The only slight problem with that is that in order to react at all in time, you must be paying the same amount of attention as you would if there was no autonomous drive system at all.
I snipped the quote, but to the post as a whole...
Why? Based on other technologies we have, the autonomous system seems capable of stopping the car when it's confused. It doesn't just keep rolling at the unknown at full speed hoping you take over at the split-second that it leaves it's mapped world and enters the unknown.
Along the same lines, it doesn't seem difficult to take control of the system while it's actively driving. It's not hard to disengage cruise controls or stop a car using Park Assist or Lane Assist from turning into something not seen by the sensor system. Why is it hard for me to grab the wheel from the "hands" of the auto-pilot in the Google car?
Even if it doesn't have some sort of clear analog for home users, and even if it doesn't line up with the rest of copyright laws, a good public library is the cornerstone of a civilized world.
Pass a few laws that make for good libraries. I'll vote with 'ya.
People who were also a member of that organization were members of a separate organization, which did. She did not make the connection, because in her mind the answer was emphatically "no, I certainly have not".
Then she's too fucking stupid to have her NSF job, because she was prison pen-pals with one of the armored truck robbery murdering members of M19CO.
If she can't "make the connection" then she's as dumb as a box of hammers.
Also high on the question list for any sort of sensitive job is your financial position - if you've got the sort of debts that would make you more susceptible to bribery.
My last government interview was as a reference for a friend going to work for CBP. They wanted to know if he used drugs -- and truth stranger than fiction, I believed he never had. They wanted to know if he was in any financial trouble - nope, he's your classic old-Honda-driving-retirement-saver. They wanted to know if he was involved in any seditious groups - to which they were not amused when I asked if spending 20 years on and off in the US Army counted. They essentially asked those same questions about his family -- could his mother or brother be bribed to make him a pawn for a Mexican cartel.
In most cases, they wanted to make sure my answers lined up with his - make sure he was truthful with them.
The answer is immaterial. It's lying on the form...
For example: Police candidates are routinely asked in their interviews if they have ever had any involvement with illegal/illicit drugs or been in close contact with those who have. No sane interviewer expects the candidate to say "no." Although obviously some can say "no," saying "no" is a huge red flag that the candidate may be lying - since few of us haven't at least been exposed to a pot smoking college roommate.
They want to know if you're truthful, not if you've smoked pot.
If you lie there, what else will you lie about?
So, nobody's describing automatic guilt by association -- they're simply saying that conveniently forgetting you were pen-pals with a murderer who was trying to overthrow the government might be a reason to have you qualify your "no" answer. [It's an interview, with ample opportunity to explain and elaborate.]
It's not about answering yes or no. It's about disclosure.
Have you ever been a member of an organization “dedicated to the use of violence” to overthrow the U.S. government
If you're not forthright in your answers, you're screwed.
We can argue about the links between the groups of which she was a member and their ties to actual blood-for-change groups, but she neglected to mention that she was PRISON PEN-PALS with one of the members of M19CO convicted of murder in the Brinks truck robbery.
And, FFS, they didn't even fire her. They just didn't renew her.
In her original interview, she denies involvement:
During that session, Barr answered “no” when asked if she had ever been a member of an organization “dedicated to the use of violence” to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights.
Then, they actually checked what they told the interviewers. Despite being a self-described "worker bee," she had been involved with a groups actively dedicated to the use of violence to overthrow the government.
You can argue that she wasn't involved enough, or that the association was too distant, but she lied (by omission, at minimum), and that's what she got fired for.
I have "Ask for Photo ID" written on the back of all my credit cards. I'd say the cashiers do as they're instructed about 1% of the time. We can't rely on the merchants to enforce the security of the system more than bare compliance requires, they're not on the hook for the losses.
We can't rely on cardholders to follow their cardholder agreement either.
The signature panel isn't for identification, it's for acceptance of terms and conditions.
Unless your signature is "Ask for Photo ID," then you've failed to accept the terms and conditions and any good merchant should tell you to pound sand.
I have a problem with giving a child a toy that has the ability to cause me to miss my mortgage payment if they press a flashing button too many times.
Any kid can burn the house down if he's determined, but there's no reason to hand them matches and take a nap.
T-mobile won't reverse the charges. In many cases, the bulk of international charges was paid to a 3rd party telco -- often the corrupt state telco in some bananna republic.
