There are certain things that vendors are supposed to do to protect against fraud, hence they're liable for it in most cases.
This can range from looking at the last four digits of the card to make sure they match what was swiped (prevent somebody from changing the magnetic stripe on a real card to have the numbers of a stolen one instead) to checking ID.
Also in card not present transactions, the 3 digit number on the back of the card should be asked for, because it's not encoded on the magnetic stripe nor on the RFID tag, which means that card skimming (or drive by RFID scanning) should be useless for fraudulent online transactions.
So assuming the vendor does their due diligence, the only way fraud should occur is with a fake ID or if they're an online vendor and somebody else had their PCI database hacked. The latter can be avoided with some common sense (I.e Dell receives a big purchase to a Ukraine address with a US credit card.)
I really doubt that's it. The next version of Windows 10 includes a provision to kill off the ability to disable certain "features" (or more specifically, annoyances) and it would make sense if they want to enforce that, and things like telemetry, by banning CA signed drivers.
I wouldn't even fret over it at all, and indeed those little sleeves are a total waste of money.
Current credit card laws limit your liability for fraudulent transactions to $50. But that's not all: Every bank that isn't shitty takes that a step further by making you liable for nothing at all. Really, I haven't even seen a credit card offer that has a non-zero liability clause. I'm sure they exist, but you'd have to have downright awful credit to have one of them as your only option.
That said, a much bigger risk (indeed by far the biggest risk) of getting your credit card information stolen is when you use it to buy something on the internet and the merchant's PCI database is compromised. This has happened numerous times to me, by the way, and you know what it has cost me in my entire lifetime? Not a single red cent.
Typically it goes like this: My bank calls me and notifies me that somebody all the way on the other side of the country in a state that I've never been to tried to buy something expensive on my card within minutes of me buying chips from a vending machine. Obviously something wrong there, so they call me and list the most recent 5 or so transactions and ask me if I made any of them. If the answer is yes, then there's no problem. If the answer is no, they deactivate my card and send me a new one, and have me fill out a form telling them which transactions showed up on my bill that are ones I didn't make. I just tell them which ones aren't mine, and they simply remove them from my statement.
That's it, no problems. The only inconvenience is that I'm out of a credit card for a few days, but that's ok because in addition to my mastercard that I use practically everywhere, I also have an Amex card that I occasionally use for its occasional incentives, and I can continue using it until my new mastercard arrives in the mail.
No need to waste money on a sleeve, and no need to have to pull it in and out of the sleeve when I need to use it.
Great! Now please remove Pocket and Australis as well, bring tabs back to their ergonomic place not on top, stop hiding "http://" from URLs as if it were a "default" protocol
How is tabs not being on top somehow ergonomic? The titlebar is a waste of space; I'm glad they got rid of it.
Irrelevant to whether something is a programming language or not.
Nevermind that you in theory could do all of that with javascript. It would be inefficient as hell of course, but efficiency doesn't make or break a programming language, otherwise assembly would be the only game in town.
As much as I really hate Sprint and think they're easily the worst carrier by a cubic lightyear, that's more likely to be a Samsung problem. Samsung is downright shameful when it comes to updates, and furthermore they're the single biggest reason why iPhone lovers and other pundits think Android is buggy and laggy. I owned a Galaxy Note 4, and after that I'll never buy another Samsung phone again.
By coincident the year is nearly exactly 360 days Which means the rise of a star is every day nearly exactly one degree off.
No, that's not why. The Babylonian number system was base 60 as opposed to our base 10 system. The fact that there are 365 days in a year is coincidental. The number 360 would be represented as the number 60 if done in their base unit and converted to our numeric symbols. This means that you can divide by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60 without the need for representing as fractions, decimals, etc, which is very convenient. Just how convenient? Well, take for example the fact that we have pi up to several million digits at this point and we still can't accurately model a circle of infinite size no matter how many digits we solve pi to...in other words, it's an irrational number if your numeral system is base 10.
However in Babylonian math, pi is simply the number 3. That's it. No 3.14159blahblahblah. Just fucking 3. Much easier to calculate equations involving circles, isn't it? That's the whole point.
Well think about this: If you see two people in a room who basically look the same, only one has a giant ass, which one will you remember more? This is precisely why Hillary won the nomination.
I'm curious how much it will change given it seems like such a ripe terrorism target. I mean think about it, it's a really big evacuated tube that houses an object that moves very fast. I can't help but wonder what kind of hell a well timed explosion could cause.
