James O'Keefe illegally crossed the border, filmed it and distributed the video. Of course the Border Patrol is going to keep a closer eye on him... It's got nothing to do with "getting even".
Birds are not solar powered, they are powered by carbon sequestered in plants and other animals. If birds are solar powered, then by that definition so are jet planes.
What you're missing is most people think it's fine for the government to subsidize certain industries but not others. The argument isn't over subsidize or don't subsidize, it's what to subsidize.
Even died in the wool small government radicals still think the military industrial complex should be subsidized.
Have the phone companies implement a *666 system. After receiving a robocall the recipient hangs, then picks up and dials *666. The phone company keeps a count and reports numbers with some large number of *666 reports to drone death-squads.
You're assuming that he's alluding to the fifth amendment, the Miranda warning is just a notification of it, but according to the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms you have the right to remain silent in Canada as well. You also have the right to an attorney (counsel).
Not that it matters when you're in Customs. Your constitutional rights (mostly) don't apply in customs, in the US or Canada.
If the local telcos or ISPs thought it was profitable, then they would have already done it.
This is a common fallacy, if the ISPs thought they could make a higher return on their investment providing crappy service (particularly if they have no competition) then there is no incentive for them to provide good service (particularly if it means they will have competition).
The town (presumably) would not be profit focused and therefore be more concerned with the quality of the service than the return on investment. There are some things socialism does better than capitalism, and vice-versa.
Do you really think cities can hold 15 times the number of gas stations we have currently?
Considering that a charging stations can easily be installed in parking stalls at coffee shops, restaurants, strip-malls, parking structures, home garages, etc. I think it would be no problem for a city to have 15 times the current number of gas stations.
better they track me so they put stuff i buy up front rather than me having to walk through the whole store
I don't think you understand how they think, they'll put the stuff you buy at the back so that you have to walk through the entire store. In their minds the more stuff you walk past, the more likely you are to buy something on a whim. It's why the milk is always at the back of the grocery store.
If the author of this piece was smart enough to stop using windows full-screen, he'd realise that it's very useful to be able to view (at least partially) multiple windows at the same time.
How about we just implement a system that when a vehicle brakes hard it also send out a low power directional signal (to the rear) that reads "Hard Braking, #1 vehicle, ".
Then every vehicle that receives it replies with "Hard Braking, #2 vehicle, " and every vehicle that receives it replies with "Hard Braking, #3 vehicle, ", etc. Then at some predetermined cutoff point (number dependant on the vehicle's speed) the vehicles stop propagating the message.
The point of the random number is so that your vehicle can ignore multiple receipts of the same braking event while not identifying the vehicle.
That should cover the vast majority if situations that you want your vehicle to warn you about.
[Sigh] It is not illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. What the first amendment doesn't do is protect you from prosecution if your yelling "Fire" causes a panic. So you have the right to yell "Fire", you will just be held accountable if doing so causes a panic.
From Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s (unanimous ) opinion, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".
What are the parameters that define a "good" driver. Going below the speed limit on a highway in the left lane. Being lucky when you don't look right or left making a turn onto a street? Taking way to long to brake?
That's the real question isn't it, how are they going to define a safe driver vs. a risky driver. One way is to collect telemetry from people for a while and then compare the telemetry of the people that have collisions with the people who don't and look for statistically valid differences.
I've been driving for decades, I've put over 300,000 miles under me, but I bet those damn things would label me a bad driver
Any time I hear something like this I'm reminded of the fact that when asked, most people rate themselves as above average drivers. Not to say that you're not a good driver, but your driving ability is anecdotal at best. Why would you think they would label you a bad driver? Note I'd prefer to use the terms safe driver and risky driver.
for I accelerate firmly coming onto a highway, I don't brake forever coming off a highway,
With, I'd imagine, long periods driving at a constant velocity in between, why would you think that makes you a risky driver? That's what you're supposed to do. The risky driver is the guy who accelerates firmly and brakes firmly repeatedly and often in city traffic.
