However, letting people know when the "coast is clear" and they can speed or (worse in my opinion) use a mobile phone will only increase roadside accidents and fatalities
If they were going to speed or text while driving, they are going to regardless if they have a radio detector or not. Same goes for speeding with radar detectors.
Making it clear when people can speed/use mobile phones without being caught will increase the number of people who do so - for example those whom are currently put off from doing so by current laws and the threat of being caught. New drivers in particular are likely to fall into this category given they have little experience of how little road coverage the police have.
Out on the motorway it gave ample warning of a police car approaching on the opposite carriageway. The LEDs slowly went from green to yellow to red. In theory this gave plenty of time to check the speedometer or stash any mobile phones that shouldn’t be in use."
I can't see this being allowed either, and I think your point about public oversight on those in place to protect them is a contributor. However, letting people know when the "coast is clear" and they can speed or (worse in my opinion) use a mobile phone will only increase roadside accidents and fatalities.
More worringly, given the units are so expensive, these units are likely to be used excusively by the wealthy minority and as such the police/government may not go to the trouble of banning them.
"...loaded with some 5,000 pounds of supplies and experiments..."
It feels like an organisation such as NASA, which is hopefully respected for its scientific contributions across the world, could set an example by moving towards the metric system in its press releases. This would emphasise the importance the metric system (and the complete intolerance of imperial measurements) in science and allow the move to the metric system to be driven by the scientists (i.e. those in society that lay people respect as being intelligent).
If the battle between metric vs imperial is just fought over what people prefer in the present, then nothing will change and a backward and overly complixated system for measuring everything will remain.
I'm not sure I understand why people don't take the matter to court (and involve the press) to expose the unconstitutional actions of the government. How could a court decide in favour of the government when the person hasn't committed a material crime?
These people are not hard to identify - simply find those with good Maths grades / qualifications.
I am involved in recruitment for my firm and I lack any sympathy for firms who complain about how hard it is to find staff who can think critically and logically when they place so little emphasis on STEM qualifications.
Agreed, but using your example I suspect that retailers will only charge some black people 10% more, along with some white people, based on their purchase history. This wouldn't be illegal.
However as this area of marketing and price discrimination becomes more sophisticated and retailers have more data, I can see a future where, due to a few factors, a protected group would end up with universally higher prices from a store from a statistically significant sample. It is just a matter of time before someone does this experiment and retailers start squirming.
Sadly advertising and pricing are not required to be universal - as a retailer you aren't telling the person a lie about the price, you're just not telling them that you are likely to sell the item for more/less to the next customer.
Whether this is a moral practice of course is an entirely different question.
This has been going on for a very long time, but those who have used Skyscanner (and found prices rise the more searches they run from their IP address) will know that deleting cookies alone isn't anywhere near enough.
I have tested this myself years ago and had different prices for the same long haul flight on my PC using home router vs. mobile phone using cellular data. Rather than booking the flight over cellular data I waited a few days and the price on my PC returned to normal.
Does anyone have any other ways (elaborate or otherwise) around this problem? Why is it fair that the IT illiterate have to pay a premium for goods?
At the moment, these cases are going to the lower courts in the UK where the case can only be considered if the offence happened within the last six months. Even if reported immediately, cases often cannot proceed because evidence identifying the culprit isnt available within the six month window. Moving to Crown Courts will do away with this restriction, so in theory this proposal makes sense.
Surely the CTO needed the permission of his organisation (and therefore the US government) to have a second job (i.e. employment contracts usually require this). Who granted this permission and why aren't they being made to explain this clear conflict of interest in public to a committee of democratically-elected officials?
Oh right, it's the NSA...
The people that would benefit are people like our (well my parents) who wouldn't dream of installing something that doesn't come with Windows unless I suggested it. Additional software that allows them to do things that weren't commonplace 10 years ago (e.g.video chat) may well need better specs on a 32 bit Windows machine, but wouldn't be bundled.
Software for many lay people also needs to look attractive for its time - this adds bloat to the software but is what 90% of MS Windows customers want. Doing that with the same specs mean either developing a horrible interface (Metro anyone?) or cutting back somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
If they were going to speed or text while driving, they are going to regardless if they have a radio detector or not. Same goes for speeding with radar detectors.