Metric isn't universal for every field either. Aviation (and other forms of navigation) is typically based on nautical miles. The reason why is because they correspond perfectly to minutes of latitude, and because it's considerably easier when doing time/distance equations (and the 60 base scale we use for time happens to easily calculate into navigational figures as well, which is probably why the Babylonians used it for astronomy.)
except for the thousands of dollars in medical expenses and lost wages when you develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
You aren't likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome unless you're already predisposed to the condition, which is usually predicted by having a more square wrist than a more rectangular one, in addition to other anatomical features in your hand, such as its relative height and width.
And if you are predisposed to it, then lots of actions (ranging from writing to beating the captain) can cause it when repeated often.
If you aren't predisposed to it however, then you aren't likely to ever get it no matter how much you write, type, or polish the pewter.
The same argument is often made about lawyers, programmers, and a number of other jobs that pay a lot. The thing is though, people ultimately get paid what somebody else thinks they're worth, usually in order to retain them as employees to prevent them from going elsewhere. As somebody who is getting paid a bit more than other people my same career field with the same amount of experience, I have to say that I wouldn't like to have other people gawking at my paycheck either. (And to be honest, getting in my current job wasn't easy; the screening process was one of those panel interviews where I got grilled on my technical knowledge by 5 people, and I had to do it twice.)
That said, in the case of these particular CEOs, it wouldn't be surprising to me if the companies were already sinking and they're hoping that some AAA talent can turn them around. Sometimes said talent does exactly that. Case in point, look at John Legere; the guy makes about $23 million a year, making him the 45th highest paying CEO. Considering that T-Mobile was on its 11th consecutive quarter of subscriber losses before he arrived, and is now by far the fastest growing carrier and the only carrier to see positive postpaid customer growth for 9 consecutive quarters, I think the guy has earned every penny of that. (Especially the way he became both CEO and spokesperson, a somewhat rare thing, you can't argue with his results.) In spite of that, T-Mobile would still land on the list of one of those lower performing companies. Why? Because it's going to take some time for those subscriber gains to pay off. Nonetheless, he has put the company into a really good position for long-term earnings.
A lot of people misinterpret what that was for. It wasn't "fearmongering" in any sense. Such a system was already in place for decades, only in a different form. I was in the Army at the time of 9/11, and that day we went to threatcon delta. All it was for was to signal all government personnel to assume a different security posture, as per protocol.
The public version just came off to me as being the same thing, only if any civilian entities (i.e power plants, etc) wanted to safeguard themselves based on recent events, they could reliably follow that.
It occurs to me that this is a similar system, only for cybersecurity. If people get all panicky over it, that's their problem, and it's not intended to make people afraid of anything.
Relish? That's putting it nicely. I was about to say they get off on high priced shit because they feel special when they show their friends how much money they can blow out their ass.
I don't think it makes a difference. It's well known that in IT security, the authentication factors are who you are, what you have, and what you know. The Constitution only protects the what you know factor. The who you are factor, which is almost entirely biometric, has almost zero protection. Why? Because all three branches of the government can compel you to identify who you are, and there is nothing in either the Constitution or any written laws saying otherwise.
Some of the natives have really lifted themselves up, even with the communal ownership thing. Take the Osoyoos band. To quote from their web site, http://oibdc.ca/
Both of your examples rely on a mix of capitalism and outside investment to improve their lifestyle. You aren't making a good case here at all. Also, read this:
Russia and the Soviet Union. It's hard to claim that a country that went from wealth being considered how many serfs you owned to a space fairing nation in 50 years, while winning WWII through the sacrifice of millions of lives, and suffering under Stalin, didn't increase their GDP.
Because they didn't. All of that mainly came about as a result of the old fashioned way of doing things prior to the industrial revolution: Conquest. I've spoken to people who lived in Warsaw pact nations before the fall of the Iron Curtain who have said that the Russians were essentially dirt poor and got most of what they had by plundering it from their satellite states, primarily relying upon them for sustenance. This includes rocket technology used in the space race, by the way. (The US did a similar thing with Werner Von Braun et al, but not until after they saw the long-term strategic need for it.) This is why Russia also maintained a strong expansionist policy well after the age of imperialism as a means of economic growth had ended. (And capitalism is the reason that age ended; notice the non-capitalist states were still relying upon it.)
