I mean, saying something that could be construed as inflammatory and standing behind it is one thing, but saying it then hiding behind the bodies of others to try and avoid the consequences of your expression? I don't think I can rightfully support such an action. "Freedom of Expression" is more than a right, it's a duty, and I for one think this particular chucklehead failed in his duty to stand behind what he said, so I don't think his "speech" really falls under the category of protected. This asshat wouldn't last 2 seconds in Heinlein's "polite society," and for damn good reason - he's a worthless fucking coward.
For contrast, I offer the case of Terry Jones, the asshole pastor who made a big show of burning Korans. Same concept (intentionally pissing off Muslims), but since Rev. Jones actually had the cajones to stand behind his admittedly dickish actions, it's a completely different scenario.
If there truly is power in words (and, subsequently, media), then it's fair to say that with great power comes great responsibility. Maybe it's just me, but if you're too much of a chickenshit to stand up and own the fucked up shit you say to/about others, I think you would be wise to just keep your trap shut.
Also noteworthy - I would expect anyone who violates his parole and evades capture by using multiple false identities to be held without bail as well, regardless of their other, non-parole related actions.
. . . it reminds us all to embrace the challenges of exploration and to never stop discovering.
Placed just above the submission, "Astronomy Portfolio Review Recommends Defunding US's Biggest Telescope," the combination tells you all you need to know.
That the military is the only US government entity that can see the value in continued research in the sciences? It sure isn't the Republicrat politicians.
Yea, shit like this is why I occasionally pray for a military coup d'état - hey, it's not like they could do any worse than the pirate ringmasters who currently run this freakshow, right?
The bill of rights limits the actions of government, not individuals or corporations.
Where, precisely, is it defined that the Constitution / Bill of Rights does not govern the actions of individuals and corporations? Keep in mind, the guys that wrote this document were pretty damn slick, and did a fine job of specifically delineating what group had what powers.
Note, nowhere in the US Constitution are corporations mentioned, meaning that they, according to the Constitution, have no rights or powers. History buffs know why, though I doubt many others pay enough attention...
It doesn't need to 'clarify' it, because it's intrinsically FOR the government alone. That was the whole fucking purpose of the Constitution & it's articles.
Um, have you ever actually read the Constitution? From the sound of it, I'm going to guess a resounding "no."
Technically you are utterly ignorant. The Constitutions, along with its amendments, applies to the (Federal) Government, not to private corporations or individuals.
Oh, cool, so that means if I run into in the street, I can just start going through your pockets, and there's nothing you can legally do to stop me? Or is it only that I can rifle through your belongings if you're on "my" property?
I find it really incredible that you Americans need a specific law for this. This is outright illegal in my country.
Yea, well, technically it's illegal here thanks to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to our Constitution. Thing is, apparently corporations are exempt from following the law.
Appropriately so, this kind of thing should be handled at the state level. The federal government should only be concerned with interstate commerce, international policy, etc. States handle everything else.
Yea, I can't imagine the federal government having jurisdiction over for-profit websites that are accessed from across state lines...
C'mon, now, if a small government, strict Constitutionalist such as myself can recognize such an obvious thing, no one else really has much excuse.
Yes, being from the U.S., this was the part of the story that piqued my interest. An apology from the government? We've never heard of such a thing. In fact if you listen to certain parties in the presidential race, government should never apologize!
Really? Because I would think, as a fellow American, that you'd be pretty used to phoned-in, insincere "apologies" from political figures by now.
You must be living in lala land if you seriously think that said account is not how those things are engineered to behave, and how they typically do behave, in fact.
I don't disagree with that, what I disagree with is the concept that A) a person "isn't aware" they are about to get smashed in the driver's door (I contend that if you're paying so little attention to your driving you don't see a truck barreling down on you, you probably don't need to be behind the wheel anyway), and B) that this is a universal truth.
The technical aspects of the post, i.e. times of sensor activation/system deployment, are entirely accurate.
Probably should have pointed out the specific aspect I found dubious from the get-go. Sorry 'bout that.
I second that a computer has a faster reaction time than you do. Sorry, man, you seem outnumbered on this one.
Well. first someone has to actually make that comparison, which OP did not; they merely stated "your reaction time is absolute crap," not "your reaction time is absolute crap compared to a computer." I wholeheartedly agree with the latter.
P.S. y'all can keep the "dur, it's implied" to yourselves - I don't assume implication in the words of others, as that would require a belief in clairvoyance, which I do not believe in. Say what you mean.
How would a robot assist me while doing ecstasy out in the wilderness?
Well, it could follow you around flashing multi colored patterns on the screen and pumping out some of that Uhnn-sss-ah! Uhnn-ss-ah! house music you candy kids seem to enjoy...
