Nothing of value? You buy those things with about $15 real world cash, each. That's what is so odd, here. If someone made that time of a real-world financial investment, I can't believe they transported them without some ridiculously heavy guard. Or in bulk, if they couldn't afford or find the protection.
The real shame of it is that this is $1,200 worth of PLEX that just vanishes. It's not like some pirates stole them from him. They just blew up the ship and they vanished into the ether, allowing CCP to eat up the cash. Nice.
Sick, but very common. You hear reports of false rape accusations all the time. There was the Duke Lacrosse case. There were the two women recently who claimed a guy raped them, when they were really just upset that the sex they had with him wasn't very good. There are cases where people are not only dragged through reputation-assassination in the public, but spend days, months, or years in prison for it. And of course, the best part of any sort of false accusation like this is that you can't question the supposed victims, because you'll be blamed for "blaming the victim". In fact, because of "rape-shield" laws, the public is almost always given the identity of the accused, but the accuser is protected from being identified. In a lot of cases, they remain protected and unidentified even after they have been found guilty of making up the rape accusation!
Here's a representative news article from a few months ago, where a 27 year old woman accused a man of rape and he SPENT FOUR YEARS IN PRISON for it before they discovered that he was innocent. In return, they sentenced her for "up to" three years. That's right, she'll spend fewer years imprisoned for an actual crime than the real victim spend for doing absolutely nothing.
Why did she accuse him of rape? Because she was hanging out with her girlfriends one night when she decided to head off with the guy in his car. When she came back to her friends, they were angry at her for ditching them. So she made up the rape story.
This is just a variation on retribution through false rape claims. There have been a number of very public incidents of that recently. Substitute women with children and you've eradicated even the smallest chance there might have otherwise been that anyone would ever have questioned the accusation's veracity and destroyed someone's life.
Also, for what it's worth, I heard a discussion with John Dvorak recently about this where he states that the current interpretation of most US law makes everything "child porn" even if there is nothing sexual about it. For example, the recent uproar over juveniles having to go through background x-ray machines at the airport, because a photograph of a seventeen year old girl through an x-ray machine just standing there is clearly pornographic.
It really wouldn't and doesn't take much to damage someone's reputation forever. All it takes is one upset person with no scruples who has access to the internet. Frankly, they wouldn't even need to involve the police or make such drastic claims. Say a few horrible things about them. Use their real name. Get it out there on the web so that Google indexes it and it appears every time the person's name is searched (so the more rare the name, the better the results of this action) and you have instant permanent revenge.
True, we are only relying on the word of Wikileaks in their claim that they issued the request to the Pentagon to assist in identifying and redacting certain portions of the documents, but I don't see what they could benefit from lying about that.
After your first two sentences, I was actually going to bring up the point that you did in the rest of your comment, which is that they are indeed playing around with the meaning of words again. We originally referred to the Taliban as . . . well, the Taliban, which was a violent organized religious and political movement in Afghanistan. Recently, however, they've re-defined it to apply to practically anyone they encounter and want to apply it to. Of course, this is just to justify their extended military action. Redefine your enemy to redefine the agenda.
When I talk about automation, I mean an automated transportation experience that can be over-ridden by the driver when it is necessary. If your car decides the correct speed to travel at is measure din Mach, you should probably be able to easily take over.
When I mention partially automated, I'm referring more to the example of the car from this article - where they are more "assists" than "controls" -- and I think those are exactly what you're describing a concern with. I suppose it depends how "partial" automation are implemented. Would your experience with ABS have a parallel in a system that automatically breaks just before impacting a car or pedestrian in front of you that you are clearly not reacting to fast enough to be safe on your own?
I don't have an answer for that. I guess it would only be derived from exhaustive real-world testing. I like the idea of such fail-safes in all vehicles, but mixing real-time human interaction/control with partial automation definitely seems open to much more complexity. It's one thing to negotiate automation in an automated caravan where the car just has to make sure it is going at-speed with the others in its group without getting too close or far away or drifting out of its lane. It's definitely another to negotiate countless variables from an active human driver.