They will, however, retroactively put you on their best international long distance plan and adjust your bill according to that.
The lesson to learn here is that you probably shouldn't have international calling turned on by default on spare phones.
I've learned my share of expensive lessons with kids and mobile electronics, but it doesn't change the fact that the best prevention against this sort of problem was simply to not hand your child a device on which they could make purchases and then let that child use the device without sufficient oversight.
Blaming Google or Apple for "allowing" in-app purchases is like blaming General Electric for your kids burning themselves on the stove after you bought your kids groceries and then told them to cook while you took a nap.
Kids could always do things that cost you money. I've crashed plenty of bikes, broken plenty of windows, and some of those happened under good responsible parenting. That's the cost of HAVING kids. Kids are, at best, ignorant, and they'll make mistakes....but parents should use those mistakes as chances for them to learn too.
A "supercarrier" isn't, in and of itself, such a big deal; so quibbling over the Varyag's displacement being roughly half that of a 1970's US "supercarrier" would be silly.
A carrier strike group, on the other hand, is worth discussing.
Until someone has NINE! active carrier strike groups roaming the globe, each with four strike fighter squadrons, two squadrons of helicopters, three squadrons of electronics and support aircraft including AEW&C, a pair each of destroyers and guided missile cruisers, maybe a nuclear fast attack submarine or two, plus all the ships to keep supported.......then we can quibble about the Varyag's displacement.
There's still no prohibition against China building a single one of these and sailing the seven seas...
Slashdot Mirror
The only slight problem with that is that in order to react at all in time, you must be paying the same amount of attention as you would if there was no autonomous drive system at all.
I snipped the quote, but to the post as a whole...
Why? Based on other technologies we have, the autonomous system seems capable of stopping the car when it's confused. It doesn't just keep rolling at the unknown at full speed hoping you take over at the split-second that it leaves it's mapped world and enters the unknown.
Along the same lines, it doesn't seem difficult to take control of the system while it's actively driving. It's not hard to disengage cruise controls or stop a car using Park Assist or Lane Assist from turning into something not seen by the sensor system. Why is it hard for me to grab the wheel from the "hands" of the auto-pilot in the Google car?
Even if it doesn't have some sort of clear analog for home users, and even if it doesn't line up with the rest of copyright laws, a good public library is the cornerstone of a civilized world.
Pass a few laws that make for good libraries. I'll vote with 'ya.
The answer to those questions are rarely viewed in a void -- much like asking our fired NSF worker if she participated in seditious groups.
Unless you admit to active participation (illegal drugs or sedition) It's just a springboard used to conduct the interview.
People who were also a member of that organization were members of a separate organization, which did. She did not make the connection, because in her mind the answer was emphatically "no, I certainly have not".
Then she's too fucking stupid to have her NSF job, because she was prison pen-pals with one of the armored truck robbery murdering members of M19CO.
If she can't "make the connection" then she's as dumb as a box of hammers.
Yup.
Also high on the question list for any sort of sensitive job is your financial position - if you've got the sort of debts that would make you more susceptible to bribery.
My last government interview was as a reference for a friend going to work for CBP. They wanted to know if he used drugs -- and truth stranger than fiction, I believed he never had. They wanted to know if he was in any financial trouble - nope, he's your classic old-Honda-driving-retirement-saver. They wanted to know if he was involved in any seditious groups - to which they were not amused when I asked if spending 20 years on and off in the US Army counted. They essentially asked those same questions about his family -- could his mother or brother be bribed to make him a pawn for a Mexican cartel.
In most cases, they wanted to make sure my answers lined up with his - make sure he was truthful with them.
my eyes!
Perhaps if she had disclosed being prison pen-pals with one of the armored truck robbery murders from M19CO we wouldn't be discussing it.
That's probably "had ties," I guess.
The answer is immaterial. It's lying on the form...
For example: Police candidates are routinely asked in their interviews if they have ever had any involvement with illegal/illicit drugs or been in close contact with those who have. No sane interviewer expects the candidate to say "no." Although obviously some can say "no," saying "no" is a huge red flag that the candidate may be lying - since few of us haven't at least been exposed to a pot smoking college roommate.
They want to know if you're truthful, not if you've smoked pot.
