Bay Area Rapid Transit - San Francisco's Bus and light rail system
San Francisco's transist system is called Muni. BART covers more than just San Francisco and is most common in the East Bay though it has been expanding into the South Bay over the last 10-15 years.
I don't see a large distinction between divulging information you're already retaining vs being compelled to retain new information that you also must divulge. For example the Bank Secrecy Act compels banks to retain transactional history that they weren't already keeping, such as details of specific credit and cash transactions that exceed $10,000/USD.
Banks keep track of every transaction. How do you think you get a balance sheet every month itemizing your every transaction? They don't do it because the Federal Government compels them to. They do it because that is the nature of banking. The only thing that law requires them to do is to notify the government when a 'suspicious' transaction occurs. They're already privy to all the details of the account holder - bank relationship. In the case of Apple they are also privy to all the details of the phone owner - Apple relationship. Apple has no knowledge of what conversations pass between you and your mother, however. They may be aware that such conversations are taking place, but they do not have the contents of the message. This is asking Apple to take part in a relationship that they have no business being involved in and reporting their new found knowledge to the government. They already supply any meta data they have to the NSA. So any information they have on the conversations you engage in are already given to the government. Why should the federal government be able to compel them to increase their knowledge and capabilities when Apple has no business reason to do so and plenty of business reasons not to do?
I suspect the FBI has been waiting for any excuse to force Apple to unlock the phone for them. Any other practical solutions is not likely to be entertained as they have already said that even if they had all the iCloud backups, they need to check everything on the phone.
They've been waiting for the right excuse so they can set a precedent on a case the public won't care about it.
So slashdot is responsible if I post a fake link to an article in a comment that installs malware? Slashdot CONFIGURED their site to allow arbitrary content from third parties (me) and indeed says they are not responsible for said content.
Funny how that doesn't hold up for torrent trackers, but I digress. I think you are mistaken.
While morally the site is responsible, legally no one is. Not even the ad company. That's the kick in the dick part of all of this.
No. Slashdot does not redirect you to that website. Nor does Slashdot load any object from the URL you posted. Someone must choose to follow your malicious link. When you go to the NYT website you are forced to either accept 3rd party content that the NYT has no control over, or block the ad. Since it is NYT that is redirecting you to the malicious content, they are responsible.
Why is the phone a "do not cross" line? This is the one that is making people here on Slashdot compare the government to nazis? All this time we've been living in the world where the government can get a legal warrant to enter your house, look through your things, take pretty much anything they deem suspicious, get into your car, your workplace... This happens every single day.
But, unlocking your phone and looking at your data is a whole another level of intrusion that causes extreme amounts of anger and comparisons to one of the worst government regimes ever?
I don't get this. I mean, I don't see anybody protesting that if I lock my house, government can't come in, even with a warrant, and my house and its contents are way more private to me than my phone.
Could somebody please elaborate on why the phone is a special case here?
If the government wants the contents of your phone, they're free to encrypt it. If I encrypt every single document in my home what is to force me to unencrypt the data for the government? Nothing. They can crack the code themselves if it is that important to them. That is the key difference. This is the government telling the world that they must have every single safe combination to every single safe in the world - whether it is sold on US soil or not. And the claim that the phone is some blackbox that cannot be penetrated is disingenuous in the extreme. The NSA already monitors, illegally, every single bit that goes into and out of that phone. You can't do anything useful on a phone without network connectivity. Sure you could take pictures and write yourself notes but you cannot communicate those notes or pictures without allowing syncing the items off of the phone or by using a network connection. So what value is the information that is on the phone but has not already been spied upon by the US Government? It is of very little value, in most cases.
why would they write a constitution which more or less would so easily let the country devolve into some religion where we have now existed for decades without a single amendment to improve the document by modernizing it for the times?... Where is the part of the document which would protect civil liberties regarding electronic data protection? It's not there because the founding fathers didn't absolutely require that the constitution is reviewed and updated.
I believe that the part you're looking for is the 4th Amendment. That the current government does not honor the clause has nothing to do with the document itself, but the politicians and the voters who fail to hold them accountable for violating the constitution.
They were men who :
c) Believed black people were less valuable than dogs since you could love a dog.
Not all of them. The reason slaves were treated as 3/5 of a person is the fact that the Northerners did not want the South to have undue influence from counting the population of people who could not vote and would, under the compromises they came to, would never be able to vote until a later amendment of the constitution. We would have never had the Mason/Dixon line or the eventual Emancipation Proclamation had the South had its way.
d) Believed that religious freedom meant you should be free to believe in any form of Christianity you want.
I don't recall the constitution mentioning Christianity. I think its the population that cares more than the government.
Why should I have to prove that I did not commit a criminal act? It seems to be that the government should have to prove that I did. Whether or not I am at fault is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
Because, besides being innocent until proved guilty, no one has the duty to prove your innocence - and you can bet your sorry ass that the guilty part would profit by accusing you.
If the other guys accuses you of reckless driving, you better prove you weren't.
Well hold on here. Reckless driving is a criminal matter. He can claim reckless driving all he wants but without some sort of moving violation or other criminal charge against me how can he possibly bring that accusation up in court? There has to be some evidence to prove this - whether it is eyewitness or physical. Your word against theirs isn't going to count much either way without other evidence. I realize the standard of evidence is much lower in a civil court but my entire argument has been against criminal penalties for failing to avoid an accident. The civil case for damages is a whole different ballgame.
