If a small company was being investigated and their emails were significant to the crime, then there would be no problem with grabbing everything despite the damage that it would do to the small firm. Yet when a big firm is being investigated, they are free to hand over what they feel like. A similar problem was visible when News International was done in the UK over its phone hacking behaviour. A little less subtly from prosecutors would be welcome!
What is necessary is for polluters to pay the full price of the damage that they are doing to the environment. This can be achieved by carbon pricing in the case of the flap over climate change, which can occur without 'socialism' as such. If however you fail to implement that, it's as immoral as dumping sewage on someone's front garden or graffiting priceless painting...
All I can point to is the policy of our local council here where such narrow humps are standard policy on new traffic calming measures - though that may just be their way of saving money!
Once upon a time it was safe to let children play in the street - or at least walk to a friend's house on the sidewalk. This reflected the fact that the traffic was limited in residential areas. The idea that we should sacrifice our kids safety to motor vehicles who have no NEED to be in an area is one that needs further thought. The rise in traffic flows in residential areas is a classic example of the boiled frog problem - one where an issue has got worse so slowly that noone has reacted to what is actually a massive loss for the community.
The story comes on the same day as the French police arrest some people for selling 'drugs' to cure fatal diseases. In both cases the perpetrators are getting money for something that doesn't work - though arguably given the placebo effect, the drug sellers are less likely to be wrong about their claims.
The answer is clear; customers who paid for a service that it was technically impossible for them to receive should get a full refund and the company should be charged with criminal fraud. Note this is the kind route; the Hebrew Bible would call for a repayment of 3 times the sum, with a failure to pay resulting in the people responsible being sold into slavery - though only for 6 years!
The best reason for driverless cars is to reduce the massive death toll on the roads. The primary question is not whether the package will 'protect my family', but whether it will sufficient to ensure a substantial cut in road deaths. Given that the sensors will have a better view of the road than a human driver has atm, the only question is whether the software will be good enough to convert that data into safer driving than we get atm. This seems achievable.
Given that they have demanded the extradition of British citizens who have spied on US government websites from their homes in the UK, logically the FBI can be charged with the same offence...
That's the issue we're disagreeing on. My expectation is that it won't add more than $10,000 dollars overall, and that's not dissimilar to the price of insurance over a 10 year period for a lot of people. Given that insurance will no longer be necessary for a lot of people - if they aren't planning to leave the areas that are fully automated - then this will pay for the upgrade
Of course this assumes that people will persist in having their own cars, when it is likely that the shift will enable people to rent cars more cheaply than buying.
I think it will be a case of city and suburban dwellers will take to it pretty rapidly as the financial advantage dawn on people and on the governments. It's not the answer for every situation, but it will make massively safer roads rapidly. The ability to give mobility to kids and old people who would otherwise be stuck without it will be worth a LOT.
Once automatic driving becomes required - when the safety advantages are recognised - there will be a need for small manufacturers to offer it. And they won't be able to start from scratch....
When someone finally rejects the system in which they have been living, it is inevitable that they will find themselves allies of those who have long opposed that system. The US ended up allied to Russia in 1941 despite Russia's invasion of the Baltic Republic in 1940; that didn't mean that FDR was now supporting Uncle Joe's purges, just that he had to find support for his war wherever he could get it.
The invasion of the Crimea is a continuing offence under any reasonable take on national independence. Remember how Russia and RT spun the story at the time - and how Putin now admits it was a preplanned invasion.
Then remember how many lies Radio Moscow of the USSR produced, and don't be surprised that it's been resurrected.
Corporations need to ensure that their data is held by legal subsidiaries that can only be hit with a warrant by their own country's courts and which have no ability to access data controlled by another legal subsidiary. Whilst not trivial, it is surely possible for the relevant security keys to be strictly under the control of the relevant county's board of directors. That board of directors would be protected by the courts of its domicile - though I guess members may end up being unable to travel to the US if they resist a US warrant. But then sometimes the empire must be resisted...
The main moral to take from this story is that if you are going to upset people who have legal powers, make sure that your data is held in a way that is beyond their powers to get at. One of the more interesting possibilities lies in the 'Principality of Sealand' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... whose legal status is... interesting. If your data was there and you upset Uncle Sam enough, would he try to invade - and would the UK let him!!
Really? That makes me doubt you are a good IT tech, because you don't think of all possible options. It's fundamental to the job of IT to consider as many possibilities...
You're joking aren't you? Most of the Canadian population lives in big cities - Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver all have over 2 million people in their metropolitan areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Who got autism after being vaccinated
Though the autist child will save the day...
If a small company was being investigated and their emails were significant to the crime, then there would be no problem with grabbing everything despite the damage that it would do to the small firm. Yet when a big firm is being investigated, they are free to hand over what they feel like. A similar problem was visible when News International was done in the UK over its phone hacking behaviour. A little less subtly from prosecutors would be welcome!
What is necessary is for polluters to pay the full price of the damage that they are doing to the environment. This can be achieved by carbon pricing in the case of the flap over climate change, which can occur without 'socialism' as such. If however you fail to implement that, it's as immoral as dumping sewage on someone's front garden or graffiting priceless painting...
