According to Uber they are an information system that only connects drivers with vehicles to people who want rides. By being an information company they are not bound by taxi laws. At least that is what they preach. Gladly many jurisdiction disagree.The second Uber purchases vehicles they become a taxi company and and lose the facade completely.
Until truly autonomous vehicles, I am not talking about lane following on highways, becomes a reality all discussions like this is navel gazing. It may take 20 or 30 years before it happens. The last 20% of the situations will take 80% of the programming to solve. We are nowhere close to completely autonomous vehicles.
Try getting anywhere in suburbia on most transit systems on a Sunday. I went on about 30km and it took 2.5 hours. That is at most a 40 minute drive. I think I'll drive when I can.
Here is a counter example. I live pretty close to work. Due to the local transit system not being very well timed for my route It would take 40 minutes from door to door to get to work. That includes an almost 10 minute wait at a transfer and a ten minute walk from the closest bus stop. It is a ten minute drive and and I always arrive bone dry. Taking transit would mean an extra five hours a week commuting and arriving soaked many days ( It rains a lot is also quite windy here). Sorry but I'll take my car.
confirm that it is in fact using IMSI catchers and other equipment to interfere with OTA communications
IMSI catchers do not interfere with communication
As for law enforcement using cellphone jammers try this scenario. Someone finds a bomb with a cell phone attached to it. Wouldn't it be prudent to jam cell phone signals in the area so it can not be remotely detonated while it is being defused? It might go off when the jamming starts but one can clear the area first.
PS. Using all caps just makes me laugh. Yelling is a sure sign of a weak argument.
doesn't stop the police and security services deploying jammers that aren't FCC certified
Citation please. Even if true the police are allowed to a lot of things the others are not.
Doesn't stop me from keying a bleedbox at 934MHz when I'm out on my bike either,
Like the guy in Florida who was arrested for using a jammer. The issue is that jammers also interfere with legitimate calls like 911 and emergency vehicle communication.
you should be driving not fucking Facetiming with your lover.
Your jammer does not differentiate between driver, passengers, pedestrian or people parked on the side of the road. Basically you are causing no one to be able to use a cellphone near your bike. I would call that entitled. In fact, jammers decrease safety as they distract more from driving because the device does not work when it should. The driver will spend more time distracted trying to get the phone to work.
Jamming is not all that selective or containable. The FCC does not allow prisons to jam cell phones because it can effect cell phones outside of prison and interrupt emergency services. What do you think would happen if someone died half a mile from the prison because they could not contact 911?
If they ever build thousands of miles of trans-oceanic power lines. That will happen right after the deployment of the flying car air traffic control system. Even if they did the loss from a 10,000 mile journey would be quite high.
Wow, we were having a polite conversation about terminology usage and then you bring in bowel movements and wanking. You really think that added anything to the conversation? Chill out. Everyone is wrong occasionally and we all have to learn to deal with it. Lashing out is not the correct way. I will chalk it up to you having a bad day. Hope your tomorrow is better.
Calling these things 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' shows just what a daft idea this is, militarily.
Maybe you are thinking to literally. A better description might be "very big, reasonably cheap, immovable aircraft carrier". They are designed to base aircraft and some troops.
You wouldn't use one of these to fight an actual war.
True but they will be very useful in other ways. The most important one being a base for maritime patrol aircraft. That can send patrols out to locate and identify ships entering "Chinese waters" and vector ships to intercept them. That way they can exert de facto control over the area.
The only reason why they would do this, is so that they can call it sovereign territory, and to game international border rules to their own benefit.
That is exactly what they are doing and it is quite important economically.
So is a wheel, track, stepper motor, survo, etc. It is also a locomotion design that may have nothing to do with robots.
It's impressive as hell to anybody with the slightest clue.
I have said it is impressive. Things do not need to be robots to be impressive.
Are you happy now, or do you want to litter slashdot with more of your nonfunctional tripe?
Sorry but I don't see calling someone on the misuse of terminology on a technology website as "nonfunctional tripe". Wrong terminology just muddies the water.
Question: when you have trouble with your bowel movement does it eventually come out if you really try?
So when your arguments do not hold up under scrutiny you get angry and attack the person making the counter argument. I have nothing against you personally. I just think that the arguments you put forward are incorrect and I believe I have shown them to be so. Maybe you need to learn to take these discussions a little less personally.
