But the court CAN require your password and hold you in contempt (and toss you in jail for the duration) for not providing it. Pleading the 5th won't get you out of this.
Also, My I-phone requires that the password be entered before the fingerprint scanner will work.... So if you are a criminal, just power down your phone if you fear you will have to interact with the cops and they won't be able to open your phone in case of your untimely death (or by physically forcing you to apply your finger).
Then WHY did the DNC not accept FBI assistance in figuring out who the criminal was?
I think the issue here is not that the DNC was hacked because both parties where hacked. But the issue is how the DNC decided to deal with it, refusing FBI assistance and obfuscating any possible evidence that could be used in a criminal prosecution by sending their equipment off to be "evaluated" by a third party.
After the DNC refuses the FBI's assistance in tracking down criminal hackers in their systems, they lose the election, then claim that the reason for this was the criminal hacking... I'm sorry, but that's like the fox claiming the coyote ate the missing eggs after he burned down the hen house. Yea, the fox may be right about who the criminal is, but there can be no investigation to prove it so, because any evidence is ashes now.
I can say the same thing about Obama's supporters, but I think it's pretty much pointless to debate this way.
CLEARLY I don't see an issue with Trump and I wasn't coming unglued over Obama's anti-constitutional activities and executive branch overreach. You admit that Trump cannot actually infringe on anybody's rights without help from Congress and concurrence from the Courts yet you think I'm being hypercritical over my constitutional stance? Where you reading Obama the riot act over his overtly unconstitutional executive orders? Hmm?
I dare say you where just fine back then, when the policy was something you agreed with.... But just in case you where moaning about it back then like you are moaning about it now, what could Obama actually DO? Not much, just like Trump.
Assuming we are discussing the same DNC hacking instance.... The evidence shows that this was an inside job. At least the file copies where done locally based on the files creation times because the time offsets between the files wouldn't allow them to be transferred over standard speed internet links.
It's hard to know for sure though until we find out how the intruder was getting in and data out. But... We won't really ever find out for sure. Seems the DNC didn't want the FBI's help on this at the time and contracted the investigation of the breach out to a contractor instead. At this point, the forensic investigation of the equipment is nearly impossible and the conclusions of the contractor suspect.
So.. I'm wondering.. Why do we care about the DNC getting hacked at this point? What difference at this point does it make?
My point, though, is that adding sensors isn't always the answer and rapidly becomes a compute problem that consumes more hardware at an increasing rate. It also requires that you integrate said sensors into the system in some useful way, that too is a geometric problem, with lines of code ballooning rapidly as you add in each new sensor.
So adding a sensor *might* be useful, but it's going to consume processing power and take time to integrate and test. I strongly suggest that keeping the system as simple as possible is far more likely to be successful than just willy nilly adding new sensors because it seems like a good idea to get more data.
Can you add more hardware? Sure... Will it be worth it? Maybe... But I'm willing to wager that you'd be better off with the least possible number of sensors over just throwing a new one in the mix to correct some issue like this. More data is often a hindrance to automation, not a help.
(a)Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1)knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A)unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B)unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C)was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
Again, I'm telling you what the LAW says, not what I'd personally choose in any specific situation. If the criminal is doing something they can get shot for and they get shot, I don't hold the shooter responsible (in the civil and legal senses) but the criminal. The person causing of the shooting is the criminal, not the law abiding citizen defending themselves.
One of the last things I'd want to do is shoot somebody and I'm going to avoid it if I can, but "Staying alive" is high up on my list of priorities so if it's a choice between the two, I'm going to shoot.
Just because there are checks and balances that have kept Trump from destroying free speech doesn't mean he hasn't tried.
So you admit that he's not successfully violated anybody's rights after all that?
So.. Where is your beef? Nobody's rights got violated and you are up in my grill for not condemning Trump for violating folks free speech rights?
You apparently are honest enough to admit the truth, that Trump simply cannot violate anybody's rights as you suggest, so how about we take a serious look at ACTUIAL actions he's taken, not just things he's said.
I think you are just sore because he hits back. You don't like being called on stuff and are blinded by rage.... Incensed that he dares to hit your side back. As a result, you are trumping up charges (pun intended) to justify yourself. Face it, he lives in your head, rent free. He's not ABLE to actually do anything close to what you accuse him of and everybody knows this is true, yet you claim there is something to be condemned here...