The automated solutions I've seen actively worked on today are not so "robotic" as the example you describe. Some of them involve magnets in the road which help guide the vehicle and some of the solutions also involve "caravans" where there is a lead car and then a handful of other vehicles virtually tethered behind them in a very efficient, fast, safe caravan. Because they can automatically break very quickly as needed and they are in lanes which do not share the road with manual drivers, they can travel at greater speeds with more safety and fewer variables.
The demonstrations I've seen appear almost ridiculously simple, though they of course are comprised of great complexity to pull it off.
The problem with most of these solutions would really seem to be in the more urban environments. It's one thing to have a fleet of cars automatically handle themselves in a controlled system on an interstate or freeway, but how would it translate to stop and go traffic in city blocks? It would be easy to make the cars obey traffic laws and signs (so they don't go the wrong way, for example), but the same principal applied in those conditions may prove cumbersome.
I don't think insurance and liability would actually be as big of an issue. In an accident, you would deal with the person occupying the vehicle. That person could of course turn around and deal with the manufacturer if it is their liability. And if that proved to be the issue most of the time, then it would probably raise the price of the vehicles. But then individuals would probably have cheaper auto insurance themselves, as a result.
The point is that if you have a 90% reduction in accidents, you would probably have a huge reduction in lawsuits and insurance claims, too. So even if someone does have to pay out occasionally, it would balance out in the end. And everyone would be the safer for it.
If automation ever does happen, it's likely to occur in stages. Perhaps the same way we currently have public roads and private tollways.
It may also just be that we're awaiting some singularity at which point the culmination of so many advances will bring us more than simple modern cars with automation anyway.
There are plenty of people who shouldn't be driving. Age shouldn't have much to do with it, but aptitude should. Unfortunately, we give licenses to any idiot with a pulse that can answer most of a list of twenty questions and take a brief street test without running someone over.
Though older and younger drivers are the most dangerous, there are plenty of exceptions across the board (more dangerous people in the middle and some safer one toward the extreme young/old ages). I don't see why we can't require more frequent and thorough testing of people as they ramp up to learning and getting their license and then toward the more senior years to ensure they remain safe and capable drivers. Unfortunately, that isn't the case in most states (or any, for all I know?).
Of course, with an automated system, the human would be the brain of the system who can override in emergencies, but could otherwise carry on about their business in the cabin/cockpit while the car automates 99.9% of the process. Allowing mobility and independence to those young and old who may otherwise currently be a danger to the public or in an ideal world of more frequent and thorough testing, prevented from enjoying the freedom of travel seems like an ideal solution.
Yes, because an automated car will jam a transmitting fork in the owner's head so that they will be forced to do their bidding. You'll just hop in your car and have absolutely no influence or control over it, because something that offers automation somehow erases all decision-making from the driver. You'll want to go get a pizza and the car will demand that you go to a farmer's market for some veggies, instead. Yep, that's totally how it is.
See, this is exactly the kind of absurd reaction Americans have to the simple idea that they could have an automated vehicle and a framework to support it. You mean I ain't gonna have my foot directly on the pedals and my hands directly on the steering wheel all the time? WHAT ARE YOU SOME SORTA FUCKIN' PINKO COMMUNIST?!"
Of course, who would want to spend their time reading or relaxing or having a conversation or getting some work done on the way to the office when they could spend their time tapping the gas and break in gridlock for a couple hours each direction of their daily commute?
I'm no mathematician, but I suspect your personal anecdotal experiences may not be conclusive of the overall accident and fatality rate of the rest of the nation (or world).
Drivers with the greatest fatality rates are people under twenty-four years of age (especially under nineteen) and older drivers (over fifty or sixty - I forget which).
Stories of old people accidentally stepping on the gas instead of the break are pretty common and young people are just careless, inexperienced, irresponsible, and stupid. But of course, you can't dare take driving away from them, because getting behind the wheel of a 75mph 3,000lb chunk of steel before you can even be trusted to smoke, vote, hold a full time job, or live on your own is considered about as "unamerican" as you can get.