This is why you (and everyone else) need to be replaced by an AV.
You make absolute statements about how crashes should not be avoided if there is even a chance of causing a different accident, whereas those you are arguing with are making the point that you should make the best decision at the time: sometimes that means taking a low risk on another accident just to avoid a high risk or certainty of an accident.
When given examples you quickly change your original answer that, of course, you wouldn't run over a kid, that would be crazy.
You are incapable of making such decisions even while sitting at your computer, so it is unlikely you will make good decisions in the split second before an accident. You would have slammed into the Google AV instead of going a foot over into oncoming traffic because that might have caused another accident. Ignoring of course that the certainty of slamming into the AV might cause it to careen onto the curb killing that child that you now seem to be concerned about.
No I am saying that there is no way to legislate that someone 'avoid an accident.' Not that you should not avoid an accident. I'm saying that you should not make erratic lane changes to avoid another car. This is what the entire thread has been about. The google car made an erratic move, at a speed significantly slower than the flow of traffic, to avoid hitting a sandbag. If you hit a sandbag what is it going to do? Bend the control arm on that wheel? Mess up your fender? Perhaps. But you didn't exacerbate the situation. If someone cuts you off and your options are to make an unsafe lane change or hit the person in front of you, you should do your best to slow down and stay in your lane. We were never discussing plowing into a child until you brought it up. Avoiding killing a child is a natural reaction that no one would fault you for. I would fault you for causing an accident with another vehicle when you're trying to avoid damage to your own vehicle. My point has always been that you cannot legislate that someone avoid an accident. Once you do that, people are going to think they're required to swerve or otherwise do stupid things to avoid fault in an accident. There are already laws that cover negligent driving. You want people making safe decisions and not erratic ones because they're worried about criminal penalties for failing to avoid an accident. That has been my argument the entire time. I am sorry you failed to grasp that.
Thank you for your idiotic suggestion. I am not doing a road rally, I am probably at 1/3 of the road engineering speed and the risk of getting hit in the ass is probably a 1000 times greater than skidding.
My idiotic suggestion of slowing down prior to entering the turn? If you get rear ended with a normal braking procedure then the person behind you is an idiot. There's no rally racing about it. You want to pick your speed prior to entering the turn, maintain that speed during the turn, and accelerate coming out of the turn. It provides the best traction possible no matter what kind of vehicle you're in. If you're slowing down in the turn then you are wasting traction. If you're going 1/3 of the speed that the turn is designed for then why are you slowing down at all?
I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you.
In California you actually are required to do so if it can be done safely.
anyone have a link to the DMV rules about that?
"Never assume other drivers will give you the right-of-way. Yield your right-of-way when it helps to prevent collisions."
http://test-www.dmv.ca.gov/pub...
My understanding is that this is a paraphrasing of what is in the Motor Vehicle Code.
Yielding right of way is not the same as requiring someone to avoid accidents. Of course you are expected to follow at a safe distance and allow yourself room to stop. This is to prevent rear end collisions. but if someone runs a red light and pulls out in front of you and your options are A) Make an unsafe lane change and B) plow into the guy then everyone will reasonably expect you to do B. Your requirement to avoid an accident is on the basis of you driving in a safe manner and requiring someone to take any other measure besides braking to avoid an accident is dangerous. In the case of yielding right of way, you are slowing or stopping to avoid an accident.
How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident?
By analyzing the accident.., you was on reckless driving.
Oh hey! Look at that! There is already a law that covers driving like an idiot.
If there was space to avoid the hit, you at very minimum was incompetent to void the accident and should not be driving.
Your right to be right is not greater than the right of other to be not be injured if you can avoid the injury.
If there is room to stop, what person would fail to stop? But I am not going to jump into another lane to avoid hitting someone just because they cut me off. That could result in a far more serious accident. And I have the right to avoid doing things that could cause harm to someone else. If someone does something that puts me and them in harm, then that is their fault, not mine. At least, in a general sense. There are always cases where this may not be 100% true. Taking precipitous action would just put someone else at risk and not the person who made the first mistake.
If taking action could result in another accident then it is typically better to let the other person hit you.
Being that a good and valid excuse to the accident. All you have to do now is to prove your point - what you must do it anyway, what would you do if the other guys accuses you of being responsible by the accident?
Why should I have to prove that I did not commit a criminal act? It seems to be that the government should have to prove that I did. Whether or not I am at fault is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
What if dodging that vehicle caused you to crash?
What if by preventing your car to crash, a kid is dead?
You are the kind of driver that, if a kid crosses the street without looking, you prefer to hit the kid than a tree? Of course the three will trash your car but you would only be seriously injured if you would be speeding - what makes you negligent at best.
Oh come on now. This is not a car on person accident. This is a car on bus. While more likely to be lethal than a car on car accident, all occupants were in a steel cage designed to protect them in the event of a crash. A car on motorcycle/bicycle/pedestrian situation is NOT comparable to a car on bus accident. No one in their right mind would intentionally hit another human being to avoid damaging their paint job on a tree. If someone did intentionally hit a human being then, again, there is already a crime for that! It's called (attempted) murder if they did it on purpose and manslaughter if it was an avoidable accident.
How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident?