Just like with house roof panels, it's not always sunny, plus, heck, some people purposely park in the shade for other reasons (cooling usually).
That's why I say recharging at the "pump" will be a rarity, as opposed to a non-event.
One would assume a person with a solar-charged car would probably want to avoid parking in shady areas, also assuming the car has some sort of ventilation system, like a fancy, built-in version of this.
The concept that an auto-driver would be programmed to "avoid contact with other cars at all costs" and not have a concept of cliffs vs level verges is not a sensible one.
I wouldn't think so, but IANA Auto-car programmer, so I couldn't begin to tell you what logic the thing functions off of. Speaking of which, is Google being very forthcoming with the source? That's something I wouldn't mind taking a look at myself...
Well lets see. Apart from vision we have hearing, sight, touch, smell, taste, temperature, pain, balance, acceleration. Some of these are of little use in driving,
You might be surprised - touch and spatial orientation are actually crucial to proper driving, almost as much as vision and hearing. Of course, being an 'old-skool gearhead,' I'm probably a bit more in tune with such things than a lot of other drivers on the road, so I suppose I'll have to concede that point on the law of averages.
some of them are compromised in human drivers (e.g. soundproofing in modern cars, and the playing of music largely dicards sound as a useable sense by the average driver.
There's a Buick/Caddy/whatever ad out there - it starts with a pan around a busy, noisy city street: construction workers with jackhammers, emergency vehicle sirens blaring, loud diesel trucks moving about. Cut to an inside shot of the new Buick Silencer (or whatever, not important), and the driver is smiling at the silent serenity of his cabin (at this point, the ad notes how quiet the interior of the vehicle is). Best part: at the end of the ad, they show the driver, content in his nearly silent reverie, pull off from the stop - directly into the path of an oncoming ambulance.
2-fold moral for this story: 1) Sometimes 'quiet' is highly overrated, and 2) advertisers are freakin' morons.
And yes, that was a ridiculously circuitous way of saying I agree with you.
But of all the driver-useful ones, technology gives us better sensors then the human ones.
OK, fair enough.
Not being a designer of such systems I can't answer that. But it is a pretty obvious hazard, and can be assumed to be dealt with in a reasonable way. I do know that there is the principle of fail-safe and redundancy, so I'd expect a car with the loss of one of it's sensors to still be able to function safely, but to alert the human to the fault, and possibly to drive to a safe parking place and refuse to continue on automatic until the fault has been rectified.
Hm, not sure about that one... the 'limp-home' mode makes sense, but I think due to liability reasons (we do live in a rather litigious society, after all) the machine would more likely switch over to manual control.
I'd expect information fed via radio from other auto-drivers to be treated like the information a good human driver receives from other car's turn signals. Useful advisory information for maintaining a smooth drive, but not to be relied upon as totally reliable. So a safety margin is still left, regardless of what the other car actually does. If the information is wrong, I'd expect it to result in an emergency stop, rather than a collision.
... I wouldn't so readily discount the damage that could be wrought by a malicious individual, were I in your Bruno Magli's. I think time will tell on this one, it's not like we have a shortage of people who enjoy compromising computer systems for fun and/or profit.
"When we least expect it, life sets us a challenge" - Paulo Coelho (Brazilian novelist)
When I say "I'd expect" what I mean is that unless and until such systems behave like this or better, I wouldn't expect them to pass the safety tests and be licensed for consumer use. And I mean that I believe these things are possible with today's technology.
Well, until we invent an auto-politician that functions purely on logic
3. You get bored, distracted, and fall asleep behind the wheel... especially on long straight highways.
4. You are limited in how many hours per day you can drive.
5. You are expensive.
This is why the premier application (note I did not use the term "killer app") for self-driving vehicles will be in long haul trucks.
Not that I agree or disagree, but something tells me the trucker unions will have a thing or two to say about that...
I wasn't trying to imply that I came up with the idea, just relaying the anecdote of vague threats from government agents when I openly suggested implementing it.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, saying something that could be construed as inflammatory and standing behind it is one thing, but saying it then hiding behind the bodies of others to try and avoid the consequences of your expression? I don't think I can rightfully support such an action. "Freedom of Expression" is more than a right, it's a duty, and I for one think this particular chucklehead failed in his duty to stand behind what he said, so I don't think his "speech" really falls under the category of protected. This asshat wouldn't last 2 seconds in Heinlein's "polite society," and for damn good reason - he's a worthless fucking coward.
For contrast, I offer the case of Terry Jones, the asshole pastor who made a big show of burning Korans. Same concept (intentionally pissing off Muslims), but since Rev. Jones actually had the cajones to stand behind his admittedly dickish actions, it's a completely different scenario.