So we agree it is not a "robot". Much in the same way an actuator may be a "part of a robot" but not, in itself, a "robot".
does not claim that it is completely finished.
It claims that they have built a "robot" when they have not.
Since Biblical times, people have been fascinated with the idea of walking on water. Now researchers have built a robot that can jump on it.
If you pretend not to be impressed with what they have demonstrated so far then you must hand in your geek card.
How does calling them on misuse of nomenclature have anything to do with whether or not I am impressed. It is an very impressive machine but not a robot.
They could have said "Since Biblical times, people have been fascinated with the idea of walking on water. Now researchers have built a machine that can jump on it" That would have been accurate. The only reason to use "robot" instead of "machine" is to make it sound interesting. Robots are seen as more interesting than machines.
On looking further it is not even computer controlled.
The new robot jumps by using a simple, light clasp (almost the entire body of the robot) that snaps shut via a heat-reactant spring after being zapped by an outside pulse of heat.
So someone hitting it with a heat gun would set it off. It can only do it once.
A flea-inspired jumping system called a torque reversal catapult launches the robot from the surface of the water up to 14.2 centimeters in the air, which is similar to water striders. At the moment, the strider-bot can only jump once, and can’t land upright.
By that definition computer controlled fireworks are robots. They have locomotion; the powder to get out of the mortar, and are computer controlled. Computer controlled "one trick ponies" are not robots.
This is a red herring. Here is why your scenario works. 1. Both England and Scotland are part of the same country;The United Kingdom. So an Englishman and a Scot are nationals of the same country. Differentiating England from Scotland just makeit the statement seem more complex. 2. Many countries claim jurisdiction when their nationals are accused of crimes in another country. They therefore try those nationals in their home country instead of extraditing to the other country. If you want to have a more accurate statement it would be as follows;
A citizen of the UK can be tried for a rape committed in France instead of being extradited to France
That is very different than requiring a company to operate in one country under the laws of another country.
The main problem is that laws which protect Google's property - especially IP - are global, mostly thanks to international treaties.
Those treaties pertain to IP and not other laws. The point is that the "right to be forgotten" is not international law and there are no treaties to apply that law internationally. Therefore, Google does not have to apply that law internationally.
This isn't a question of right or wrong so much as a question of if google wants to operate in France, they have to make their worldwide operations acceptable to the French.
It is about right and wrong. It is completely wrong for one country to try to extend it's sovereignty into another country by extending their laws to that other country. It is also not about the people of France making this decision as the question has not been put to the people. This is the opinion of the CNIL, a bureaucratic organization, and has no force of law. The court system and/or politicians are yet to be involved. I bet if this ever went to court, even in France, this "ruling" would be thrown out.
You missed a very important question. When do the laws of one country trump the rights of the people in another country? Why should the censorship laws of China trump the freedom of speech in Canada? Not all countries have the same views on freedom.
If it is between the people and anybody else, some countries even pretend to talk about "We, the people..." and they should ALWAYS be priority number one.
I agree that the people should be number one within their country. That does not mean the restrictive views of the people of one country should override the more open views of a second country within that second country.
If it is inconvinient for a company, fuck that.
It has nothing to do with inconvenience. It is about keeping the internet as open a possible while still following the laws of individual countries within that country.
Seems that libel statues would apply that you should direct at the content publisher not the search engine.
The fact that someone was accused/arrested/went to trial for some offence is not libel or slander; it is a fact. There is no way libel/slander laws can take down facts. The judgement someone else makes based on that fact can be a problem. For some people a mere accusation is enough to create a negative judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Uber they are an information system that only connects drivers with vehicles to people who want rides. By being an information company they are not bound by taxi laws. At least that is what they preach. Gladly many jurisdiction disagree.The second Uber purchases vehicles they become a taxi company and and lose the facade completely.
Until truly autonomous vehicles, I am not talking about lane following on highways, becomes a reality all discussions like this is navel gazing. It may take 20 or 30 years before it happens. The last 20% of the situations will take 80% of the programming to solve. We are nowhere close to completely autonomous vehicles.
Try getting anywhere in suburbia on most transit systems on a Sunday. I went on about 30km and it took 2.5 hours. That is at most a 40 minute drive. I think I'll drive when I can.