When one side says "Google said its car's safety driver thought the bus would yield." When a driver sees a potential accident coming the proper response is not to bet the other guy will yield, even if you have the right of way. Sometimes you have to accommodate the other guys illegal move.
Sure, the guy admitted that he made a mistake. I feel like there are other laws that cover this scenario, though.
1st rule of defensive driving- never expect another driver to do anything
I won't yield into traffic or turn into a street if another driver will need to slow or brake not to hit me
Never sit in a median to turn with front or back of car sticking out
I actually speed up a bit before turning to maximize distance between myself and driver behind and turn shallow. This is a bit hard to explain but you angle into the turn and actually do most of your slowing when you are already in the turn
Many others but I probably don't even think about them.
You should probably take a driving safety course. Speeding up or slowing down in a turn requires traction. Your traction in a turn is always a fixed amount (that varies on conditions). With 4 wheels, this may not be a huge problem in favorable conditions. With two wheels, this can be very dangerous. I hate when people do exactly what you describe while I'm on my motorcycle. I do not want to touch my brakes in a turn unless its an emergency. I try to maintain a constant speed. Even if I coast to slow down, I slow down much more slowly than a car when turning.
That may be true in some jurisdictions, but what's true in all jurisdictions is driving is that right of way isn't a license to get into an accident that you can avoid. If the Google car really was traveling at just 2 mph, then you have to wonder whether the bus driver could have avoided the accident.
In any case it's clear that if the safety driver had been driving the accident still would have happened; he judged that the bus would yield, but it didn't.
I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you. That could result in far more dangerous circumstances. And if the google car was going 2mph then the correct action is for the google car to stop for the sandbag rather than jump in front of a bus. Besides, I thought the whole point of autonomous cars is that they're supposed to be safer? It is clear that the car merged into the bus.
I don't know about there, but around here if you willingly fails to avoid an accident, you can be charge for life endangerment. The guy that made the mistake would be prosecuted by civil law for the losses, but you would face a prosecution by criminal law.
Unless you are a public transport driver and the victim is a biker. By some reason, they're allowed to ram bikers on the street.... =/ (Don't ask, I don't understand it neither)
That seems like a law that is begging for trouble. How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident? If taking action could result in another accident then it is typically better to let the other person hit you. What if dodging that vehicle caused you to crash?
Unsafe is a term designed to have flexibility to be determined by a judge. In the same way that "it's never your fault if you're rear ended", it's common wisdom that's incorrect.
Unless you intentionally jump in front of someone and then slam on the brakes, how could it ever be your fault if you're rear ended? Even if you make an illegal stop in traffic. And how do you prove that the driver in front was at fault without a video of the incident or unusually good witnesses?
It's more akin to asking the phone company to decrypt any traffic that goes across the phone network. The phone company is only required to give over whatever data it reasonably can collect. It is up to the government to turn it into usable evidence. They have the phone. If they can't get anything off of it, how is apple to blame? Furthermore, Apple already provided the information it does have: the iCloud backups sent from the phones in question.
So that you've got a 1 in 1.00000000001 billion chance of dying due to terrorism instead of just 1 in 1 billion?
When you can guarantee that number won't increase to 1 in 100 over the next 20 years, you can have your privacy back.
When you can guarantee that number will increase to 1 in 100 over the next 20 years, you can have my privacy. That's the most asinine argument I've ever heard.
The problem is it's not just this phone. It's the 12 others they have on stand by, it's the 175 NY has lined up and ready to go -- for starters.
As long as they have proper warrants, I don't see what it matters if there is only 1 phone, or 10000.
Because there is no precedent or legal reason to force Apple to provide the FBI with evidence they already have. If the Federal government, or any government agency does not have the ways and means to turn that evidence into something useful, how is it Apple's problem? They already have all the NSA collected meta data on every communication these two made. So what value does the phone even provide? The government keeps reaching further and further. By forcing Apple to make new firmware, they are also violating Apple's first amendment rights. Even if they just force Apple to sign the firmware, they are violating Apple's rights. And to save whom? To prosecute what individual? The perpetrators of this act are dead. Their victims have already been harmed. The government should already know who these people are talking to thanks to illegal data collection policies practiced by the federal government. So why do you have so much sympathy for a government that violates your privacy? So that you've got a 1 in 1.00000000001 billion chance of dying due to terrorism instead of just 1 in 1 billion? Feel free to volunteer all of your privacy, but don't take mine or that of anyone else. You're more likely to win the lottery though, I imagine.
I don't browse anything through a public WiFi hotspot. Not even at a hotel. I VPN to my home network and RDP into a box whose sole purpose is to allow me to browse the web remotely from my own network.
shouldn't be forced to create a backdoor to add to a phone, but they should be required to unlock any existing phones. And to most of the audience that sounds reasonable, but when you actually take a second to think about it you see blatant political doublespeak.
But it actually is reasonable!
The reason why Apple can be forced to unlock the iPhone in question is because current iPhone security still depends wholly on trusting Apple's firmware. They are not being asked to create a backdoor - they are being asked to exercise a backdoor that they already have. They already have the keys to the kingdom.
Now, what would be unreasonable is for the FBI to require that Apple don't actually fix this in newer iPhone iterations, thereby making it technologically impossible to comply. Which I hope they do (fix it, that is - there are technical ways of plugging this hole). But, in the meantime, this is no different from previous iOS versions where Apple willingly performed data extraction for law enforcement. The technicalities have changed, but only somewhat - Apple can still, in practice, extract all of this iPhone's data, given their master firmware signing keys. So, the only thing that has actually changed is that Apple has changed their policy to start refusing these requests.