I tend to exceed the posted speed limit by a few miles when in the left lane and certainly when passing
Any rational system wouldn't rate someone as risky for exceeding the speed limit in a calm manner by a small percentage, particularly on a highway.
and i do my best to maintain situational awareness when behind the wheel.
By looking at vehicles' telemetry it would be very easy to identify the people who tailgate (due to their need to constantly adjust their speed), change lanes frequently and abruptly, drive significantly faster than the surrounding traffic, etc. It would also be easy to identify the people who practice good defensive driving techniques.
These devices will do nothing to bring about "safe" driving because that term is still relative to skill, conditions, and environment.
Actually it's got a good chance to reduce collisions. People drive at their own acceptable level of perceived risk. If driving in a risky manner puts them at risk of higher insurance rates they will modify their driving habits.
Flo can take her device and shove it somewhere dark, just not in my car.
That's OK, once these become standard you will always be able to opt out. Of course that means you will be placed in the highest risk category and pay the highest premiums, but at least they won't have a tracker in your car.
My issue with this sort of device isn't that it will be used in determining insurance premiums, my issue is "What else will it be used for?"
They'd also do well by dropping the one and two dollar bills, replacing them with coins; the currency has devalued so much, it's not worth keeping the low value notes as notes. You could also make a case for ditching the penny, to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
James O'Keefe illegally crossed the border, filmed it and distributed the video. Of course the Border Patrol is going to keep a closer eye on him... It's got nothing to do with "getting even".
Birds are not solar powered, they are powered by carbon sequestered in plants and other animals. If birds are solar powered, then by that definition so are jet planes.
What you're missing is most people think it's fine for the government to subsidize certain industries but not others. The argument isn't over subsidize or don't subsidize, it's what to subsidize.
Even died in the wool small government radicals still think the military industrial complex should be subsidized.
if you want to see what all the fuss is about, go to photographyisnotacrime.com
Have the phone companies implement a *666 system. After receiving a robocall the recipient hangs, then picks up and dials *666. The phone company keeps a count and reports numbers with some large number of *666 reports to drone death-squads.
That last bit might be a tad extreme...
You're assuming that he's alluding to the fifth amendment, the Miranda warning is just a notification of it, but according to the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms you have the right to remain silent in Canada as well. You also have the right to an attorney (counsel).
Not that it matters when you're in Customs. Your constitutional rights (mostly) don't apply in customs, in the US or Canada.
Two publications from the BCCLA (BC Civil Liberties Association) you may be interested in:
https://bccla.org/wp-content/u...
https://bccla.org/wp-content/u...
If the local telcos or ISPs thought it was profitable, then they would have already done it.
This is a common fallacy, if the ISPs thought they could make a higher return on their investment providing crappy service (particularly if they have no competition) then there is no incentive for them to provide good service (particularly if it means they will have competition).
The town (presumably) would not be profit focused and therefore be more concerned with the quality of the service than the return on investment. There are some things socialism does better than capitalism, and vice-versa.
Do you really think cities can hold 15 times the number of gas stations we have currently?
Considering that a charging stations can easily be installed in parking stalls at coffee shops, restaurants, strip-malls, parking structures, home garages, etc. I think it would be no problem for a city to have 15 times the current number of gas stations.
An even better way, wait several thousand years and the sun will come up at 7 am instead of 6 am.
better they track me so they put stuff i buy up front rather than me having to walk through the whole store
I don't think you understand how they think, they'll put the stuff you buy at the back so that you have to walk through the entire store. In their minds the more stuff you walk past, the more likely you are to buy something on a whim. It's why the milk is always at the back of the grocery store.
Password protect your phone, then don't give them the password until they obtain a warrant. Done.
If the author of this piece was smart enough to stop using windows full-screen, he'd realise that it's very useful to be able to view (at least partially) multiple windows at the same time.
Anybody know what "39 times the size of Manhattan" is in football fields?
One Manhattan is:
12,292.12 Football Fields
16,344.68 US Football Fields
10,728.82 Canadian Football Fields
So 39 Manhattans are:
479,392.68 Football Fields
637,442.52 US Football Fields
418,423.98 Canadian Football Fields
131,072 feet would of been cooler...