Here is a counter example. I live pretty close to work. Due to the local transit system not being very well timed for my route It would take 40 minutes from door to door to get to work. That includes an almost 10 minute wait at a transfer and a ten minute walk from the closest bus stop. It is a ten minute drive and and I always arrive bone dry. Taking transit would mean an extra five hours a week commuting and arriving soaked many days ( It rains a lot is also quite windy here). Sorry but I'll take my car.
PKI jammer, ESC Law Enforcement Supplies, the Homeland Security Act 2002,
Like I said, law enforcement is allowed do things the general public is not.
CELL PHONES COME WITH WARNINGS THAT THEY'RE NOT TO BE USED TO MAKE EMERGENCY CALLS
The FCC even has a page about it.
the Apple IMEI killswitch patent,
That kills one phone not all phones in an area.
confirm that it is in fact using IMSI catchers and other equipment to interfere with OTA communications
IMSI catchers do not interfere with communication
As for law enforcement using cellphone jammers try this scenario. Someone finds a bomb with a cell phone attached to it. Wouldn't it be prudent to jam cell phone signals in the area so it can not be remotely detonated while it is being defused? It might go off when the jamming starts but one can clear the area first.
PS. Using all caps just makes me laugh. Yelling is a sure sign of a weak argument.
doesn't stop the police and security services deploying jammers that aren't FCC certified
Citation please. Even if true the police are allowed to a lot of things the others are not.
Doesn't stop me from keying a bleedbox at 934MHz when I'm out on my bike either,
Like the guy in Florida who was arrested for using a jammer. The issue is that jammers also interfere with legitimate calls like 911 and emergency vehicle communication.
you should be driving not fucking Facetiming with your lover.
Your jammer does not differentiate between driver, passengers, pedestrian or people parked on the side of the road. Basically you are causing no one to be able to use a cellphone near your bike. I would call that entitled. In fact, jammers decrease safety as they distract more from driving because the device does not work when it should. The driver will spend more time distracted trying to get the phone to work.
To be accurate it works over a very thin layer of water with a magnetic track underneath.
Jamming is not all that selective or containable. The FCC does not allow prisons to jam cell phones because it can effect cell phones outside of prison and interrupt emergency services. What do you think would happen if someone died half a mile from the prison because they could not contact 911?
Is it possible to fashion an 'EMP gun' to at least direct the majority of the pulse at a target?
And then that pulse hits parts of the security system and it goes offline.
Maybe just a jammer to interrupt either the GPS signal (or more likely) the remote control signal.
It is against FCC rules to deploy radio wave jammers. The FCC won't even allow prisons to jam cell phones.
If they ever build thousands of miles of trans-oceanic power lines. That will happen right after the deployment of the flying car air traffic control system. Even if they did the loss from a 10,000 mile journey would be quite high.
They still have refrigerators, lights, heaters, fans, machines, etc. Also only a very small percentage of the population are farmers any more.
I hope he is investing in storage technology. Too many solar panels don't help at night.
Is that a self diagnosis?
Wow, we were having a polite conversation about terminology usage and then you bring in bowel movements and wanking. You really think that added anything to the conversation? Chill out. Everyone is wrong occasionally and we all have to learn to deal with it. Lashing out is not the correct way. I will chalk it up to you having a bad day. Hope your tomorrow is better.
Calling these things 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' shows just what a daft idea this is, militarily.
Maybe you are thinking to literally. A better description might be "very big, reasonably cheap, immovable aircraft carrier". They are designed to base aircraft and some troops.
You wouldn't use one of these to fight an actual war.
True but they will be very useful in other ways. The most important one being a base for maritime patrol aircraft. That can send patrols out to locate and identify ships entering "Chinese waters" and vector ships to intercept them. That way they can exert de facto control over the area.
The only reason why they would do this, is so that they can call it sovereign territory, and to game international border rules to their own benefit.
That is exactly what they are doing and it is quite important economically.
It's a robot locomotion design.
So is a wheel, track, stepper motor, survo, etc. It is also a locomotion design that may have nothing to do with robots.
It's impressive as hell to anybody with the slightest clue.
I have said it is impressive. Things do not need to be robots to be impressive.
Are you happy now, or do you want to litter slashdot with more of your nonfunctional tripe?