(a)Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1)knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A)unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B)unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle , or place of business or employment; or
(C)was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
Boy, you guys really have to reach to make this Trump guy into a bad thing.
BTW.. I'd be upset with Trump if he actually DID any of the things you seem to think happened here, but the problem here is he didn't. You have to really force the narrative by inferring a bunch of things are true by reading between the lines and wholesale making stuff up. He didn't do any of the things you claim.
Think I'm wrong? Prove it. When did Trump oppose free speech? Exactly what law or executive order did he enact that the courts have found did this?
I've said before, and apparently I'll have to keep saying this again and again....
Self defense is a natural right. No, you don't have the right to use deadly force for any reason, there has to be an immediate threat of a felony assault, or other serious crime here, and I'm not sure I'd be willing to shot somebody stealing my car. But I AM saying that it's perfectly legal.
So just walking down the street looking threatening doesn't get you legally shot, Nor does yelling insults at each other. The area starts getting grey though when somebody starts swinging, then felony assault becomes a consideration, but if the altercation goes both ways, you might not want to whip out the firearm.
If someone is committing a serious crime, then it's their choice to take the risks, including getting caught by the police or getting shot and killed by the victim of the crime. If I happen to shoot somebody who was attempting to assault me when I'm minding my own business, that's their choice, not mine. I will try to avoid using deadly force, but I'm going to do my best to go home.
Like I said before... I'm going to be a bit more hesitant to pull out my weapon in public than at home just as a matter of principle and the higher level of scrutiny my actions would be subject too. But the law in Texas is pretty clear that if somebody is committing or threatening to commit a felony (like stealing a car, or assaulting somebody) the average citizen is legally allowed to defend themselves and others using deadly force. But I keep pointing out that some kind of immediate behavior that would be a felony is required in public. This rules out shooting somebody due to a verbal altercation or how they look.
Now I'm not sure I'd be shooting somebody stealing my car myself, but I'm pretty sure that would be permissible.
You see, in Texas, since 1995, there is no legal requirement to retreat anymore and I can legally defend myself anyplace I'm legally entitled to be as if I'm at home, including the use of a firearm, without having to retreat.
You remember George Zimmerman? Same kind of law from Florida applies here in Texas. The shooting in that case was in self defense.
The issue here would be the time it takes a human to observe the situation and take corrective action. Given that this was a totally automated system (the car drove itself) the amount of time a human would take is longer than you might think.
First, the human needs to be actually LOOKING at the situation the car was facing and not doing anything else like reading billboards, monitoring the automation or other non-driving activities.
Second, the human will need to recognize that there is a situation developing which is dangerous.
Third, the human, who is expecting the automation to deal with the situation, must realize that the automation is NOT reacting.
Fourth, the human must decide to intervene and what intervention is needed.
Fifth, The human must physically move, and apply the proper control inputs to take over driving the vehicle (and the automation must release control).
Steps two though five take longer than they normally take if you where already driving the vehicle. A LOT longer...
I recall the case of Sully who landed his aircraft in the Hudson river. Simulator tests showed that had they diverted immediately after the bird strikes took their engines out, they could have made a safe landing on a runway. However, this didn't allow for human factors or running the engine out checks and that 20 seconds made it impossible to land on that runway. In hindsight, he could have landed that aircraft on land safely, but in reality, it wasn't humanly possible.
Except for one thing.... The woman stepped out 45 feet in front of a car going 40 MPH without so much as a sideways glance.
It may not go well for Uber in court, but one has to admit that apart from failing to avoid an accident, the vehicle did nothing legally wrong but the woman did. Her estate will have to prove that the failure to avoid the accident was the cause of her death, and that's going to be a hard thing to do given she broke the law.
More data is often not the solution, but the problem.
Correlating different data sources is NOT an easy task and as you add more data sources it becomes an N-squared problem, which takes geometrically more processing to sort out. Processing also takes time. In real time processing systems the required response time is set, so adding a new data source can often lead to response time problems, which software engineers often solve by moving parts of the process up to a less responsive priority level.