And by the way, not one person I spoke to who lived in that has ever said that they liked it. One of them (my current coworker) tells me that the only reason it took so long for communism to end was because the leadership loves having power and doesn't want to let it go. A couple I met from Romania said the same thing, and they described how it ended in violence because the dictator essentially had people loyal to him (nobody even knew who they were other than just some random guys with guns) just randomly fire upon people in the street who had even the slightest appearance of favoring an end to communism.
Sadly socialist revolutions, while easy to sell to a poor population, usually end up with corrupt leadership that fuck it right up.
Because communism just flat out doesn't work without central leadership. It just doesn't. Look at the Icarians as a case study. They had no legal requirement to follow their leaders who were democratically elected, but even then the GDP slowly tanked until the leadership had no choice but to take a harder line stance to make the workers productive, and eventually people just got sick of it and left, so the whole thing fell apart. The Icarians, by the way, had an entire town already built just handed to them (Nauvoo, Illinois, which was built by Mormons who were essentially forced to leave because the state government hated their religious views.) Even Karl Marx knew (and stated such) that dictatorship is required for a conversion.
Regardless, the model here relies on communal ownership of property. It's fine to do a mathematical proof and say that "X system is better", but something that never changes is that communal ownership of property ends up in disrepair, assuming it even gets built to begin with.
If you want examples of this, look at how former capitalist regions ended up after the takeover of the Iron Curtain. Urban decay doesn't even begin to describe it. And then look what happened to it after the fall of the Iron Curtain -- night and day difference. Another example that persists to this day is Indian reservation in the US. Nobody can actually own any property there, not even the natives. This is why it's so common to see trailers and no land improvement whatsoever. Think about it: Why would you invest time, money, and other resources to improve the property you live on if somebody can just move you out of it at the drop of a hat?
Likewise, they talk as if communism would increase the GDP, but we've only ever seen the opposite happen. As soon as you have a communist revolution (which always ends up being violent, by the way, contrast to conversions away from communism more often being peaceful than not, which alone should tell you a lot about it) you start with a GDP no worse or better than capitalism, but soon people stop giving a shit about putting work and effort into something that, at the end of the day, gives them nothing to show for it, and your GDP turns to shit. It has happened with every commune that ever existed, from the Icarians (read about them if you haven't, and how the commune ended is very telling) to the Russians. In the end, the only people who benefit and have something to show for it are the political leadership.
In fact that reminds me of this one episode of Ren and Stimpy:
In communism, the people are expected to be like how Stimpy ended up, striving for nothing more than the happiness of their fellow man at their own expense. And you know what? Fuck that. I don't care what the mathematical proof says, I'm not doing that shit.
I don't think that's the driver's fault. The pedestrian essentially darted out into traffic, not giving enough time for a human driver to react. However the autopilot, which presumably has a quicker response time, was able to react without driver intervention.
Now, had the pedestrian gone through a crosswalk and had there been roadsigns to notify the driver as such, but the driver was relying on autopilot and the pedestrian got hit? Driver's fault.
And yes, you can have it both ways here. Why? Because it is made pretty clear that autopilot is more of a convenience and in the right circumstances it can correct driver error (including errors made by other drivers and pedestrians,) but at the same time it is not intended to be a replacement for an actual driver, nor is it ever advertised as such. This means that ultimately you, the driver, are responsible for correcting the autopilot, but the autopilot is not responsible for correcting you.
"Christians" is not some homogeneous and monolithic entity
No shit. I never claimed otherwise.
And being prejudiced against something in and of itself is not bad, providing the prejudice is based on some sort of sound reasoning. For instance, I'm completely prejudiced against racists, but that hardly makes me a bigot.
I think you just did a really good job of demonstrating your own poor judgement. You've never lived their life, so you don't know why they might have a particular point of view. For example, think of a woman who has been repeatedly raped and now hates men; you aren't going to change this woman's mind by prejudging her.
As for myself, I'll have a beer with a black guy, a redneck, a kkk member, a black panther party member...so long as they're not being hostile to me, it doesn't matter. The left, and especially people like you, have completely failed to learn from Martin Luther King Jr, which is your problem, not mine.
Slashdot Mirror
There are certain things that vendors are supposed to do to protect against fraud, hence they're liable for it in most cases.
This can range from looking at the last four digits of the card to make sure they match what was swiped (prevent somebody from changing the magnetic stripe on a real card to have the numbers of a stolen one instead) to checking ID.
Also in card not present transactions, the 3 digit number on the back of the card should be asked for, because it's not encoded on the magnetic stripe nor on the RFID tag, which means that card skimming (or drive by RFID scanning) should be useless for fraudulent online transactions.
