True. But if a manufacturer is given the choice of adding more storage at increased cost, or using the minimum amount of storage required so they can keep their profit margins as high as possible, they will choose the later. A small amount of NVRAM is going to be a lot cheaper than a big SSD.
While you're probably right there, to me it's not the manufacturers who are of concern; it's the politicians who wrote the law. I feel it's only a matter of time before they start requiring constant data monitoring.
And you and I both (should) know that warrants are just a formality. It's good that they're explicitly required, but it only protects against egregious abuse. Your car will still testify against you in a court of law.
Agreed.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't seem to understand - when a cop tells you, "everything you say can and will be used against you," he means just that. Verbatim. Only now, it's not just anything you say, but also anything your car, or cell phone, or computer, etc., etc., etc...
I was wondering how much data is saved before it is overwritten with new data, and found this in the text of the bill...
The EDR is designed to record data related to vehicle dynamics and safety systems for a short period of time, typically 30 seconds or less.
Thirty seconds would make this completely useless as evidence for a speeding stop or red light stop, etc. Just make sure you are driving under the speed limit for at least 30 seconds before coming to a stop and you've wiped out any evidence.
"Typically" = weasel word.
I typically don't smash baby seals over the head with a nailboard, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen.
Yes, things like affected areas of the vehicle (front end collision? side collision? rollover? any ejections?) airbag deployments, whether seatbelts were fastened or not, what area(s) of the car were impacted more than others, how many people were in the vehicle - none of this is useful information for an EMS dispatch.
I detect a hint of sarcasm... to which I return the favor:
That would be great info for the EMS personnel to have prior to reaching the crash site...
If the computer says that the airbag was deployed, and the airbag isn't deployed, the charge was a dud and it could go off any second, so EMTs need to stay out of the way.
Too bad the EMTs won't be made privy to the information, and even if they are, it wouldn't be until long after they've done their duty.
You do realize that Republicans are far less concerned with what a woman does to her own body than they are about what she does to the cellular tissue she is carrying in her own body?
Think of it, though. A chatbot communicating with potentially millions of adolescents. Learning even more from them. Talking to them. Getting through to them like no adult could ever imagine. Convincing them of things. Leveraging them. Wielding them.
You know, if you're trying to make it sound less terrifying, you're not doing a very good job...
On the other hand, you've given me a great idea for a short story...
Think of the AI chatbot you could build based on the texts alone...
A chatbot based on the truncated simperings of adolescent narcissists? That's not curious, it's terrifying...
"So, like, OMG, like, I said, like, WTF, and he was all, like, LOL, so I was all like, TLDR, and he was all, like, BRB, so I was all, like, BTWIRLSK8BCDCRCTLA!!!!"
Don't confuse "adding" with "replacing". What you meant to say was that teens have ADDED additional text based communications on top of the existing social interactions they naturally do every day.
No, I'm pretty sure they meant what they said, and considering every adolescent I run across these days is forehead-deep in some sort of communication device, I'm inclined to agree.
Which leads me to ask - if these kids had the option to bypass their verbal 'social interactions,' as you put it, with textual ones, would they become mutes?
The only thing social situation it "replaces" are 1 minute phone calls that we now take 10 minutes to do via email or IM.
FTFY, while simultaneously pointing out the irony of referring to time consuming textual communication as "instant."
It's a good thing we know from experience that our government only collects data it "legally" authorizes itself to collect.
FTFY.
However, inherent distrust of governing bodies aside, I don't see a problem with the law requiring a warrant for police to collect the data. Were that not stipulated, you and I both know cops would take that as an legitimization of their illegal searches.
All the one's I've ever met. Then again, I don't think I've ever met someone who is actually pro-life - most of those who claim to be so are actually pro-birth, after which point they stop giving a damn.
I was against abortion as a non-religious person.