If you lie there, what else will you lie about?
So, nobody's describing automatic guilt by association -- they're simply saying that conveniently forgetting you were pen-pals with a murderer who was trying to overthrow the government might be a reason to have you qualify your "no" answer. [It's an interview, with ample opportunity to explain and elaborate.]
It's not about answering yes or no. It's about disclosure.
If you're not forthright in your answers, you're screwed.
We can argue about the links between the groups of which she was a member and their ties to actual blood-for-change groups, but she neglected to mention that she was PRISON PEN-PALS with one of the members of M19CO convicted of murder in the Brinks truck robbery.
And, FFS, they didn't even fire her. They just didn't renew her.
The report is pretty clear.
In her original interview, she denies involvement:
Then, they actually checked what they told the interviewers. Despite being a self-described "worker bee," she had been involved with a groups actively dedicated to the use of violence to overthrow the government.
You can argue that she wasn't involved enough, or that the association was too distant, but she lied (by omission, at minimum), and that's what she got fired for.
No matter how you spin it, the headline in wrong.
Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Finds She Lied On Her Routine Background Check
[Citation Needed]
Yup. Happens to me too.
The signature isn't about identification - it's about agreeing to the cardholder agreement.
I have "Ask for Photo ID" written on the back of all my credit cards. I'd say the cashiers do as they're instructed about 1% of the time. We can't rely on the merchants to enforce the security of the system more than bare compliance requires, they're not on the hook for the losses.
We can't rely on cardholders to follow their cardholder agreement either.
The signature panel isn't for identification, it's for acceptance of terms and conditions.
Unless your signature is "Ask for Photo ID," then you've failed to accept the terms and conditions and any good merchant should tell you to pound sand.
Judge Koh? Is that you?
I know we beat the Ship of Theseus to death around here, but the obvious follow-ups include, "What if I've replaced ALL my parts over time."
Which one contained "me."
It's all part of the secular cyborgist robosexual agenda.
Irony is like bronzy or goldy, right?
I report what appears to be illegal content, yes.
I minimize threads containing the "why the fuck is this legal" content.
I have no problem giving children toys.
I have a problem with giving a child a toy that has the ability to cause me to miss my mortgage payment if they press a flashing button too many times.
Any kid can burn the house down if he's determined, but there's no reason to hand them matches and take a nap.
T-mobile won't reverse the charges. In many cases, the bulk of international charges was paid to a 3rd party telco -- often the corrupt state telco in some bananna republic.
They will, however, retroactively put you on their best international long distance plan and adjust your bill according to that.
The lesson to learn here is that you probably shouldn't have international calling turned on by default on spare phones.
I've got Karma to burn. Fuck 'em.
I've learned my share of expensive lessons with kids and mobile electronics, but it doesn't change the fact that the best prevention against this sort of problem was simply to not hand your child a device on which they could make purchases and then let that child use the device without sufficient oversight.
Blaming Google or Apple for "allowing" in-app purchases is like blaming General Electric for your kids burning themselves on the stove after you bought your kids groceries and then told them to cook while you took a nap.
Kids could always do things that cost you money. I've crashed plenty of bikes, broken plenty of windows, and some of those happened under good responsible parenting. That's the cost of HAVING kids. Kids are, at best, ignorant, and they'll make mistakes. ...but parents should use those mistakes as chances for them to learn too.
Not sure why it's modded flamebait.
It is the very description of the problem. Stop using a credit card attached to an iPad to babysit your kids.
Oh, big brother, please protect me from myself.
I handed my child a $700 computer that I had already entered my credit card information into, and somehow they went shopping for golden cookies.
PROTECT ME!
A "supercarrier" isn't, in and of itself, such a big deal; so quibbling over the Varyag's displacement being roughly half that of a 1970's US "supercarrier" would be silly.
A carrier strike group, on the other hand, is worth discussing.
Until someone has NINE! active carrier strike groups roaming the globe, each with four strike fighter squadrons, two squadrons of helicopters, three squadrons of electronics and support aircraft including AEW&C, a pair each of destroyers and guided missile cruisers, maybe a nuclear fast attack submarine or two, plus all the ships to keep supported.... ...then we can quibble about the Varyag's displacement.
There's still no prohibition against China building a single one of these and sailing the seven seas...