In this case, it's obvious that the system didn't react and arguable that a human would have reacted differently. I'm just guessing, but my impression here is that adding more sensors won't help, that the issue wasn't detection, but was/is the classification of the conflict was wrong, or wasn't fast enough to actually react. The reason is there simply wasn't enough processing power for the data being collected to be able to process and respond so the engineers had to compromise on edge cases like this.
There are all sorts of sight, sound, smell and touch queues involved in driving well. Sight may be of primary importance, but I glean a lot of information about what's going on by the "seat of my pants" and vibrations through my hands and feet and what I hear that adds to the total picture of the situation. This is especially true when driving at the edge of the control envelope, where a tire squeal can indicate you are about to exceed the available traction, or your seat may be telling you've already started to slide.
All may be true, but you simply do NOT step into a dangerous roadway where cars are whizzing by at 40MPH without looking and listening, unless you have some serious mental issues of the self destructive kind. The car would have been visible to her with it's blaring headlights and likely would have been pretty noisy traveling at nearly 40MPH, even if it was totally electric powered. All she needed to do was STOP, look and listen, but she just steps out.
I know I learned the "Stop, look and listen" procedure in Kindergarten. Unless you are going to claim total mental incompetence by this woman (and thus not blame Uber), I don't see how you can justify what she did and hold Uber's self driving system at fault.
In TEXAS you can defend yourself (and others) using a firearm. In your home, the assumption is that any intruder (A person who is not a resident or a guest) is engaged in a crime and you can legally defend yourself with deadly force. So, if the evidence shows you shot an intruder who was either in or attempting to enter your home, it was legal. You don't have to establish criminal intent or wait for a crime, in your home, you can shoot first and ask questions later.
However, you cannot just randomly shoot somebody in public in Texas and claim self defense, you'd better have some kind of evidence the target was at least intending a crime. So looking scary doesn't qualify. Now if they where breaking into a car, had a weapon in their hand and they approached you or had your wallet in their pocket, you will have little problem with criminal charges and if the police report says "self defense" then the civil suit won't go far.
For instance, a 70 year old man shot and killed a guy who was trying to steal his car in a public parking lot as he put his groceries into the trunk. This was a justified self defense shooting as there was plenty of evidence a crime was being attempted.
Now could you conceivably invent a self defense claim after shooting somebody? Maybe, but now we are talking about fictional stuff worthy of a bad TV crime drama. You are going to need to invent some kind of story and possibly plant evidence and something tells me that most folks who shoot somebody won't have the presence of mind to accomplish all that after the fact. Can't say it's impossible, but I can say it's unlikely to work.
Not on your life will the media let something like this go. Not when there is PROFIT to be made. Who cares about the president, or his wife? Who cares about the country? No, the major media outlets have gone tabloid news on us for money...
And by the way... Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit... Not for the inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky. But the media didn't care all that much then and didn't drag their darling president though the various wallowing hog pits of his past diligences with multiple women, willing and unwilling who where making claims of abuse dating back to Arkansas.
Clinton was obviously no choir boy and apparently his is an open marriage of political convenience, but I personally don't really care about any of it, as far as the media wants to be even handed about things.... Which is to say, I have to care about the hypocrisy here and will point it out when I see it. I don't care what the Clinton's or the Trump's do or don't do or even who they do it with, as long as we are fair about this..
First.... This isn't a constitutional issue at all, not even the first amendment is involved. U-Tube can refuse to host any material they find objectionable. I don't agree that such videos are objectionable, but I'm not going to complain they don't have the right to refuse them
You just said I don't have to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Well... I didn't exactly say that, but I catch your reasoning. I'm not going to take a position on this, but I will point out that most of these kinds of cases are slippery slopes as far as constitutional rights are involved and there ARE limits to one's rights. In the case of speech and arms, these are individual rights subject to the "strict test" in the courts, meaning that laws MUST be the minimum intrusion on the right possible and the government has the burden to prove this.
How this applies to baking cakes, I'll leave up to you.
I have to wonder, with this and all the one-sided bans and anti-right policies, if we really are at the start of a civil war.
I hope not.. The last Civil War was a disaster for the USA. But I do see where one side of this whole debate is ready to rip up the constitution and the legal basis of this country by hook or crook. So, maybe it is, but what a mess that would be.
If I were to shoot an unarmed robber in my home, I'd likely end up in jail.