So assuming the vendor does their due diligence, the only way fraud should occur is with a fake ID or if they're an online vendor and somebody else had their PCI database hacked. The latter can be avoided with some common sense (I.e Dell receives a big purchase to a Ukraine address with a US credit card.)
I really doubt that's it. The next version of Windows 10 includes a provision to kill off the ability to disable certain "features" (or more specifically, annoyances) and it would make sense if they want to enforce that, and things like telemetry, by banning CA signed drivers.
I wouldn't even fret over it at all, and indeed those little sleeves are a total waste of money.
Current credit card laws limit your liability for fraudulent transactions to $50. But that's not all: Every bank that isn't shitty takes that a step further by making you liable for nothing at all. Really, I haven't even seen a credit card offer that has a non-zero liability clause. I'm sure they exist, but you'd have to have downright awful credit to have one of them as your only option.
That said, a much bigger risk (indeed by far the biggest risk) of getting your credit card information stolen is when you use it to buy something on the internet and the merchant's PCI database is compromised. This has happened numerous times to me, by the way, and you know what it has cost me in my entire lifetime? Not a single red cent.
Typically it goes like this: My bank calls me and notifies me that somebody all the way on the other side of the country in a state that I've never been to tried to buy something expensive on my card within minutes of me buying chips from a vending machine. Obviously something wrong there, so they call me and list the most recent 5 or so transactions and ask me if I made any of them. If the answer is yes, then there's no problem. If the answer is no, they deactivate my card and send me a new one, and have me fill out a form telling them which transactions showed up on my bill that are ones I didn't make. I just tell them which ones aren't mine, and they simply remove them from my statement.
That's it, no problems. The only inconvenience is that I'm out of a credit card for a few days, but that's ok because in addition to my mastercard that I use practically everywhere, I also have an Amex card that I occasionally use for its occasional incentives, and I can continue using it until my new mastercard arrives in the mail.
No need to waste money on a sleeve, and no need to have to pull it in and out of the sleeve when I need to use it.
Great! Now please remove Pocket and Australis as well, bring tabs back to their ergonomic place not on top, stop hiding "http://" from URLs as if it were a "default" protocol
How is tabs not being on top somehow ergonomic? The titlebar is a waste of space; I'm glad they got rid of it.
Irrelevant to whether something is a programming language or not.
Nevermind that you in theory could do all of that with javascript. It would be inefficient as hell of course, but efficiency doesn't make or break a programming language, otherwise assembly would be the only game in town.
As for iPhones, people talk about Apple has never has had a security hole in the wild that has affected anything but jailbroken devices.
Apple has had plenty of security breaches in iOS, including one really big one that they still aren't even sure if they've cleaned up yet.
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c...
As much as I really hate Sprint and think they're easily the worst carrier by a cubic lightyear, that's more likely to be a Samsung problem. Samsung is downright shameful when it comes to updates, and furthermore they're the single biggest reason why iPhone lovers and other pundits think Android is buggy and laggy. I owned a Galaxy Note 4, and after that I'll never buy another Samsung phone again.
49% rapist? That's difficult to believe. I never saw anything that suggests he's in any way a rapist.
So he's just staying in the Ecuadorian embassy because he likes it there.
By coincident the year is nearly exactly 360 days
Which means the rise of a star is every day nearly exactly one degree off.
No, that's not why. The Babylonian number system was base 60 as opposed to our base 10 system. The fact that there are 365 days in a year is coincidental. The number 360 would be represented as the number 60 if done in their base unit and converted to our numeric symbols. This means that you can divide by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60 without the need for representing as fractions, decimals, etc, which is very convenient. Just how convenient? Well, take for example the fact that we have pi up to several million digits at this point and we still can't accurately model a circle of infinite size no matter how many digits we solve pi to...in other words, it's an irrational number if your numeral system is base 10.
However in Babylonian math, pi is simply the number 3. That's it. No 3.14159blahblahblah. Just fucking 3. Much easier to calculate equations involving circles, isn't it? That's the whole point.
Snowden is relevant, but Assange always has been 49% attention seeker, 49% rapist, 2% honest, and 0% relevant.
Well think about this: If you see two people in a room who basically look the same, only one has a giant ass, which one will you remember more? This is precisely why Hillary won the nomination.
I'm curious how much it will change given it seems like such a ripe terrorism target. I mean think about it, it's a really big evacuated tube that houses an object that moves very fast. I can't help but wonder what kind of hell a well timed explosion could cause.