All I can point to is the policy of our local council here where such narrow humps are standard policy on new traffic calming measures - though that may just be their way of saving money!
Once upon a time it was safe to let children play in the street - or at least walk to a friend's house on the sidewalk. This reflected the fact that the traffic was limited in residential areas. The idea that we should sacrifice our kids safety to motor vehicles who have no NEED to be in an area is one that needs further thought. The rise in traffic flows in residential areas is a classic example of the boiled frog problem - one where an issue has got worse so slowly that noone has reacted to what is actually a massive loss for the community.
This is the approach here; wide enough to catch cars, but so wide that emergency vehicles like ambulances and fire engines aren't inconvenienced.
The story comes on the same day as the French police arrest some people for selling 'drugs' to cure fatal diseases. In both cases the perpetrators are getting money for something that doesn't work - though arguably given the placebo effect, the drug sellers are less likely to be wrong about their claims.
The answer is clear; customers who paid for a service that it was technically impossible for them to receive should get a full refund and the company should be charged with criminal fraud. Note this is the kind route; the Hebrew Bible would call for a repayment of 3 times the sum, with a failure to pay resulting in the people responsible being sold into slavery - though only for 6 years!
Apple has clearly announced that their product is dangerous, so the TSA should ban them.
I hope a legislator at one of these state legislators makes this point if an Apple employee is stupid enough to raise this.
The best reason for driverless cars is to reduce the massive death toll on the roads. The primary question is not whether the package will 'protect my family', but whether it will sufficient to ensure a substantial cut in road deaths. Given that the sensors will have a better view of the road than a human driver has atm, the only question is whether the software will be good enough to convert that data into safer driving than we get atm. This seems achievable.
Given that they have demanded the extradition of British citizens who have spied on US government websites from their homes in the UK, logically the FBI can be charged with the same offence...
A conservative who has just been arrested...
Of course a conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged...
That's the issue we're disagreeing on. My expectation is that it won't add more than $10,000 dollars overall, and that's not dissimilar to the price of insurance over a 10 year period for a lot of people. Given that insurance will no longer be necessary for a lot of people - if they aren't planning to leave the areas that are fully automated - then this will pay for the upgrade
Of course this assumes that people will persist in having their own cars, when it is likely that the shift will enable people to rent cars more cheaply than buying.
I think it will be a case of city and suburban dwellers will take to it pretty rapidly as the financial advantage dawn on people and on the governments. It's not the answer for every situation, but it will make massively safer roads rapidly. The ability to give mobility to kids and old people who would otherwise be stuck without it will be worth a LOT.
Over the life of a car, that's a big gain. Similarly your medical insurance will be lower if you don't drive yourself.
Once automatic driving becomes required - when the safety advantages are recognised - there will be a need for small manufacturers to offer it. And they won't be able to start from scratch....
;)
When someone finally rejects the system in which they have been living, it is inevitable that they will find themselves allies of those who have long opposed that system. The US ended up allied to Russia in 1941 despite Russia's invasion of the Baltic Republic in 1940; that didn't mean that FDR was now supporting Uncle Joe's purges, just that he had to find support for his war wherever he could get it.
The invasion of the Crimea is a continuing offence under any reasonable take on national independence. Remember how Russia and RT spun the story at the time - and how Putin now admits it was a preplanned invasion.
Then remember how many lies Radio Moscow of the USSR produced, and don't be surprised that it's been resurrected.
Here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I don't recognise the website, but I leave you to investigate
http://www.stopfake.org/en/rus...
Not RT accused directly but
http://www.businessinsider.com...
A reminder about the lies at the time of the invasion of the Crimea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...
And finally
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10...
Corporations need to ensure that their data is held by legal subsidiaries that can only be hit with a warrant by their own country's courts and which have no ability to access data controlled by another legal subsidiary. Whilst not trivial, it is surely possible for the relevant security keys to be strictly under the control of the relevant county's board of directors. That board of directors would be protected by the courts of its domicile - though I guess members may end up being unable to travel to the US if they resist a US warrant. But then sometimes the empire must be resisted...
Given that the story - which is alarming - is over 6 weeks old, what has happened since?
A force that used its powers to target journalists' phones has been told off by the UK regulator on the issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
Let's try that again shall we?
1) They haven't found any evidence of data being lost
2) They lost a lot of data but prefer not to admit it....
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
The main moral to take from this story is that if you are going to upset people who have legal powers, make sure that your data is held in a way that is beyond their powers to get at. One of the more interesting possibilities lies in the 'Principality of Sealand' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... whose legal status is... interesting. If your data was there and you upset Uncle Sam enough, would he try to invade - and would the UK let him!!
Really? That makes me doubt you are a good IT tech, because you don't think of all possible options. It's fundamental to the job of IT to consider as many possibilities...
You're joking aren't you? Most of the Canadian population lives in big cities - Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver all have over 2 million people in their metropolitan areas.