As unlikely as I find that statement, I'll be fair and give you a chance to defend yourself: What possible reason, based on logic and rationality, could a person have to make them believe that the health care decisions of another person should be theirs to make? If you plan on going the "I believe abortion is murder" route, please detail how, without religious influence, you came to the conclusion that a zygote, a mass of cellular tissue with no intelligence whatsoever, is exactly the same as a living, breathing human being.
I would also be interested to know whether you consider natural abortion (typically referred to as a miscarriage) murder as well? If not, what's the difference (FYI, "because GOD did it" will not help your case here)?
If you morally believe something is wrong and harmful, then you can support legislation to ban it.
That's where you're wrong.
You do not have the right to force YOUR version of morality on everyone else, just as no one else has the right to force their version on you. Don't believe in abortion? Fine, no one's forcing you to have one, so don't try to force others to not have one.
Morality, which is a purely subjective concept, has no place the legislative process of a free society, outside the universally accepts social mores (even those are sometime anti-liberty; take Jim Crow laws for example).
WHERE you get your morals from is not the issue.
According to the Constitution, it is.
Right now, enough people believe in abortion that there is no feasible way to overturn it via constitutional amendment. There's nothing wrong with religious people or non-religious people wishing to change that.
Yes, there is.
Would you think it's OK for the government to force you to, say, have sex with a member of your own gender? What if there were "enough people" who believe in making that law? Would you accept it then? Because that's precisely the kind of behavior that you are trying to convince me is acceptable.
That is avoiding the heart of the question. While I agree with you regarding liberties, the question was more "do non-religious folks have the freedom to force their beliefs on the rest of the populous via legislation, simply because their beliefs are non-religious?"
Yes, unless we're talking about legislation that outlaws religion; read the Constitution. It's there in plain English:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
We can gather from this statement that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for the legislature to create laws that either force citizens to follow religious tenements they do not necessarily hold themselves, or prevent a citizen from expressing their religious beliefs.
There are some who do not support abortion, yet are not religious. There are some who are "against" homosexuality, but are not religious. Are those people allowed to act politically?
For starters, I'm hard pressed to believe that anyone who wants a ban on abortion or who thinks homosexuals should be treated like second class citizens holds that belief as a result of anything but religion, and have yet to be proven wrong (just saying "I oppose abortion/homosexuality for non-religious reasons" doesn't pass the smell test).
Secondly, if those people are pushing for the government to control the actions of others based on their own subjective morality, they are clearly in the wrong - see my previous post regarding the meaning of liberty.
If we take a step back to abortion, for a moment, there are people who honestly believe that it is murder.
There are people who honestly believe that a fat man in a red suit magically transports himself down the chimney and delivers free stuff out of the goodness of his heart; so what? Most of the time, that "honest belief" isn't honest at all, but rather an attempt to sensationalize the topic and demonize any opposition to their cause. Kind of like all those internect censorship bills coming out under the guise of "protecting children from pedophiles -" only a child hater or pedophile would be against a law that claims to target pedophiles, right?
Same concept.
Shouldn't someone who believes something is murder be allowed to crusade against it? They believe they are speaking for a being (i.e. the fetus) which cannot speak for itself. It cannot say "don't fuck with me" and take political action. Shouldn't those people be allowed to do so?
As I stated previously, they are more than free to express that opinion. What they are not free to do is force the rest of society to fall in line with their particular brand of morality, just because they make a fuss. Those people you refer to completely ignore the science and social aspects of the topic, because they have decided (usually with religious influence) that their perception trumps reality.
When emotion is allowed to supersede rationality, liberty becomes a moot point.
some guy somewhere is saying "WOW... Honey, look at what this guy built in his garage for $150,000" and his wife/girlfriend/significant other is yelling "AND ONE DIVORCE!!!!"
they don't finger fuck anyone, and you look like an ass for making it up. Stop It, You Are Not Helping.
You are making people that need to be involved think people who are against are crazy assholes. You do not win support that way, and no matter how right you may be , without support nothing changes.