Metric isn't universal for every field either. Aviation (and other forms of navigation) is typically based on nautical miles. The reason why is because they correspond perfectly to minutes of latitude, and because it's considerably easier when doing time/distance equations (and the 60 base scale we use for time happens to easily calculate into navigational figures as well, which is probably why the Babylonians used it for astronomy.)
My response would have just been a middle finger followed by "Next subject."
Really, it no longer deserves any consideration at this point.
As admin, run this command in one line:
reg add "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Windows Search" /t REG_DWORD /v "AllowCortana" /d 0 /f
There, no more cortana.
That, and on Android it's quite possible to ditch the 30% commission entirely.
except for the thousands of dollars in medical expenses and lost wages when you develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
You aren't likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome unless you're already predisposed to the condition, which is usually predicted by having a more square wrist than a more rectangular one, in addition to other anatomical features in your hand, such as its relative height and width.
And if you are predisposed to it, then lots of actions (ranging from writing to beating the captain) can cause it when repeated often.
If you aren't predisposed to it however, then you aren't likely to ever get it no matter how much you write, type, or polish the pewter.
CEO compensation needs to be cut drastically
The same argument is often made about lawyers, programmers, and a number of other jobs that pay a lot. The thing is though, people ultimately get paid what somebody else thinks they're worth, usually in order to retain them as employees to prevent them from going elsewhere. As somebody who is getting paid a bit more than other people my same career field with the same amount of experience, I have to say that I wouldn't like to have other people gawking at my paycheck either. (And to be honest, getting in my current job wasn't easy; the screening process was one of those panel interviews where I got grilled on my technical knowledge by 5 people, and I had to do it twice.)
That said, in the case of these particular CEOs, it wouldn't be surprising to me if the companies were already sinking and they're hoping that some AAA talent can turn them around. Sometimes said talent does exactly that. Case in point, look at John Legere; the guy makes about $23 million a year, making him the 45th highest paying CEO. Considering that T-Mobile was on its 11th consecutive quarter of subscriber losses before he arrived, and is now by far the fastest growing carrier and the only carrier to see positive postpaid customer growth for 9 consecutive quarters, I think the guy has earned every penny of that. (Especially the way he became both CEO and spokesperson, a somewhat rare thing, you can't argue with his results.) In spite of that, T-Mobile would still land on the list of one of those lower performing companies. Why? Because it's going to take some time for those subscriber gains to pay off. Nonetheless, he has put the company into a really good position for long-term earnings.
A lot of people misinterpret what that was for. It wasn't "fearmongering" in any sense. Such a system was already in place for decades, only in a different form. I was in the Army at the time of 9/11, and that day we went to threatcon delta. All it was for was to signal all government personnel to assume a different security posture, as per protocol.
The public version just came off to me as being the same thing, only if any civilian entities (i.e power plants, etc) wanted to safeguard themselves based on recent events, they could reliably follow that.
It occurs to me that this is a similar system, only for cybersecurity. If people get all panicky over it, that's their problem, and it's not intended to make people afraid of anything.
Relish? That's putting it nicely. I was about to say they get off on high priced shit because they feel special when they show their friends how much money they can blow out their ass.
I don't think it makes a difference. It's well known that in IT security, the authentication factors are who you are, what you have, and what you know. The Constitution only protects the what you know factor. The who you are factor, which is almost entirely biometric, has almost zero protection. Why? Because all three branches of the government can compel you to identify who you are, and there is nothing in either the Constitution or any written laws saying otherwise.
Some of the natives have really lifted themselves up, even with the communal ownership thing. Take the Osoyoos band. To quote from their web site, http://oibdc.ca/
Both of your examples rely on a mix of capitalism and outside investment to improve their lifestyle. You aren't making a good case here at all. Also, read this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo...
Russia and the Soviet Union. It's hard to claim that a country that went from wealth being considered how many serfs you owned to a space fairing nation in 50 years, while winning WWII through the sacrifice of millions of lives, and suffering under Stalin, didn't increase their GDP.
Because they didn't. All of that mainly came about as a result of the old fashioned way of doing things prior to the industrial revolution: Conquest. I've spoken to people who lived in Warsaw pact nations before the fall of the Iron Curtain who have said that the Russians were essentially dirt poor and got most of what they had by plundering it from their satellite states, primarily relying upon them for sustenance. This includes rocket technology used in the space race, by the way. (The US did a similar thing with Werner Von Braun et al, but not until after they saw the long-term strategic need for it.) This is why Russia also maintained a strong expansionist policy well after the age of imperialism as a means of economic growth had ended. (And capitalism is the reason that age ended; notice the non-capitalist states were still relying upon it.)