Now, whether you believe that technology companies should be able to be compelled to help law enforcement is another matter. But, many arguments being used by the pro-Apple side (such as the "this would create a backdoor" argument) are nonsense from a technical standpoint. In practice, literally the only change of substance is that Apple is now resisting this kind of request, where they didn't in the past - and none of this has anything to do with technical security measures in iOS at all, even though Apple is trying hard to make people believe that it does (and, in some cases, actively lying about technical details).
It is not reasonable. It's like asking the phone company to put a tap on a phone line and requiring them to decrypt all the data that travels down that line. Can the phone company do it? Maybe. That depends on the circumstances. But the laws do not require that the phone company turn the data it captures into evidence. It only requires that the phone company provide the data when presented with a lawful court order. Anything more is unreasonable. ANd futhermore, what does the FBI hope to uncover? Pictures? iMessages? All the meta data they want has already been scooped up by the NSA - we already know that. So they already know who these people were communicating with and how they were doing it. We may not know the content of that communication but the NSA has all those super computers for a reason. If they can't decrypt the data - too bad, too sad. You don't always get the breaks you want in life.
My understanding is that they were not pushing enough transaction volume to satisfy the landlord. They refused to renew Microcenter's lease because they thought they could get more money from a higher volume retailer. It was not that Microcenter was unable to make a profit there. I can't cite any sources for that, and it could be entirely wrong.
From Santa Clara/Sunnyvale you could just take the 237 to the 880 up to Emeryville. Not great traffic but better than the Bay Bridge, if you ask me.
In my contract it is forbidden that i discuss my salary with anybody, especially in public in connection with my employer.
Anyone can put an unenforceable clause in a Contract.
The clause you mention sounds quite illegal. If in the US, it certainly is (see NRLA). IANAL
My many European friends frequently express dismay at Americans' weird urge to hide their salary. In much of Europe, everybody knows. If an American works for the State of California, everybody knows, by law; just visit the website. I myself have experienced a very similar Retaliation, which is why I am nominally familiar with the law in the area.
So, I once noted to my managers at The Aerospace Corporation (in El Segundo, CA) that my salary was incommensurate with my experience level. The response? "That's unethical [to know someone else's salary]." My reply, "I did two hours' work on a project for a junior staff member. He reverse-calculated my salary from his monthly budget report, and then threw it in my face (rather than saying 'Thank you for charging only two hours to solve my otherwise-intractable problem'). I did not pry."
Well, of course, within a day or two, I used my data-analysis skills to reverse-calculate everyone's salary who had worked on my own projects – which were many – because customers loved me for always delivering—I had to farm stuff out to spend my budgets out by fiscal EOY. It's called good Project Management. Or, to the managers at The Aerospace Corporation (in El Segundo, CA), it is called punishing an over-performer due to envy of that staff-members early and dramatic success in bringing in money.
/RantOff
I used to help with business development - writing technical responses to RFPs on government contracts. When the RFP was done they would give me the entire document to proof. This included the schedule estimates, cost estimates, etc. We had to submit the hourly bill rate for every employee that might look at that contract. Based on that info and the billing method used for that contract, I could calculate the rates of nearly every employee in the company from CEO all the way down to the lowest billable employee. I was just a lowly engineer with many people between myself and the CEO. Everyone knew I had access to that information. But I never used that information to complain to the company, even when I disagreed with the salary that some people were being paid. That's just playing with fire. But it does come in handy when you're negotiating your salary for another job.;)
This is very true. I understand why in the 90s, companies chose to be there - 80% of the world's VCs were there, and so that was where companies got started. Plus if you were a semiconductor or software company, usually the people you needed would be more likely found in the Santa Clara Valley than anywhere else.
After leaving the Bay Area and returning there on a visit after 10 years, I just couldn't recognize the place. Most of the tech companies that could be seen from the Bayshore Freeway in the 90s and even early 2000s were gone. The Microcenter near the AMC Theater in Santa Clara, which could be seen from the same freeway, had been replaced by a Walmart. Unlike previously, where the big offices used to be that of various tech companies, like the Intels, the Suns and so on, now it was mainly the consulting companies - KPMG, Accenture, et al.
I know that a whole bunch of the geek crowd w/ goatees love loitering in San Francisco to be in 'The City', but still, this fetish of basing their companies there totally escapes me. Particularly a company like Yelp, that could easily have set up shop anywhere else in the country.
The landscape there changes very frequently. I go back to the bay area several times a year and there are constant changes. The Microcenter has been gone for almost a year now, I think. But for the GP: there is an Ikea in Palo Alto so I'm not sure why anyone would want to deal with the Bay Bridge to go to Emeryville when they could go down the 101 instead. I guess it depends on where exactly you live in SF. But I avoid the Bay Bridge like the plague.
Except that, to work for a cab company, your finger prints go on file. Whether or not that would have helped in this case? Who knows. But I am certainly in favor of having livery drivers go through extra scrutiny - they are in a position of trust. And if they do commit crimes and leave finger prints behind, they'll get caught if they leave a fingerprint behind. I believe there have been serial killers who have found their victims through work as a taxi driver, however.