You, sir, obviously do not follow politics: Politicians make outrageous, nonsensical statements daily, and their constituents eat that shit up, no questions asked. Therefore, your implication that my pointing out how TSA agents are legalized pedophiles (which, BTW, is notmadeup) somehow damages efforts to reign their child-molesting asses in, is, in essence, complete and utter bullshit.
If anything, Asshole apologists such as yourself are the real danger here - everyone play nice, don't yell, don't make a fuss... just think of unicorn farts and rainbow burgers while the nice government agents rape your children.
Telemarketers are people struggling to find jobs, and telemarketing is bottom-rung job that pays when all other options don't pan out...
TSA agents are doing their job. Being a dick to them and making their life suck (even more) just makes it worse for everyone.
Bullshit comparison:
Telemarketers sit in call centers and try to sell you stuff; TSA agents finger-fuck your 6-year-old child in front of your face, then expect you to line up for your turn.
There is a fucking universe of difference between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
True. But if a manufacturer is given the choice of adding more storage at increased cost, or using the minimum amount of storage required so they can keep their profit margins as high as possible, they will choose the later. A small amount of NVRAM is going to be a lot cheaper than a big SSD.
While you're probably right there, to me it's not the manufacturers who are of concern; it's the politicians who wrote the law. I feel it's only a matter of time before they start requiring constant data monitoring.
And you and I both (should) know that warrants are just a formality. It's good that they're explicitly required, but it only protects against egregious abuse. Your car will still testify against you in a court of law.
Agreed.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't seem to understand - when a cop tells you, "everything you say can and will be used against you," he means just that. Verbatim. Only now, it's not just anything you say, but also anything your car, or cell phone, or computer, etc., etc., etc...
Not exactly the direction I was thinking of, but interesting concept nonetheless...
I was wondering how much data is saved before it is overwritten with new data, and found this in the text of the bill...
The EDR is designed to record data related to vehicle dynamics and safety systems for a short period of time, typically 30 seconds or less.
Thirty seconds would make this completely useless as evidence for a speeding stop or red light stop, etc. Just make sure you are driving under the speed limit for at least 30 seconds before coming to a stop and you've wiped out any evidence.
"Typically" = weasel word.
I typically don't smash baby seals over the head with a nailboard, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen.
speeding? automatic ticket.
oxygen sensor broken, but you just ignored it and drove around with the check engine light on? environmental fine.
oh, you commute 60 miles one way to work? that's in excess of what the green czar said a reasonable commute should be, carbon fine.
tire air sensors reporting low air pressure? you're wasting fuel efficiency & gas, carbon fine.
didn't put your seatbelt on until AFTER you puled out on to a public road? seatbelt fine.
the possibilies are endless.
Legal precedent disagrees.
Yes, things like affected areas of the vehicle (front end collision? side collision? rollover? any ejections?) airbag deployments, whether seatbelts were fastened or not, what area(s) of the car were impacted more than others, how many people were in the vehicle - none of this is useful information for an EMS dispatch.
I detect a hint of sarcasm... to which I return the favor:
That would be great info for the EMS personnel to have prior to reaching the crash site...
See what I did there?
Reread the 'exceptions' clauses of the proposed legislation. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.
There is no exception clause to Sec. 31406
If the computer says that the airbag was deployed, and the airbag isn't deployed, the charge was a dud and it could go off any second, so EMTs need to stay out of the way.
Too bad the EMTs won't be made privy to the information, and even if they are, it wouldn't be until long after they've done their duty.
Medicaid already covers every contraceptive under the sun.
Which is great for the 5% of the population who qualify for Medicaid.
You do realize that Republicans are far less concerned with what a woman does to her own body than they are about what she does to the cellular tissue she is carrying in her own body?
FTFY.
Think of it, though. A chatbot communicating with potentially millions of adolescents. Learning even more from them. Talking to them. Getting through to them like no adult could ever imagine. Convincing them of things. Leveraging them. Wielding them.