If there truly is power in words (and, subsequently, media), then it's fair to say that with great power comes great responsibility. Maybe it's just me, but if you're too much of a chickenshit to stand up and own the fucked up shit you say to/about others, I think you would be wise to just keep your trap shut.
Also noteworthy - I would expect anyone who violates his parole and evades capture by using multiple false identities to be held without bail as well, regardless of their other, non-parole related actions.
Try Article IV, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, plus Amendments IX and X.
That should put ya on the right track.
. . . it reminds us all to embrace the challenges of exploration and to never stop discovering.
Placed just above the submission, "Astronomy Portfolio Review Recommends Defunding US's Biggest Telescope," the combination tells you all you need to know.
That the military is the only US government entity that can see the value in continued research in the sciences? It sure isn't the Republicrat politicians.
Yea, shit like this is why I occasionally pray for a military coup d'état - hey, it's not like they could do any worse than the pirate ringmasters who currently run this freakshow, right?
The bill of rights limits the actions of government, not individuals or corporations.
Where, precisely, is it defined that the Constitution / Bill of Rights does not govern the actions of individuals and corporations? Keep in mind, the guys that wrote this document were pretty damn slick, and did a fine job of specifically delineating what group had what powers.
Note, nowhere in the US Constitution are corporations mentioned, meaning that they, according to the Constitution, have no rights or powers. History buffs know why, though I doubt many others pay enough attention...
Ever wonder why Flight attendants are so skinny?
'Cuz the aisles are so narrow, duh.
Fat bitch with a food cart wouldn't stand a chance.
It doesn't need to 'clarify' it, because it's intrinsically FOR the government alone. That was the whole fucking purpose of the Constitution & it's articles.
Um, have you ever actually read the Constitution? From the sound of it, I'm going to guess a resounding "no."
Technically you are utterly ignorant. The Constitutions, along with its amendments, applies to the (Federal) Government, not to private corporations or individuals.
Oh, cool, so that means if I run into in the street, I can just start going through your pockets, and there's nothing you can legally do to stop me? Or is it only that I can rifle through your belongings if you're on "my" property?
I find it really incredible that you Americans need a specific law for this. This is outright illegal in my country.
Yea, well, technically it's illegal here thanks to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to our Constitution. Thing is, apparently corporations are exempt from following the law.
Appropriately so, this kind of thing should be handled at the state level. The federal government should only be concerned with interstate commerce, international policy, etc. States handle everything else.
Yea, I can't imagine the federal government having jurisdiction over for-profit websites that are accessed from across state lines...
C'mon, now, if a small government, strict Constitutionalist such as myself can recognize such an obvious thing, no one else really has much excuse.
Dude - you should totally make that into a short story; 'twould be a good one.
No - it means that, in Portugal, sharing files on a peer-to-peer network is not piracy, assuming the files aren't being used commercial purposes.
A real win in my book.
Yes, being from the U.S., this was the part of the story that piqued my interest. An apology from the government? We've never heard of such a thing. In fact if you listen to certain parties in the presidential race, government should never apologize!
Really? Because I would think, as a fellow American, that you'd be pretty used to phoned-in, insincere "apologies" from political figures by now.
Words are cheap, bro.
No the lesson here is if you're so much as suspected of breaking the law you go to jail, if government breaks the law you get a half-hearted apology.
FTFY.
Any more ad hominems or non sequiturs you care to throw out there?
That's exactly what I thought when I read your point 1, an ad hominem, and point 2, a non sequitur.
I don't think you really know what that means.
you're spectacular :)
Quite, thanks for noticing!
You must be living in lala land if you seriously think that said account is not how those things are engineered to behave, and how they typically do behave, in fact.
I don't disagree with that, what I disagree with is the concept that A) a person "isn't aware" they are about to get smashed in the driver's door (I contend that if you're paying so little attention to your driving you don't see a truck barreling down on you, you probably don't need to be behind the wheel anyway), and B) that this is a universal truth.
The technical aspects of the post, i.e. times of sensor activation/system deployment, are entirely accurate.
Probably should have pointed out the specific aspect I found dubious from the get-go. Sorry 'bout that.
I second that a computer has a faster reaction time than you do. Sorry, man, you seem outnumbered on this one.
Well. first someone has to actually make that comparison, which OP did not; they merely stated "your reaction time is absolute crap," not "your reaction time is absolute crap compared to a computer." I wholeheartedly agree with the latter.
P.S. y'all can keep the "dur, it's implied" to yourselves - I don't assume implication in the words of others, as that would require a belief in clairvoyance, which I do not believe in. Say what you mean.
1) says some anonymous person that doesn't know me from Adam. Anyone capable of cogent thought will take your statement with a heaping serving of NaCl
Look at the timeline at the bottom: http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=56781
The airbags have deployed and the crash is over before the human notices.