Slashdot Mirror
Bay Area Rapid Transit - San Francisco's Bus and light rail system
San Francisco's transist system is called Muni. BART covers more than just San Francisco and is most common in the East Bay though it has been expanding into the South Bay over the last 10-15 years.
I don't see a large distinction between divulging information you're already retaining vs being compelled to retain new information that you also must divulge. For example the Bank Secrecy Act compels banks to retain transactional history that they weren't already keeping, such as details of specific credit and cash transactions that exceed $10,000/USD.
Banks keep track of every transaction. How do you think you get a balance sheet every month itemizing your every transaction? They don't do it because the Federal Government compels them to. They do it because that is the nature of banking. The only thing that law requires them to do is to notify the government when a 'suspicious' transaction occurs. They're already privy to all the details of the account holder - bank relationship. In the case of Apple they are also privy to all the details of the phone owner - Apple relationship. Apple has no knowledge of what conversations pass between you and your mother, however. They may be aware that such conversations are taking place, but they do not have the contents of the message. This is asking Apple to take part in a relationship that they have no business being involved in and reporting their new found knowledge to the government. They already supply any meta data they have to the NSA. So any information they have on the conversations you engage in are already given to the government. Why should the federal government be able to compel them to increase their knowledge and capabilities when Apple has no business reason to do so and plenty of business reasons not to do?
I suspect the FBI has been waiting for any excuse to force Apple to unlock the phone for them. Any other practical solutions is not likely to be entertained as they have already said that even if they had all the iCloud backups, they need to check everything on the phone.
They've been waiting for the right excuse so they can set a precedent on a case the public won't care about it.
So slashdot is responsible if I post a fake link to an article in a comment that installs malware? Slashdot CONFIGURED their site to allow arbitrary content from third parties (me) and indeed says they are not responsible for said content. Funny how that doesn't hold up for torrent trackers, but I digress. I think you are mistaken. While morally the site is responsible, legally no one is. Not even the ad company. That's the kick in the dick part of all of this.
No. Slashdot does not redirect you to that website. Nor does Slashdot load any object from the URL you posted. Someone must choose to follow your malicious link. When you go to the NYT website you are forced to either accept 3rd party content that the NYT has no control over, or block the ad. Since it is NYT that is redirecting you to the malicious content, they are responsible.
Why is the phone a "do not cross" line? This is the one that is making people here on Slashdot compare the government to nazis? All this time we've been living in the world where the government can get a legal warrant to enter your house, look through your things, take pretty much anything they deem suspicious, get into your car, your workplace... This happens every single day.
But, unlocking your phone and looking at your data is a whole another level of intrusion that causes extreme amounts of anger and comparisons to one of the worst government regimes ever?
I don't get this. I mean, I don't see anybody protesting that if I lock my house, government can't come in, even with a warrant, and my house and its contents are way more private to me than my phone.
Could somebody please elaborate on why the phone is a special case here?
If the government wants the contents of your phone, they're free to encrypt it. If I encrypt every single document in my home what is to force me to unencrypt the data for the government? Nothing. They can crack the code themselves if it is that important to them. That is the key difference. This is the government telling the world that they must have every single safe combination to every single safe in the world - whether it is sold on US soil or not. And the claim that the phone is some blackbox that cannot be penetrated is disingenuous in the extreme. The NSA already monitors, illegally, every single bit that goes into and out of that phone. You can't do anything useful on a phone without network connectivity. Sure you could take pictures and write yourself notes but you cannot communicate those notes or pictures without allowing syncing the items off of the phone or by using a network connection. So what value is the information that is on the phone but has not already been spied upon by the US Government? It is of very little value, in most cases.
why would they write a constitution which more or less would so easily let the country devolve into some religion where we have now existed for decades without a single amendment to improve the document by modernizing it for the times? ... Where is the part of the document which would protect civil liberties regarding electronic data protection? It's not there because the founding fathers didn't absolutely require that the constitution is reviewed and updated.
I believe that the part you're looking for is the 4th Amendment. That the current government does not honor the clause has nothing to do with the document itself, but the politicians and the voters who fail to hold them accountable for violating the constitution.
They were men who : c) Believed black people were less valuable than dogs since you could love a dog.
Not all of them. The reason slaves were treated as 3/5 of a person is the fact that the Northerners did not want the South to have undue influence from counting the population of people who could not vote and would, under the compromises they came to, would never be able to vote until a later amendment of the constitution. We would have never had the Mason/Dixon line or the eventual Emancipation Proclamation had the South had its way.
d) Believed that religious freedom meant you should be free to believe in any form of Christianity you want.
I don't recall the constitution mentioning Christianity. I think its the population that cares more than the government.
Why should I have to prove that I did not commit a criminal act? It seems to be that the government should have to prove that I did. Whether or not I am at fault is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
Because, besides being innocent until proved guilty, no one has the duty to prove your innocence - and you can bet your sorry ass that the guilty part would profit by accusing you.
If the other guys accuses you of reckless driving, you better prove you weren't.
Well hold on here. Reckless driving is a criminal matter. He can claim reckless driving all he wants but without some sort of moving violation or other criminal charge against me how can he possibly bring that accusation up in court? There has to be some evidence to prove this - whether it is eyewitness or physical. Your word against theirs isn't going to count much either way without other evidence. I realize the standard of evidence is much lower in a civil court but my entire argument has been against criminal penalties for failing to avoid an accident. The civil case for damages is a whole different ballgame.