And by the way, not one person I spoke to who lived in that has ever said that they liked it. One of them (my current coworker) tells me that the only reason it took so long for communism to end was because the leadership loves having power and doesn't want to let it go. A couple I met from Romania said the same thing, and they described how it ended in violence because the dictator essentially had people loyal to him (nobody even knew who they were other than just some random guys with guns) just randomly fire upon people in the street who had even the slightest appearance of favoring an end to communism.
Sadly socialist revolutions, while easy to sell to a poor population, usually end up with corrupt leadership that fuck it right up.
Because communism just flat out doesn't work without central leadership. It just doesn't. Look at the Icarians as a case study. They had no legal requirement to follow their leaders who were democratically elected, but even then the GDP slowly tanked until the leadership had no choice but to take a harder line stance to make the workers productive, and eventually people just got sick of it and left, so the whole thing fell apart. The Icarians, by the way, had an entire town already built just handed to them (Nauvoo, Illinois, which was built by Mormons who were essentially forced to leave because the state government hated their religious views.) Even Karl Marx knew (and stated such) that dictatorship is required for a conversion.
Regardless, the model here relies on communal ownership of property. It's fine to do a mathematical proof and say that "X system is better", but something that never changes is that communal ownership of property ends up in disrepair, assuming it even gets built to begin with.
If you want examples of this, look at how former capitalist regions ended up after the takeover of the Iron Curtain. Urban decay doesn't even begin to describe it. And then look what happened to it after the fall of the Iron Curtain -- night and day difference. Another example that persists to this day is Indian reservation in the US. Nobody can actually own any property there, not even the natives. This is why it's so common to see trailers and no land improvement whatsoever. Think about it: Why would you invest time, money, and other resources to improve the property you live on if somebody can just move you out of it at the drop of a hat?
Likewise, they talk as if communism would increase the GDP, but we've only ever seen the opposite happen. As soon as you have a communist revolution (which always ends up being violent, by the way, contrast to conversions away from communism more often being peaceful than not, which alone should tell you a lot about it) you start with a GDP no worse or better than capitalism, but soon people stop giving a shit about putting work and effort into something that, at the end of the day, gives them nothing to show for it, and your GDP turns to shit. It has happened with every commune that ever existed, from the Icarians (read about them if you haven't, and how the commune ended is very telling) to the Russians. In the end, the only people who benefit and have something to show for it are the political leadership.
In fact that reminds me of this one episode of Ren and Stimpy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In communism, the people are expected to be like how Stimpy ended up, striving for nothing more than the happiness of their fellow man at their own expense. And you know what? Fuck that. I don't care what the mathematical proof says, I'm not doing that shit.
I don't think that's the driver's fault. The pedestrian essentially darted out into traffic, not giving enough time for a human driver to react. However the autopilot, which presumably has a quicker response time, was able to react without driver intervention.
Now, had the pedestrian gone through a crosswalk and had there been roadsigns to notify the driver as such, but the driver was relying on autopilot and the pedestrian got hit? Driver's fault.
And yes, you can have it both ways here. Why? Because it is made pretty clear that autopilot is more of a convenience and in the right circumstances it can correct driver error (including errors made by other drivers and pedestrians,) but at the same time it is not intended to be a replacement for an actual driver, nor is it ever advertised as such. This means that ultimately you, the driver, are responsible for correcting the autopilot, but the autopilot is not responsible for correcting you.
"Christians" is not some homogeneous and monolithic entity
No shit. I never claimed otherwise.
And being prejudiced against something in and of itself is not bad, providing the prejudice is based on some sort of sound reasoning. For instance, I'm completely prejudiced against racists, but that hardly makes me a bigot.
I think you just did a really good job of demonstrating your own poor judgement. You've never lived their life, so you don't know why they might have a particular point of view. For example, think of a woman who has been repeatedly raped and now hates men; you aren't going to change this woman's mind by prejudging her.
As for myself, I'll have a beer with a black guy, a redneck, a kkk member, a black panther party member...so long as they're not being hostile to me, it doesn't matter. The left, and especially people like you, have completely failed to learn from Martin Luther King Jr, which is your problem, not mine.