Where I live, shooting an intruder armed or not who entered my home is perfectly legal and is also a defense in a civil trial. In fact, I can legally shoot a robber any place I am legally allowed to be. So if somebody tries to rob my car in a parking lot or mug me on the sidewalk, I can legally shoot them and they (or their estate should I be a good shot) won't successfully sue me in civil court. I'm not saying I WOULD take a shot at somebody on a public street only that I have that right. Most places would allow you to defend your home and shoot any intruder, armed or not.
Where do you live anyway? I'd be moving if I didn't have the right to shoot an unarmed intruder in my house. Self defense is a basic natural right.
I'm not arguing about the common understanding of what "unlimited data" means. I agree, "unlimited" should mean that as much data as your device can consume with no artificial limits placed on the data transfer speed for your device...
What I was pointing out is the original posts description of "unlimited" wasn't exactly a good one.
Gun nuts will start bleating about the Constitution. Guess what, you AREN'T part of a well regulated militia.
First.... This isn't a constitutional issue at all, not even the first amendment is involved. U-Tube can refuse to host any material they find objectionable. I don't agree that such videos are objectionable, but I'm not going to complain they don't have the right to refuse them.
Second... the "Well Regulated Militia" phrase has not been interpreted by the courts as you'd like. The Right to bear arms is an "individual right" as interpreted by the Supreme Court, which means it is a right enjoyed by the individual and doesn't require you to be a member of any group or engage in any specific activity. One gets to bear arms (i.e. own and carry firearms) and this right cannot be infringed by the 2nd amendment.
I can forgive that you don't understand this given the 2008 Heller decision is what clearly established the individual right to bear arms. But do please try to keep up, it's been 9 years now.
For Pete's sake... there will NEVER be unlimited data then.... There are limits here which flow from the laws of physics, even if AT&T is delivering every possible bit they can over the medium being used to transmit data.
Slashdot Mirror
But the court CAN require your password and hold you in contempt (and toss you in jail for the duration) for not providing it. Pleading the 5th won't get you out of this.
Also, My I-phone requires that the password be entered before the fingerprint scanner will work.... So if you are a criminal, just power down your phone if you fear you will have to interact with the cops and they won't be able to open your phone in case of your untimely death (or by physically forcing you to apply your finger).
Then WHY did the DNC not accept FBI assistance in figuring out who the criminal was?
I think the issue here is not that the DNC was hacked because both parties where hacked. But the issue is how the DNC decided to deal with it, refusing FBI assistance and obfuscating any possible evidence that could be used in a criminal prosecution by sending their equipment off to be "evaluated" by a third party.
After the DNC refuses the FBI's assistance in tracking down criminal hackers in their systems, they lose the election, then claim that the reason for this was the criminal hacking... I'm sorry, but that's like the fox claiming the coyote ate the missing eggs after he burned down the hen house. Yea, the fox may be right about who the criminal is, but there can be no investigation to prove it so, because any evidence is ashes now.
I can say the same thing about Obama's supporters, but I think it's pretty much pointless to debate this way.
CLEARLY I don't see an issue with Trump and I wasn't coming unglued over Obama's anti-constitutional activities and executive branch overreach. You admit that Trump cannot actually infringe on anybody's rights without help from Congress and concurrence from the Courts yet you think I'm being hypercritical over my constitutional stance? Where you reading Obama the riot act over his overtly unconstitutional executive orders? Hmm?
I dare say you where just fine back then, when the policy was something you agreed with.... But just in case you where moaning about it back then like you are moaning about it now, what could Obama actually DO? Not much, just like Trump.
Nobody's rights are being infringed here...
Assuming we are discussing the same DNC hacking instance.... The evidence shows that this was an inside job. At least the file copies where done locally based on the files creation times because the time offsets between the files wouldn't allow them to be transferred over standard speed internet links.
It's hard to know for sure though until we find out how the intruder was getting in and data out. But... We won't really ever find out for sure. Seems the DNC didn't want the FBI's help on this at the time and contracted the investigation of the breach out to a contractor instead. At this point, the forensic investigation of the equipment is nearly impossible and the conclusions of the contractor suspect.
So.. I'm wondering.. Why do we care about the DNC getting hacked at this point? What difference at this point does it make?
Yea, you can do that, up to point..