This is why you (and everyone else) need to be replaced by an AV. You make absolute statements about how crashes should not be avoided if there is even a chance of causing a different accident, whereas those you are arguing with are making the point that you should make the best decision at the time: sometimes that means taking a low risk on another accident just to avoid a high risk or certainty of an accident. When given examples you quickly change your original answer that, of course, you wouldn't run over a kid, that would be crazy. You are incapable of making such decisions even while sitting at your computer, so it is unlikely you will make good decisions in the split second before an accident. You would have slammed into the Google AV instead of going a foot over into oncoming traffic because that might have caused another accident. Ignoring of course that the certainty of slamming into the AV might cause it to careen onto the curb killing that child that you now seem to be concerned about.
No I am saying that there is no way to legislate that someone 'avoid an accident.' Not that you should not avoid an accident. I'm saying that you should not make erratic lane changes to avoid another car. This is what the entire thread has been about. The google car made an erratic move, at a speed significantly slower than the flow of traffic, to avoid hitting a sandbag. If you hit a sandbag what is it going to do? Bend the control arm on that wheel? Mess up your fender? Perhaps. But you didn't exacerbate the situation. If someone cuts you off and your options are to make an unsafe lane change or hit the person in front of you, you should do your best to slow down and stay in your lane. We were never discussing plowing into a child until you brought it up. Avoiding killing a child is a natural reaction that no one would fault you for. I would fault you for causing an accident with another vehicle when you're trying to avoid damage to your own vehicle. My point has always been that you cannot legislate that someone avoid an accident. Once you do that, people are going to think they're required to swerve or otherwise do stupid things to avoid fault in an accident. There are already laws that cover negligent driving. You want people making safe decisions and not erratic ones because they're worried about criminal penalties for failing to avoid an accident. That has been my argument the entire time. I am sorry you failed to grasp that.
Thank you for your idiotic suggestion. I am not doing a road rally, I am probably at 1/3 of the road engineering speed and the risk of getting hit in the ass is probably a 1000 times greater than skidding.
My idiotic suggestion of slowing down prior to entering the turn? If you get rear ended with a normal braking procedure then the person behind you is an idiot. There's no rally racing about it. You want to pick your speed prior to entering the turn, maintain that speed during the turn, and accelerate coming out of the turn. It provides the best traction possible no matter what kind of vehicle you're in. If you're slowing down in the turn then you are wasting traction. If you're going 1/3 of the speed that the turn is designed for then why are you slowing down at all?
I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you.
In California you actually are required to do so if it can be done safely.
anyone have a link to the DMV rules about that?
"Never assume other drivers will give you the right-of-way. Yield your right-of-way when it helps to prevent collisions." http://test-www.dmv.ca.gov/pub... My understanding is that this is a paraphrasing of what is in the Motor Vehicle Code.
Yielding right of way is not the same as requiring someone to avoid accidents. Of course you are expected to follow at a safe distance and allow yourself room to stop. This is to prevent rear end collisions. but if someone runs a red light and pulls out in front of you and your options are A) Make an unsafe lane change and B) plow into the guy then everyone will reasonably expect you to do B. Your requirement to avoid an accident is on the basis of you driving in a safe manner and requiring someone to take any other measure besides braking to avoid an accident is dangerous. In the case of yielding right of way, you are slowing or stopping to avoid an accident.
How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident?
By analyzing the accident.., you was on reckless driving.
Oh hey! Look at that! There is already a law that covers driving like an idiot.
If there was space to avoid the hit, you at very minimum was incompetent to void the accident and should not be driving.
Your right to be right is not greater than the right of other to be not be injured if you can avoid the injury.
If there is room to stop, what person would fail to stop? But I am not going to jump into another lane to avoid hitting someone just because they cut me off. That could result in a far more serious accident. And I have the right to avoid doing things that could cause harm to someone else. If someone does something that puts me and them in harm, then that is their fault, not mine. At least, in a general sense. There are always cases where this may not be 100% true. Taking precipitous action would just put someone else at risk and not the person who made the first mistake.
If taking action could result in another accident then it is typically better to let the other person hit you.
Being that a good and valid excuse to the accident. All you have to do now is to prove your point - what you must do it anyway, what would you do if the other guys accuses you of being responsible by the accident?
Why should I have to prove that I did not commit a criminal act? It seems to be that the government should have to prove that I did. Whether or not I am at fault is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
What if dodging that vehicle caused you to crash?
What if by preventing your car to crash, a kid is dead?
You are the kind of driver that, if a kid crosses the street without looking, you prefer to hit the kid than a tree? Of course the three will trash your car but you would only be seriously injured if you would be speeding - what makes you negligent at best.
Oh come on now. This is not a car on person accident. This is a car on bus. While more likely to be lethal than a car on car accident, all occupants were in a steel cage designed to protect them in the event of a crash. A car on motorcycle/bicycle/pedestrian situation is NOT comparable to a car on bus accident. No one in their right mind would intentionally hit another human being to avoid damaging their paint job on a tree. If someone did intentionally hit a human being then, again, there is already a crime for that! It's called (attempted) murder if they did it on purpose and manslaughter if it was an avoidable accident.
How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident?