I invented one of those years ago when I was just a babe, I call it a larynx. I wish I had thought about patenting it...
How about we just implement a system that when a vehicle brakes hard it also send out a low power directional signal (to the rear) that reads "Hard Braking, #1 vehicle, ".
Then every vehicle that receives it replies with "Hard Braking, #2 vehicle, " and every vehicle that receives it replies with "Hard Braking, #3 vehicle, ", etc. Then at some predetermined cutoff point (number dependant on the vehicle's speed) the vehicles stop propagating the message.
The point of the random number is so that your vehicle can ignore multiple receipts of the same braking event while not identifying the vehicle.
That should cover the vast majority if situations that you want your vehicle to warn you about.
...would you be willing to receive a brand new $2000 frig/freezer for free IF it showed ads on it?
Can I tape a piece of paper over the screen? Perhaps a piece of paper with a nice photo on it?
[Sigh] It is not illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. What the first amendment doesn't do is protect you from prosecution if your yelling "Fire" causes a panic. So you have the right to yell "Fire", you will just be held accountable if doing so causes a panic.
From Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s (unanimous ) opinion, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".
An app that would disable the phone if it's moving at more than 20 KM/H.
At least they didn't fraudulently claim the battery went flat during a test run.
60 Minutes --> Newsmagazine Program
Top Gear --> Entertainment Program
Remember when there were shows about actual reality? They called them documentaries.
They still do.
A Pizza is more than most people get as the result of a class action lawsuit...
What are the parameters that define a "good" driver. Going below the speed limit on a highway in the left lane. Being lucky when you don't look right or left making a turn onto a street? Taking way to long to brake?
That's the real question isn't it, how are they going to define a safe driver vs. a risky driver. One way is to collect telemetry from people for a while and then compare the telemetry of the people that have collisions with the people who don't and look for statistically valid differences.
I've been driving for decades, I've put over 300,000 miles under me, but I bet those damn things would label me a bad driver
Any time I hear something like this I'm reminded of the fact that when asked, most people rate themselves as above average drivers. Not to say that you're not a good driver, but your driving ability is anecdotal at best. Why would you think they would label you a bad driver? Note I'd prefer to use the terms safe driver and risky driver.
for I accelerate firmly coming onto a highway, I don't brake forever coming off a highway,
With, I'd imagine, long periods driving at a constant velocity in between, why would you think that makes you a risky driver? That's what you're supposed to do. The risky driver is the guy who accelerates firmly and brakes firmly repeatedly and often in city traffic.
I tend to exceed the posted speed limit by a few miles when in the left lane and certainly when passing
Any rational system wouldn't rate someone as risky for exceeding the speed limit in a calm manner by a small percentage, particularly on a highway.
and i do my best to maintain situational awareness when behind the wheel.
By looking at vehicles' telemetry it would be very easy to identify the people who tailgate (due to their need to constantly adjust their speed), change lanes frequently and abruptly, drive significantly faster than the surrounding traffic, etc. It would also be easy to identify the people who practice good defensive driving techniques.
These devices will do nothing to bring about "safe" driving because that term is still relative to skill, conditions, and environment.
Actually it's got a good chance to reduce collisions. People drive at their own acceptable level of perceived risk. If driving in a risky manner puts them at risk of higher insurance rates they will modify their driving habits.
Flo can take her device and shove it somewhere dark, just not in my car.
That's OK, once these become standard you will always be able to opt out. Of course that means you will be placed in the highest risk category and pay the highest premiums, but at least they won't have a tracker in your car.
My issue with this sort of device isn't that it will be used in determining insurance premiums, my issue is "What else will it be used for?"
A Manchester plumber was arrested for having a van full of "bomb" making material.
His pleas of "It's just pipe for a sink" went unheeded.
They'd also do well by dropping the one and two dollar bills, replacing them with coins; the currency has devalued so much, it's not worth keeping the low value notes as notes. You could also make a case for ditching the penny, to boot.
What are you? Some kind of closet Canadian?