Making it clear when people can speed/use mobile phones without being caught will increase the number of people who do so - for example those whom are currently put off from doing so by current laws and the threat of being caught. New drivers in particular are likely to fall into this category given they have little experience of how little road coverage the police have.
Out on the motorway it gave ample warning of a police car approaching on the opposite carriageway. The LEDs slowly went from green to yellow to red. In theory this gave plenty of time to check the speedometer or stash any mobile phones that shouldn’t be in use."
I can't see this being allowed either, and I think your point about public oversight on those in place to protect them is a contributor. However, letting people know when the "coast is clear" and they can speed or (worse in my opinion) use a mobile phone will only increase roadside accidents and fatalities.
More worringly, given the units are so expensive, these units are likely to be used excusively by the wealthy minority and as such the police/government may not go to the trouble of banning them.
"...loaded with some 5,000 pounds of supplies and experiments..."
It feels like an organisation such as NASA, which is hopefully respected for its scientific contributions across the world, could set an example by moving towards the metric system in its press releases. This would emphasise the importance the metric system (and the complete intolerance of imperial measurements) in science and allow the move to the metric system to be driven by the scientists (i.e. those in society that lay people respect as being intelligent).
If the battle between metric vs imperial is just fought over what people prefer in the present, then nothing will change and a backward and overly complixated system for measuring everything will remain.
I'm not sure I understand why people don't take the matter to court (and involve the press) to expose the unconstitutional actions of the government. How could a court decide in favour of the government when the person hasn't committed a material crime?
These people are not hard to identify - simply find those with good Maths grades / qualifications. I am involved in recruitment for my firm and I lack any sympathy for firms who complain about how hard it is to find staff who can think critically and logically when they place so little emphasis on STEM qualifications.
Agreed, but using your example I suspect that retailers will only charge some black people 10% more, along with some white people, based on their purchase history. This wouldn't be illegal. However as this area of marketing and price discrimination becomes more sophisticated and retailers have more data, I can see a future where, due to a few factors, a protected group would end up with universally higher prices from a store from a statistically significant sample. It is just a matter of time before someone does this experiment and retailers start squirming.
Sadly advertising and pricing are not required to be universal - as a retailer you aren't telling the person a lie about the price, you're just not telling them that you are likely to sell the item for more/less to the next customer. Whether this is a moral practice of course is an entirely different question.
This has been going on for a very long time, but those who have used Skyscanner (and found prices rise the more searches they run from their IP address) will know that deleting cookies alone isn't anywhere near enough. I have tested this myself years ago and had different prices for the same long haul flight on my PC using home router vs. mobile phone using cellular data. Rather than booking the flight over cellular data I waited a few days and the price on my PC returned to normal. Does anyone have any other ways (elaborate or otherwise) around this problem? Why is it fair that the IT illiterate have to pay a premium for goods?
At the moment, these cases are going to the lower courts in the UK where the case can only be considered if the offence happened within the last six months. Even if reported immediately, cases often cannot proceed because evidence identifying the culprit isnt available within the six month window. Moving to Crown Courts will do away with this restriction, so in theory this proposal makes sense.
Surely the CTO needed the permission of his organisation (and therefore the US government) to have a second job (i.e. employment contracts usually require this). Who granted this permission and why aren't they being made to explain this clear conflict of interest in public to a committee of democratically-elected officials? Oh right, it's the NSA...
Interesting. Has anyone reported this to the FCC / your country's equivalent?
The people that would benefit are people like our (well my parents) who wouldn't dream of installing something that doesn't come with Windows unless I suggested it. Additional software that allows them to do things that weren't commonplace 10 years ago (e.g.video chat) may well need better specs on a 32 bit Windows machine, but wouldn't be bundled. Software for many lay people also needs to look attractive for its time - this adds bloat to the software but is what 90% of MS Windows customers want. Doing that with the same specs mean either developing a horrible interface (Metro anyone?) or cutting back somewhere else.