When one side says "Google said its car's safety driver thought the bus would yield." When a driver sees a potential accident coming the proper response is not to bet the other guy will yield, even if you have the right of way. Sometimes you have to accommodate the other guys illegal move.
Sure, the guy admitted that he made a mistake. I feel like there are other laws that cover this scenario, though.
1st rule of defensive driving- never expect another driver to do anything I won't yield into traffic or turn into a street if another driver will need to slow or brake not to hit me Never sit in a median to turn with front or back of car sticking out I actually speed up a bit before turning to maximize distance between myself and driver behind and turn shallow. This is a bit hard to explain but you angle into the turn and actually do most of your slowing when you are already in the turn Many others but I probably don't even think about them.
You should probably take a driving safety course. Speeding up or slowing down in a turn requires traction. Your traction in a turn is always a fixed amount (that varies on conditions). With 4 wheels, this may not be a huge problem in favorable conditions. With two wheels, this can be very dangerous. I hate when people do exactly what you describe while I'm on my motorcycle. I do not want to touch my brakes in a turn unless its an emergency. I try to maintain a constant speed. Even if I coast to slow down, I slow down much more slowly than a car when turning.
That may be true in some jurisdictions, but what's true in all jurisdictions is driving is that right of way isn't a license to get into an accident that you can avoid. If the Google car really was traveling at just 2 mph, then you have to wonder whether the bus driver could have avoided the accident.
In any case it's clear that if the safety driver had been driving the accident still would have happened; he judged that the bus would yield, but it didn't.
I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you. That could result in far more dangerous circumstances. And if the google car was going 2mph then the correct action is for the google car to stop for the sandbag rather than jump in front of a bus. Besides, I thought the whole point of autonomous cars is that they're supposed to be safer? It is clear that the car merged into the bus.
I don't know about there, but around here if you willingly fails to avoid an accident, you can be charge for life endangerment. The guy that made the mistake would be prosecuted by civil law for the losses, but you would face a prosecution by criminal law.
Unless you are a public transport driver and the victim is a biker. By some reason, they're allowed to ram bikers on the street.... =/ (Don't ask, I don't understand it neither)
That seems like a law that is begging for trouble. How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident? If taking action could result in another accident then it is typically better to let the other person hit you. What if dodging that vehicle caused you to crash?
Unsafe is a term designed to have flexibility to be determined by a judge. In the same way that "it's never your fault if you're rear ended", it's common wisdom that's incorrect.
Unless you intentionally jump in front of someone and then slam on the brakes, how could it ever be your fault if you're rear ended? Even if you make an illegal stop in traffic. And how do you prove that the driver in front was at fault without a video of the incident or unusually good witnesses?
It's more akin to asking the phone company to decrypt any traffic that goes across the phone network. The phone company is only required to give over whatever data it reasonably can collect. It is up to the government to turn it into usable evidence. They have the phone. If they can't get anything off of it, how is apple to blame? Furthermore, Apple already provided the information it does have: the iCloud backups sent from the phones in question.
So that you've got a 1 in 1.00000000001 billion chance of dying due to terrorism instead of just 1 in 1 billion?
When you can guarantee that number won't increase to 1 in 100 over the next 20 years, you can have your privacy back.
When you can guarantee that number will increase to 1 in 100 over the next 20 years, you can have my privacy. That's the most asinine argument I've ever heard.
The problem is it's not just this phone. It's the 12 others they have on stand by, it's the 175 NY has lined up and ready to go -- for starters.
As long as they have proper warrants, I don't see what it matters if there is only 1 phone, or 10000.
Because there is no precedent or legal reason to force Apple to provide the FBI with evidence they already have. If the Federal government, or any government agency does not have the ways and means to turn that evidence into something useful, how is it Apple's problem? They already have all the NSA collected meta data on every communication these two made. So what value does the phone even provide? The government keeps reaching further and further. By forcing Apple to make new firmware, they are also violating Apple's first amendment rights. Even if they just force Apple to sign the firmware, they are violating Apple's rights. And to save whom? To prosecute what individual? The perpetrators of this act are dead. Their victims have already been harmed. The government should already know who these people are talking to thanks to illegal data collection policies practiced by the federal government. So why do you have so much sympathy for a government that violates your privacy? So that you've got a 1 in 1.00000000001 billion chance of dying due to terrorism instead of just 1 in 1 billion? Feel free to volunteer all of your privacy, but don't take mine or that of anyone else. You're more likely to win the lottery though, I imagine.
I don't browse anything through a public WiFi hotspot. Not even at a hotel. I VPN to my home network and RDP into a box whose sole purpose is to allow me to browse the web remotely from my own network.
But it actually is reasonable!
The reason why Apple can be forced to unlock the iPhone in question is because current iPhone security still depends wholly on trusting Apple's firmware. They are not being asked to create a backdoor - they are being asked to exercise a backdoor that they already have. They already have the keys to the kingdom.
Now, what would be unreasonable is for the FBI to require that Apple don't actually fix this in newer iPhone iterations, thereby making it technologically impossible to comply. Which I hope they do (fix it, that is - there are technical ways of plugging this hole). But, in the meantime, this is no different from previous iOS versions where Apple willingly performed data extraction for law enforcement. The technicalities have changed, but only somewhat - Apple can still, in practice, extract all of this iPhone's data, given their master firmware signing keys. So, the only thing that has actually changed is that Apple has changed their policy to start refusing these requests.