My point, though, is that adding sensors isn't always the answer and rapidly becomes a compute problem that consumes more hardware at an increasing rate. It also requires that you integrate said sensors into the system in some useful way, that too is a geometric problem, with lines of code ballooning rapidly as you add in each new sensor.
So adding a sensor *might* be useful, but it's going to consume processing power and take time to integrate and test. I strongly suggest that keeping the system as simple as possible is far more likely to be successful than just willy nilly adding new sensors because it seems like a good idea to get more data.
Can you add more hardware? Sure... Will it be worth it? Maybe... But I'm willing to wager that you'd be better off with the least possible number of sensors over just throwing a new one in the mix to correct some issue like this. More data is often a hindrance to automation, not a help.
Texas Penal Code - PENAL 9.31. Self-Defense
(a)Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1)knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A)unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B)unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C)was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
Again, I'm telling you what the LAW says, not what I'd personally choose in any specific situation. If the criminal is doing something they can get shot for and they get shot, I don't hold the shooter responsible (in the civil and legal senses) but the criminal. The person causing of the shooting is the criminal, not the law abiding citizen defending themselves.
One of the last things I'd want to do is shoot somebody and I'm going to avoid it if I can, but "Staying alive" is high up on my list of priorities so if it's a choice between the two, I'm going to shoot.
Prove it. When did Trump oppose free speech?
Just because there are checks and balances that have kept Trump from destroying free speech doesn't mean he hasn't tried.
So you admit that he's not successfully violated anybody's rights after all that?
So.. Where is your beef? Nobody's rights got violated and you are up in my grill for not condemning Trump for violating folks free speech rights?
You apparently are honest enough to admit the truth, that Trump simply cannot violate anybody's rights as you suggest, so how about we take a serious look at ACTUIAL actions he's taken, not just things he's said.
I think you are just sore because he hits back. You don't like being called on stuff and are blinded by rage.... Incensed that he dares to hit your side back. As a result, you are trumping up charges (pun intended) to justify yourself. Face it, he lives in your head, rent free. He's not ABLE to actually do anything close to what you accuse him of and everybody knows this is true, yet you claim there is something to be condemned here...
Texas Penal Code - PENAL 9.31. Self-Defense
(a)Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1)knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A)unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B)unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle , or place of business or employment; or
(C)was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
Because, that's what the LAW says in Texas.
Shesh... Calm down there Pete..
Boy, you guys really have to reach to make this Trump guy into a bad thing.
BTW.. I'd be upset with Trump if he actually DID any of the things you seem to think happened here, but the problem here is he didn't. You have to really force the narrative by inferring a bunch of things are true by reading between the lines and wholesale making stuff up. He didn't do any of the things you claim.
Think I'm wrong? Prove it. When did Trump oppose free speech? Exactly what law or executive order did he enact that the courts have found did this?
I've said before, and apparently I'll have to keep saying this again and again....
Self defense is a natural right. No, you don't have the right to use deadly force for any reason, there has to be an immediate threat of a felony assault, or other serious crime here, and I'm not sure I'd be willing to shot somebody stealing my car. But I AM saying that it's perfectly legal.
So just walking down the street looking threatening doesn't get you legally shot, Nor does yelling insults at each other. The area starts getting grey though when somebody starts swinging, then felony assault becomes a consideration, but if the altercation goes both ways, you might not want to whip out the firearm.
If someone is committing a serious crime, then it's their choice to take the risks, including getting caught by the police or getting shot and killed by the victim of the crime. If I happen to shoot somebody who was attempting to assault me when I'm minding my own business, that's their choice, not mine. I will try to avoid using deadly force, but I'm going to do my best to go home.
Like I said before... I'm going to be a bit more hesitant to pull out my weapon in public than at home just as a matter of principle and the higher level of scrutiny my actions would be subject too. But the law in Texas is pretty clear that if somebody is committing or threatening to commit a felony (like stealing a car, or assaulting somebody) the average citizen is legally allowed to defend themselves and others using deadly force. But I keep pointing out that some kind of immediate behavior that would be a felony is required in public. This rules out shooting somebody due to a verbal altercation or how they look.
Now I'm not sure I'd be shooting somebody stealing my car myself, but I'm pretty sure that would be permissible.
