information is true, the onus is on the person who is suing to show that the *intent* of the publishers was to actually defame them... which of course is quite difficult to do in court. They would have to, using factual evidence, show how it was somehow considerably more probable that there was actually any malicious intent on the publisher's part than any claim the publisher the might make to contrary being true. Unless the publishers actually confess that this is the case, this will not be easy... no matter how good their lawyers are.
Perhaps you missed the point I said where the person holding the space is actively paying for the use of that space until a person that they are willing to surrender it to (because enough money has been offered) arrives at the location.
I just assumed it was referring to metered parking. Every city that I've lived i, the prime parking spots are always paid, or else on private property. I guess there's also free parking along the residential streets of the suburbs, but I wouldn't think that such parking would generally be in demand in the first place. Even the residential streets that are too close to any kind of major artery tend to have restrictions on who is allowed to park there... ie, you would need to have a tag hanging on your rear view mirror similar to a handicapped vehicle tag that indicates the vehicle is owned by a resident along that street, and untagged vehicles which are there for more than about 15 minutes or so will usually get ticketed, and sometimes even towed.
They'll still do it anyways... the government has a quite long track record of ignoring what courts might decide if that's not something they want to do. And what is the average person going to do about it if they still use it?
If you are sitting in your car at a parking meter, and keep putting change into the meter to keep it from running out until somebody who has offered you enough money for your presumably prime parking position comes along and you vacate that spot for them, are you still considered to be loitering in the interim?
If they are holding the space, and properly paying for it until somebody who has offered them sufficient money for that space arrives, then aside from encouraging people to use their phones while driving, which is generally considered an unsafe practice, what are they doing wrong, exactly?
Aren't there still going to be problems of scaling this thing? It seems like they are talking about something that is about an order of magnitude or more larger than transistors today, and that's going to limit the complexity of a circuit.
Do the definitions of the terms involved stipulate that anything that was genuinely dead in the past, but is, in some way, no longer considered as dead anymore necessarily be considered undead?
I was suggesting that the alternative to the universe not being created by god would be that it was created by one... and that to a person who has adopted either world view, the other generally seems absurd.. Other options, which may exist for purposes of speculation, generally preclude that anything exists at all.
Absolutely nothing, but a lot of people seem to think that the idea of a God having created it all is absurd, and I only suggest that it's no more absurd than the alternative...
Just about, yep... and why I consider the notion that this universe came into existence from nothing and caused by nothing to be about as insane as the idea that some being that we might refer to as God spoke it into existence. In the end, we choose which insane theory to accept as fact, and then we interpret our reality based on that assumption.
Whoever said I couldn't conceive of another possibility? The apparent fact that this universe appears to contain all of the necessary ingredients to have come into existence spontaneously can certainly evidence that this universe does not appear to need any kind of creator.... and may even imply it, but its implication is still not proof. In the end, you will decide which implication you would like to accept as more likely, but in reality, neither is. I accept that... do you?
One could equally argue that any apparent evidence (which is only our own interpretation of the information we receive, and is subject to our perceptions and preconceptions about the nature of reality and anything which may exist beyond it) that the universe doesn't seem to need a creator is prohibiting some from conceiving of the possibility that it may, in fact, have happened exactly that way. It's entirely physically possible that any belief in God is simply a result of self-delusion, but it seems to me to be equally possible that any disbelief in God is just as much of a self-delusion.
And of course, none of this has any bearing on how old the universe is, or how old it appears to be. Bear in mind that even if creation were literally true... Adam, for example, was created as a fully formed adult, and by all outward appearances (by the processes that we experience today) would have appeared to have been born many years earlier... and any alleged discrepancy between artificial appearance of age and actual age would not have been done out of any sense of a desire to deceive anyone on the part of the creator, but would in fact be more of a form of self-deception... arising out of one's own preconceptions that the limits of ones own perceptions about reality (such as an intelligent adult human existing meaning that he was born some time ago, and not just recently manufactured) might accurately be equally applicable to things which may be outside of the human experience entirely. I don't suggest this to imply that there is a rational basis to think that the universe is much younger than it appears, I only suggest it to note that once a person has fully considered the possibilities, it is anything but inconceivable.
As I said, however... every individual forms their own preconceptions about what they think the origin of the universe might be, and any further conclusion that they come to after that decision will be tainted by that belief unless or until they can be convinced to alter it... something which is generally not an easy thing to do.
FYI.... these motorbikes are not silent. Watch the video.
I said implies... not proves. And it only implies there is a creator for God if you presume that God is subject to the same rules of information organization as this universe appears to be.
That is necessarily no more true than an author who wants to write a story is compelled to fully develop and narrate all of the backstories for all of characters in the story before the story itself can begin.
Nonetheless, the premise that the universe is old is certainly true for all practical and testable purposes, and so even if it were not actually old, arguing about it is a waste of time at best.
I would argue that mathematics didn't even exist until after the idea of zero was thought of... certainly many of the foundations of what could form mathematics were already in place, but the notion of an additive identity value is pretty axiomatic to mathematics. I'd suggest that what existed before zero was thought up wasn't mathematics at all... but may be best described as what we would now consider arithmetic.
True... but just because we believe we *do* know, and even if we have a perfectly justifiable reason for believing that we do know, doesn't mean that God didn't do it.
Whether "God Did It" or not is actually entirely irrellevant to how old the universe at least appears to be by all standards that we can measure... and personally, I think whether or not that appearance belies its "actual" age or not is entirely irrelevant. How old the world actually is, or understanding how we supposedly evolved from single-celled organisms just doesn't really matter when you get down to brass tacks, What really matters in this life is every individual living their life in the best way that they know how... today. And I really see a lot of this disagreement about this kind of crap as wholly irrelevant to that purpose. If anything it detracts from it.
I'd suggest that evidence of creation is found in the fact that anything exists at all, in the same way that the existence of anything which appears organized enough to convey information implies that an intelligence was behind it (or do you presume, for instance, that cave drawings may have actually just formed there by entirely natural processes?)
Of course, that does not necessarily prove creation is the truth, mind you, since there are alternative conjectures on the origin of everything, some of which we appear to have found present-day evidence to support, but all that evidence is really just that... evidence. Evidence to support a conjecture about something that will, for all practical purposes forever, transcend all human experience. We individually collect what evidence we can come across and in the end, we still choose what we want to believe, whether that choice is based on faith or on something that might conventionally be considered more tangible.
But if you think that faith isn't worth actually basing any beliefs off of, then one is advocating, for instance, that it would be unwise for any married person to believe in the fidelity of their spouse, for example, without almost constant supervision and routine physical exams. Such an arrangement between spouses, if it were to exist (and perhaps it does), is nothing less than a mockery of what marriage is, or at least what marriage is supposed to be. So clearly faith is practical for belief in at least some things.