And of course, anecdote = fact!
How silly of me to not believe everything I read on the internet!
How would a robot assist me while doing ecstasy out in the wilderness?
Well, it could follow you around flashing multi colored patterns on the screen and pumping out some of that Uhnn-sss-ah! Uhnn-ss-ah! house music you candy kids seem to enjoy...
We have a robot much like this at work already. It's a vGo, and can be driven around to meet with other people at the office.
How does this new one compare?
Um... proprietary docking station?
... is fuckin' creepy!
Looking at the screenshots, all I hear in my head is this tinny, flanging voice screaming "EXTERMINATE!" over and over...
- Mothrum
- Godzillium
- DanceDanceium
- Nagirium
- Mangium
Personally, I hope they just call it Phil.
Just like with house roof panels, it's not always sunny, plus, heck, some people purposely park in the shade for other reasons (cooling usually).
That's why I say recharging at the "pump" will be a rarity, as opposed to a non-event.
One would assume a person with a solar-charged car would probably want to avoid parking in shady areas, also assuming the car has some sort of ventilation system, like a fancy, built-in version of this.
The concept that an auto-driver would be programmed to "avoid contact with other cars at all costs" and not have a concept of cliffs vs level verges is not a sensible one.
I wouldn't think so, but IANA Auto-car programmer, so I couldn't begin to tell you what logic the thing functions off of. Speaking of which, is Google being very forthcoming with the source? That's something I wouldn't mind taking a look at myself...
Well lets see. Apart from vision we have hearing, sight, touch, smell, taste, temperature, pain, balance, acceleration. Some of these are of little use in driving,
You might be surprised - touch and spatial orientation are actually crucial to proper driving, almost as much as vision and hearing. Of course, being an 'old-skool gearhead,' I'm probably a bit more in tune with such things than a lot of other drivers on the road, so I suppose I'll have to concede that point on the law of averages.
some of them are compromised in human drivers (e.g. soundproofing in modern cars, and the playing of music largely dicards sound as a useable sense by the average driver.
There's a Buick/Caddy/whatever ad out there - it starts with a pan around a busy, noisy city street: construction workers with jackhammers, emergency vehicle sirens blaring, loud diesel trucks moving about. Cut to an inside shot of the new Buick Silencer (or whatever, not important), and the driver is smiling at the silent serenity of his cabin (at this point, the ad notes how quiet the interior of the vehicle is). Best part: at the end of the ad, they show the driver, content in his nearly silent reverie, pull off from the stop - directly into the path of an oncoming ambulance.
2-fold moral for this story: 1) Sometimes 'quiet' is highly overrated, and 2) advertisers are freakin' morons.
And yes, that was a ridiculously circuitous way of saying I agree with you.
But of all the driver-useful ones, technology gives us better sensors then the human ones.
OK, fair enough.
Not being a designer of such systems I can't answer that. But it is a pretty obvious hazard, and can be assumed to be dealt with in a reasonable way. I do know that there is the principle of fail-safe and redundancy, so I'd expect a car with the loss of one of it's sensors to still be able to function safely, but to alert the human to the fault, and possibly to drive to a safe parking place and refuse to continue on automatic until the fault has been rectified.
Hm, not sure about that one... the 'limp-home' mode makes sense, but I think due to liability reasons (we do live in a rather litigious society, after all) the machine would more likely switch over to manual control.
I'd expect information fed via radio from other auto-drivers to be treated like the information a good human driver receives from other car's turn signals. Useful advisory information for maintaining a smooth drive, but not to be relied upon as totally reliable. So a safety margin is still left, regardless of what the other car actually does. If the information is wrong, I'd expect it to result in an emergency stop, rather than a collision.
... I wouldn't so readily discount the damage that could be wrought by a malicious individual, were I in your Bruno Magli's. I think time will tell on this one, it's not like we have a shortage of people who enjoy compromising computer systems for fun and/or profit.
"When we least expect it, life sets us a challenge" - Paulo Coelho (Brazilian novelist)
When I say "I'd expect" what I mean is that unless and until such systems behave like this or better, I wouldn't expect them to pass the safety tests and be licensed for consumer use. And I mean that I believe these things are possible with today's technology.
Well, until we invent an auto-politician that functions purely on logic
3. You get bored, distracted, and fall asleep behind the wheel ... especially on long straight highways.
4. You are limited in how many hours per day you can drive.
5. You are expensive.
This is why the premier application (note I did not use the term "killer app") for self-driving vehicles will be in long haul trucks.
Not that I agree or disagree, but something tells me the trucker unions will have a thing or two to say about that...
I wasn't trying to imply that I came up with the idea, just relaying the anecdote of vague threats from government agents when I openly suggested implementing it.