You see, in Texas, since 1995, there is no legal requirement to retreat anymore and I can legally defend myself anyplace I'm legally entitled to be as if I'm at home, including the use of a firearm, without having to retreat.
You remember George Zimmerman? Same kind of law from Florida applies here in Texas. The shooting in that case was in self defense.
Human factors need to be considered here.
The issue here would be the time it takes a human to observe the situation and take corrective action. Given that this was a totally automated system (the car drove itself) the amount of time a human would take is longer than you might think.
First, the human needs to be actually LOOKING at the situation the car was facing and not doing anything else like reading billboards, monitoring the automation or other non-driving activities.
Second, the human will need to recognize that there is a situation developing which is dangerous.
Third, the human, who is expecting the automation to deal with the situation, must realize that the automation is NOT reacting.
Fourth, the human must decide to intervene and what intervention is needed.
Fifth, The human must physically move, and apply the proper control inputs to take over driving the vehicle (and the automation must release control).
Steps two though five take longer than they normally take if you where already driving the vehicle. A LOT longer...
I recall the case of Sully who landed his aircraft in the Hudson river. Simulator tests showed that had they diverted immediately after the bird strikes took their engines out, they could have made a safe landing on a runway. However, this didn't allow for human factors or running the engine out checks and that 20 seconds made it impossible to land on that runway. In hindsight, he could have landed that aircraft on land safely, but in reality, it wasn't humanly possible.
Except for one thing.... The woman stepped out 45 feet in front of a car going 40 MPH without so much as a sideways glance.
It may not go well for Uber in court, but one has to admit that apart from failing to avoid an accident, the vehicle did nothing legally wrong but the woman did. Her estate will have to prove that the failure to avoid the accident was the cause of her death, and that's going to be a hard thing to do given she broke the law.
More data is often not the solution, but the problem.
Correlating different data sources is NOT an easy task and as you add more data sources it becomes an N-squared problem, which takes geometrically more processing to sort out. Processing also takes time. In real time processing systems the required response time is set, so adding a new data source can often lead to response time problems, which software engineers often solve by moving parts of the process up to a less responsive priority level.
In this case, it's obvious that the system didn't react and arguable that a human would have reacted differently. I'm just guessing, but my impression here is that adding more sensors won't help, that the issue wasn't detection, but was/is the classification of the conflict was wrong, or wasn't fast enough to actually react. The reason is there simply wasn't enough processing power for the data being collected to be able to process and respond so the engineers had to compromise on edge cases like this.
We use more than visual clues.
There are all sorts of sight, sound, smell and touch queues involved in driving well. Sight may be of primary importance, but I glean a lot of information about what's going on by the "seat of my pants" and vibrations through my hands and feet and what I hear that adds to the total picture of the situation. This is especially true when driving at the edge of the control envelope, where a tire squeal can indicate you are about to exceed the available traction, or your seat may be telling you've already started to slide.
All may be true, but you simply do NOT step into a dangerous roadway where cars are whizzing by at 40MPH without looking and listening, unless you have some serious mental issues of the self destructive kind. The car would have been visible to her with it's blaring headlights and likely would have been pretty noisy traveling at nearly 40MPH, even if it was totally electric powered. All she needed to do was STOP, look and listen, but she just steps out.
I know I learned the "Stop, look and listen" procedure in Kindergarten. Unless you are going to claim total mental incompetence by this woman (and thus not blame Uber), I don't see how you can justify what she did and hold Uber's self driving system at fault.
Not what I said.
In TEXAS you can defend yourself (and others) using a firearm. In your home, the assumption is that any intruder (A person who is not a resident or a guest) is engaged in a crime and you can legally defend yourself with deadly force. So, if the evidence shows you shot an intruder who was either in or attempting to enter your home, it was legal. You don't have to establish criminal intent or wait for a crime, in your home, you can shoot first and ask questions later.
However, you cannot just randomly shoot somebody in public in Texas and claim self defense, you'd better have some kind of evidence the target was at least intending a crime. So looking scary doesn't qualify. Now if they where breaking into a car, had a weapon in their hand and they approached you or had your wallet in their pocket, you will have little problem with criminal charges and if the police report says "self defense" then the civil suit won't go far.
For instance, a 70 year old man shot and killed a guy who was trying to steal his car in a public parking lot as he put his groceries into the trunk. This was a justified self defense shooting as there was plenty of evidence a crime was being attempted.