You know, if you're trying to make it sound less terrifying, you're not doing a very good job...
On the other hand, you've given me a great idea for a short story...
Think of the AI chatbot you could build based on the texts alone...
A chatbot based on the truncated simperings of adolescent narcissists? That's not curious, it's terrifying...
"So, like, OMG, like, I said, like, WTF, and he was all, like, LOL, so I was all like, TLDR, and he was all, like, BRB, so I was all, like, BTWIRLSK8BCDCRCTLA!!!!"
God help us...
Don't confuse "adding" with "replacing". What you meant to say was that teens have ADDED additional text based communications on top of the existing social interactions they naturally do every day.
No, I'm pretty sure they meant what they said, and considering every adolescent I run across these days is forehead-deep in some sort of communication device, I'm inclined to agree.
Which leads me to ask - if these kids had the option to bypass their verbal 'social interactions,' as you put it, with textual ones, would they become mutes?
The only thing social situation it "replaces" are 1 minute phone calls that we now take 10 minutes to do via email or IM.
FTFY, while simultaneously pointing out the irony of referring to time consuming textual communication as "instant."
It's a good thing we know from experience that our government only collects data it "legally" authorizes itself to collect.
FTFY.
However, inherent distrust of governing bodies aside, I don't see a problem with the law requiring a warrant for police to collect the data. Were that not stipulated, you and I both know cops would take that as an legitimization of their illegal searches.
No, we will generalize it to "vaccines don't always work".
Then you're not "most people".
Neither is OP.
To quote the famous author, all generalizations are false...
including this one.
Are only religious people pro-life?
All the one's I've ever met. Then again, I don't think I've ever met someone who is actually pro-life - most of those who claim to be so are actually pro-birth, after which point they stop giving a damn.
I was against abortion as a non-religious person.
As unlikely as I find that statement, I'll be fair and give you a chance to defend yourself: What possible reason, based on logic and rationality, could a person have to make them believe that the health care decisions of another person should be theirs to make? If you plan on going the "I believe abortion is murder" route, please detail how, without religious influence, you came to the conclusion that a zygote, a mass of cellular tissue with no intelligence whatsoever, is exactly the same as a living, breathing human being.
I would also be interested to know whether you consider natural abortion (typically referred to as a miscarriage) murder as well? If not, what's the difference (FYI, "because GOD did it" will not help your case here)?
If you morally believe something is wrong and harmful, then you can support legislation to ban it.
That's where you're wrong.
You do not have the right to force YOUR version of morality on everyone else, just as no one else has the right to force their version on you. Don't believe in abortion? Fine, no one's forcing you to have one, so don't try to force others to not have one.
Morality, which is a purely subjective concept, has no place the legislative process of a free society, outside the universally accepts social mores (even those are sometime anti-liberty; take Jim Crow laws for example).
WHERE you get your morals from is not the issue.
According to the Constitution, it is.
Right now, enough people believe in abortion that there is no feasible way to overturn it via constitutional amendment. There's nothing wrong with religious people or non-religious people wishing to change that.
Yes, there is.
Would you think it's OK for the government to force you to, say, have sex with a member of your own gender? What if there were "enough people" who believe in making that law? Would you accept it then? Because that's precisely the kind of behavior that you are trying to convince me is acceptable.
That is avoiding the heart of the question. While I agree with you regarding liberties, the question was more "do non-religious folks have the freedom to force their beliefs on the rest of the populous via legislation, simply because their beliefs are non-religious?"
Yes, unless we're talking about legislation that outlaws religion; read the Constitution. It's there in plain English:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
We can gather from this statement that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for the legislature to create laws that either force citizens to follow religious tenements they do not necessarily hold themselves, or prevent a citizen from expressing their religious beliefs.
There are some who do not support abortion, yet are not religious. There are some who are "against" homosexuality, but are not religious. Are those people allowed to act politically?