Sorry but I don't see calling someone on the misuse of terminology on a technology website as "nonfunctional tripe". Wrong terminology just muddies the water.
Question: when you have trouble with your bowel movement does it eventually come out if you really try?
So when your arguments do not hold up under scrutiny you get angry and attack the person making the counter argument. I have nothing against you personally. I just think that the arguments you put forward are incorrect and I believe I have shown them to be so. Maybe you need to learn to take these discussions a little less personally.
It is a prototype of part of a robot.
So we agree it is not a "robot". Much in the same way an actuator may be a "part of a robot" but not, in itself, a "robot".
does not claim that it is completely finished.
It claims that they have built a "robot" when they have not.
Since Biblical times, people have been fascinated with the idea of walking on water. Now researchers have built a robot that can jump on it.
If you pretend not to be impressed with what they have demonstrated so far then you must hand in your geek card.
How does calling them on misuse of nomenclature have anything to do with whether or not I am impressed. It is an very impressive machine but not a robot.
They could have said "Since Biblical times, people have been fascinated with the idea of walking on water. Now researchers have built a machine that can jump on it" That would have been accurate. The only reason to use "robot" instead of "machine" is to make it sound interesting. Robots are seen as more interesting than machines.
On looking further it is not even computer controlled.
The new robot jumps by using a simple, light clasp (almost the entire body of the robot) that snaps shut via a heat-reactant spring after being zapped by an outside pulse of heat.
So someone hitting it with a heat gun would set it off.
It can only do it once.
A flea-inspired jumping system called a torque reversal catapult launches the robot from the surface of the water up to 14.2 centimeters in the air, which is similar to water striders. At the moment, the strider-bot can only jump once, and can’t land upright.
It is a machine not a robot.
By that definition computer controlled fireworks are robots. They have locomotion; the powder to get out of the mortar, and are computer controlled. Computer controlled "one trick ponies" are not robots.
I find it interesting that none of the videos show it landing? I bet it probably sinks.
Also, the mechanism is easily explained. As something moves across water more weight can be supported. That is why boats "get up on plane".
Do you really think that a statement such as "person a accused person b or crime c" could be construed a libel?
This is a red herring. Here is why your scenario works.
1. Both England and Scotland are part of the same country;The United Kingdom. So an Englishman and a Scot are nationals of the same country. Differentiating England from Scotland just makeit the statement seem more complex.
2. Many countries claim jurisdiction when their nationals are accused of crimes in another country. They therefore try those nationals in their home country instead of extraditing to the other country.
If you want to have a more accurate statement it would be as follows;
A citizen of the UK can be tried for a rape committed in France instead of being extradited to France
That is very different than requiring a company to operate in one country under the laws of another country.
The main problem is that laws which protect Google's property - especially IP - are global, mostly thanks to international treaties.
Those treaties pertain to IP and not other laws. The point is that the "right to be forgotten" is not international law and there are no treaties to apply that law internationally. Therefore, Google does not have to apply that law internationally.
This isn't a question of right or wrong so much as a question of if google wants to operate in France, they have to make their worldwide operations acceptable to the French.
It is about right and wrong. It is completely wrong for one country to try to extend it's sovereignty into another country by extending their laws to that other country. It is also not about the people of France making this decision as the question has not been put to the people. This is the opinion of the CNIL, a bureaucratic organization, and has no force of law. The court system and/or politicians are yet to be involved. I bet if this ever went to court, even in France, this "ruling" would be thrown out.
You missed a very important question. When do the laws of one country trump the rights of the people in another country? Why should the censorship laws of China trump the freedom of speech in Canada? Not all countries have the same views on freedom.
If it is between the people and anybody else, some countries even pretend to talk about "We, the people ..." and they should ALWAYS be priority number one.
I agree that the people should be number one within their country. That does not mean the restrictive views of the people of one country should override the more open views of a second country within that second country.
If it is inconvinient for a company, fuck that.
It has nothing to do with inconvenience. It is about keeping the internet as open a possible while still following the laws of individual countries within that country.
Seems that libel statues would apply that you should direct at the content publisher not the search engine.
The fact that someone was accused/arrested/went to trial for some offence is not libel or slander; it is a fact. There is no way libel/slander laws can take down facts. The judgement someone else makes based on that fact can be a problem. For some people a mere accusation is enough to create a negative judgement.