Now, whether you believe that technology companies should be able to be compelled to help law enforcement is another matter. But, many arguments being used by the pro-Apple side (such as the "this would create a backdoor" argument) are nonsense from a technical standpoint. In practice, literally the only change of substance is that Apple is now resisting this kind of request, where they didn't in the past - and none of this has anything to do with technical security measures in iOS at all, even though Apple is trying hard to make people believe that it does (and, in some cases, actively lying about technical details).
It is not reasonable. It's like asking the phone company to put a tap on a phone line and requiring them to decrypt all the data that travels down that line. Can the phone company do it? Maybe. That depends on the circumstances. But the laws do not require that the phone company turn the data it captures into evidence. It only requires that the phone company provide the data when presented with a lawful court order. Anything more is unreasonable. ANd futhermore, what does the FBI hope to uncover? Pictures? iMessages? All the meta data they want has already been scooped up by the NSA - we already know that. So they already know who these people were communicating with and how they were doing it. We may not know the content of that communication but the NSA has all those super computers for a reason. If they can't decrypt the data - too bad, too sad. You don't always get the breaks you want in life.
My understanding is that they were not pushing enough transaction volume to satisfy the landlord. They refused to renew Microcenter's lease because they thought they could get more money from a higher volume retailer. It was not that Microcenter was unable to make a profit there. I can't cite any sources for that, and it could be entirely wrong. From Santa Clara/Sunnyvale you could just take the 237 to the 880 up to Emeryville. Not great traffic but better than the Bay Bridge, if you ask me.
In my contract it is forbidden that i discuss my salary with anybody, especially in public in connection with my employer.
Anyone can put an unenforceable clause in a Contract.
The clause you mention sounds quite illegal. If in the US, it certainly is (see NRLA). IANAL
My many European friends frequently express dismay at Americans' weird urge to hide their salary. In much of Europe, everybody knows. If an American works for the State of California, everybody knows, by law; just visit the website. I myself have experienced a very similar Retaliation, which is why I am nominally familiar with the law in the area.
So, I once noted to my managers at The Aerospace Corporation (in El Segundo, CA) that my salary was incommensurate with my experience level. The response? "That's unethical [to know someone else's salary]." My reply, "I did two hours' work on a project for a junior staff member. He reverse-calculated my salary from his monthly budget report, and then threw it in my face (rather than saying 'Thank you for charging only two hours to solve my otherwise-intractable problem'). I did not pry."
And yet, my managers at The Aerospace Corporation (in El Segundo, CA) Retaliated against me for the complaint, rather 'having a talk' with the jerk who I had helped.
Well, of course, within a day or two, I used my data-analysis skills to reverse-calculate everyone's salary who had worked on my own projects – which were many – because customers loved me for always delivering—I had to farm stuff out to spend my budgets out by fiscal EOY. It's called good Project Management. Or, to the managers at The Aerospace Corporation (in El Segundo, CA), it is called punishing an over-performer due to envy of that staff-members early and dramatic success in bringing in money.
I used to help with business development - writing technical responses to RFPs on government contracts. When the RFP was done they would give me the entire document to proof. This included the schedule estimates, cost estimates, etc. We had to submit the hourly bill rate for every employee that might look at that contract. Based on that info and the billing method used for that contract, I could calculate the rates of nearly every employee in the company from CEO all the way down to the lowest billable employee. I was just a lowly engineer with many people between myself and the CEO. Everyone knew I had access to that information. But I never used that information to complain to the company, even when I disagreed with the salary that some people were being paid. That's just playing with fire. But it does come in handy when you're negotiating your salary for another job. ;)
This is very true. I understand why in the 90s, companies chose to be there - 80% of the world's VCs were there, and so that was where companies got started. Plus if you were a semiconductor or software company, usually the people you needed would be more likely found in the Santa Clara Valley than anywhere else.
After leaving the Bay Area and returning there on a visit after 10 years, I just couldn't recognize the place. Most of the tech companies that could be seen from the Bayshore Freeway in the 90s and even early 2000s were gone. The Microcenter near the AMC Theater in Santa Clara, which could be seen from the same freeway, had been replaced by a Walmart. Unlike previously, where the big offices used to be that of various tech companies, like the Intels, the Suns and so on, now it was mainly the consulting companies - KPMG, Accenture, et al.
I know that a whole bunch of the geek crowd w/ goatees love loitering in San Francisco to be in 'The City', but still, this fetish of basing their companies there totally escapes me. Particularly a company like Yelp, that could easily have set up shop anywhere else in the country.
The landscape there changes very frequently. I go back to the bay area several times a year and there are constant changes. The Microcenter has been gone for almost a year now, I think. But for the GP: there is an Ikea in Palo Alto so I'm not sure why anyone would want to deal with the Bay Bridge to go to Emeryville when they could go down the 101 instead. I guess it depends on where exactly you live in SF. But I avoid the Bay Bridge like the plague.
Except that, to work for a cab company, your finger prints go on file. Whether or not that would have helped in this case? Who knows. But I am certainly in favor of having livery drivers go through extra scrutiny - they are in a position of trust. And if they do commit crimes and leave finger prints behind, they'll get caught if they leave a fingerprint behind. I believe there have been serial killers who have found their victims through work as a taxi driver, however.