For starters, I'm hard pressed to believe that anyone who wants a ban on abortion or who thinks homosexuals should be treated like second class citizens holds that belief as a result of anything but religion, and have yet to be proven wrong (just saying "I oppose abortion/homosexuality for non-religious reasons" doesn't pass the smell test).
Secondly, if those people are pushing for the government to control the actions of others based on their own subjective morality, they are clearly in the wrong - see my previous post regarding the meaning of liberty.
If we take a step back to abortion, for a moment, there are people who honestly believe that it is murder.
There are people who honestly believe that a fat man in a red suit magically transports himself down the chimney and delivers free stuff out of the goodness of his heart; so what? Most of the time, that "honest belief" isn't honest at all, but rather an attempt to sensationalize the topic and demonize any opposition to their cause. Kind of like all those internect censorship bills coming out under the guise of "protecting children from pedophiles -" only a child hater or pedophile would be against a law that claims to target pedophiles, right?
Same concept.
Shouldn't someone who believes something is murder be allowed to crusade against it? They believe they are speaking for a being (i.e. the fetus) which cannot speak for itself. It cannot say "don't fuck with me" and take political action. Shouldn't those people be allowed to do so?
As I stated previously, they are more than free to express that opinion. What they are not free to do is force the rest of society to fall in line with their particular brand of morality, just because they make a fuss. Those people you refer to completely ignore the science and social aspects of the topic, because they have decided (usually with religious influence) that their perception trumps reality.
When emotion is allowed to supersede rationality, liberty becomes a moot point.
I don't think you understand what a game is if you think something that requires infinite in-game purchases to persist for the user is a game.
Oh, it's a game alright - just a matter of who is playing who...
some guy somewhere is saying "WOW... Honey, look at what this guy built in his garage for $150,000" and his wife/girlfriend/significant other is yelling "AND ONE DIVORCE!!!!"
To which the guy responds, under his breath,
"... lucky bastard..."
Water from the air can still be contaminated with dihydrogen monoxide, a byproduct of combustion, which a lot of factories and power plants give off.
In the immortal words of Mr. Andrew Dice Clay...
OH!
Like a gf I had there once. Oh wait this is /. I meant my palms.
We knew that's what you meant without you even saying it...
they don't finger fuck anyone, and you look like an ass for making it up. Stop It, You Are Not Helping. You are making people that need to be involved think people who are against are crazy assholes. You do not win support that way, and no matter how right you may be , without support nothing changes.
You, sir, obviously do not follow politics: Politicians make outrageous, nonsensical statements daily, and their constituents eat that shit up, no questions asked. Therefore, your implication that my pointing out how TSA agents are legalized pedophiles (which, BTW, is not made up) somehow damages efforts to reign their child-molesting asses in, is, in essence, complete and utter bullshit.
If anything, Asshole apologists such as yourself are the real danger here - everyone play nice, don't yell, don't make a fuss... just think of unicorn farts and rainbow burgers while the nice government agents rape your children.
Telemarketers are people struggling to find jobs, and telemarketing is bottom-rung job that pays when all other options don't pan out...
TSA agents are doing their job. Being a dick to them and making their life suck (even more) just makes it worse for everyone.
Bullshit comparison:
Telemarketers sit in call centers and try to sell you stuff; TSA agents finger-fuck your 6-year-old child in front of your face, then expect you to line up for your turn.
There is a fucking universe of difference between the two.
CanHasDIY doesn't know how to read.
Wow, what a douchebaggy way to respond to someone that agrees with you... it must suck to know you personally.
I quote my previous post...The Congress and its subordinate agencies are forbidden by the Superior law of the Constitution.
OK, so why did you ask? Presumably so you could be a dickhead to anyone who fell for it?
Well, lesson learned, then.
Got examples in the last 2 decades where obscene content was censored by the U.S. Congress? I'm trying to think of some, but came up with nothing.
Probably because Congress doesn't handle censorship of "obscene" content, the FCC does.
To that end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy#Aftermath_and_effects