Now could you conceivably invent a self defense claim after shooting somebody? Maybe, but now we are talking about fictional stuff worthy of a bad TV crime drama. You are going to need to invent some kind of story and possibly plant evidence and something tells me that most folks who shoot somebody won't have the presence of mind to accomplish all that after the fact. Can't say it's impossible, but I can say it's unlikely to work.
It was garbage at Clinton's time too.
Agreed, so can we let this thing go?
Not on your life will the media let something like this go. Not when there is PROFIT to be made. Who cares about the president, or his wife? Who cares about the country? No, the major media outlets have gone tabloid news on us for money...
And by the way... Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit... Not for the inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky. But the media didn't care all that much then and didn't drag their darling president though the various wallowing hog pits of his past diligences with multiple women, willing and unwilling who where making claims of abuse dating back to Arkansas.
Clinton was obviously no choir boy and apparently his is an open marriage of political convenience, but I personally don't really care about any of it, as far as the media wants to be even handed about things.... Which is to say, I have to care about the hypocrisy here and will point it out when I see it. I don't care what the Clinton's or the Trump's do or don't do or even who they do it with, as long as we are fair about this..
First.... This isn't a constitutional issue at all, not even the first amendment is involved. U-Tube can refuse to host any material they find objectionable. I don't agree that such videos are objectionable, but I'm not going to complain they don't have the right to refuse them
You just said I don't have to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Well... I didn't exactly say that, but I catch your reasoning. I'm not going to take a position on this, but I will point out that most of these kinds of cases are slippery slopes as far as constitutional rights are involved and there ARE limits to one's rights. In the case of speech and arms, these are individual rights subject to the "strict test" in the courts, meaning that laws MUST be the minimum intrusion on the right possible and the government has the burden to prove this.
How this applies to baking cakes, I'll leave up to you.
Shame for your argument that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
The Heller decision was pretty decisive on the individual right to bear arms. Plus, I don't see them reversing this any time soon.
I have to wonder, with this and all the one-sided bans and anti-right policies, if we really are at the start of a civil war.
I hope not.. The last Civil War was a disaster for the USA. But I do see where one side of this whole debate is ready to rip up the constitution and the legal basis of this country by hook or crook. So, maybe it is, but what a mess that would be.
If I were to shoot an unarmed robber in my home, I'd likely end up in jail.
Where I live, shooting an intruder armed or not who entered my home is perfectly legal and is also a defense in a civil trial. In fact, I can legally shoot a robber any place I am legally allowed to be. So if somebody tries to rob my car in a parking lot or mug me on the sidewalk, I can legally shoot them and they (or their estate should I be a good shot) won't successfully sue me in civil court. I'm not saying I WOULD take a shot at somebody on a public street only that I have that right. Most places would allow you to defend your home and shoot any intruder, armed or not.
Where do you live anyway? I'd be moving if I didn't have the right to shoot an unarmed intruder in my house. Self defense is a basic natural right.
I'm not arguing about the common understanding of what "unlimited data" means. I agree, "unlimited" should mean that as much data as your device can consume with no artificial limits placed on the data transfer speed for your device...
What I was pointing out is the original posts description of "unlimited" wasn't exactly a good one.
Gun nuts will start bleating about the Constitution. Guess what, you AREN'T part of a well regulated militia.
First.... This isn't a constitutional issue at all, not even the first amendment is involved. U-Tube can refuse to host any material they find objectionable. I don't agree that such videos are objectionable, but I'm not going to complain they don't have the right to refuse them.
Second... the "Well Regulated Militia" phrase has not been interpreted by the courts as you'd like. The Right to bear arms is an "individual right" as interpreted by the Supreme Court, which means it is a right enjoyed by the individual and doesn't require you to be a member of any group or engage in any specific activity. One gets to bear arms (i.e. own and carry firearms) and this right cannot be infringed by the 2nd amendment.
I can forgive that you don't understand this given the 2008 Heller decision is what clearly established the individual right to bear arms. But do please try to keep up, it's been 9 years now.
For Pete's sake... there will NEVER be unlimited data then.... There are limits here which flow from the laws of physics, even if AT&T is delivering every possible bit they can over the medium being used to transmit data.