Are you a serious socialist? I can't imagine any other mentality that accepts both "Independent drivers cause 300 deaths per car accident" (wiping out a field of soccer players would take a lot of effort, and some would escape off the field into terrain I couldn't follow by the time I could turn and catch up; a restaurant would take a large amount of high explosives in the back) and "totally automated cars are completely feasible and will never cause fatalities when they malfunction." It's got to be a perfect-world-versus-horrible-decaying-world mentality.
I understand that you are being intentionally daft for the point of argument, but what part of "would be inherently safer, even taking failures into consideration" did you have difficulty comprehending? Even with a given failure rate in some sort of automated system, an automated system with a human in the vehicle is without any reasonable question far safer than one driven entirely by a human. A car doesn't eat and drink while driving, drive drunk, have conversations, turn around to smack the kids, finger a smoke in one hand, listen to the radio, try and read a book or newspaper, get dressed, put on make-up, shave, have the reaction time of a slug, have arguments with other people in the vehicle, make phone calls, text-message, or any other countless risky behaviors that huge portions of drivers regularly engage in.
As for your quoting a statement that I never made in any way (much less a quotable one) about "totally automated cars are completely feasible and will never cause fatalities when they malfunction". Well, nobody said that. I said the likely failure rate of automation would be far better than the fatality rate of human driving.
Most people are dangerous drivers at least some of the time. However, the most dangerous drivers are the elderly and those under twenty-four years of age. Public safety surpasses any need for "a feeling of independence" and an automated vehicle system would help both (all, actually) groups retain mobility and independence, just without the need of physically controlling every action of the vehicle at all times. I don't see why there is any issue with that. Do people get their tits twisted over the idea of a microwave stealing their vitality and independence versus building and stocking a fire so they can whip out a cast iron pan and cook dinner over it?
Also, I don't follow soccer, but I think you may have a confused understanding of the game. I seem to recall that there are only twenty-two players on a soccer field, not 300. I also think you may suffer some confusion over various political ideologies if automation as a compromise to allowing independence without the significant risk of very young and old drivers strikes you as "socialist".
To expand on my comment, Wikileaks released the initial documents and with-held this additional 15,000 documents BECAUSE they were concerned about the risk that these particular documents may contain some information that should be redacted for safety (in particular, names/locations, etc). As Wikileaks states, they approached the Pentagon and requested their assistance in identifying certain documents or items within these particular 15,000 documents that should be redacted. The Pentagon REFUSED to assist them in doing it.
So if you're going to try and claim that Assange and Wikileaks don't care about people's safety that might be directly impacted by release of these documents, then you MUST also claim the same of the Government. The government is pouting and saying that they would rather tell Wikileaks to eat it than disagree with them AND at least have a chance to promote the safety of those very people they claim to be concerned about.
Of course, old people will also be upset and angry by either the car in the article (with some automation) or the desired auto-car itself. They have lived long lives and fought in wars, so who are we to strip them of their independence and prevent them from exercising their hard-earned god-given rights to wipe out entire fields of soccer playing children or entire restaurants full of diners?
I'm really interested in the promise of an automated car that you don't have to get a license for or actually drive. They would be inherently safer, even taking failures into consideration. Of course, this will never fly (in America, at least) because we have this mentality that we need to be actively behind the wheel of a six ton three-story tall truck with twelve wheels, wider than two lanes of traffic, with a pair of truck-nuts dangling off the back. To pick our snot-nosed kids up from the grade school.
If the government was after me and I felt I might risk being picked up and "disappeared", I might suddenly decide to become a "fame whore", too. Get my name and face out there in every fucking place imaginable.
The thing is, people *AREN'T* anonymous online, unless there is some magical ISP out there who isn't requiring a social security number and credit card (or similar identification processes) to create and bill service and accounts.
Of course, the problem is that they're not talking just about anonymity at your point of connection. They're talking about some permanent identity exposing you everywhere in all circumstances. Not just so that someone could subpoena a website to find your IP and then your ISP to associate your IP with your real life identity, but so that when you visit a news site or a videogame site or a medical information site or a social network, everyone you interact with will know exactly who you are.
No, we _all_ get exactly what those people tolerate. When much or most of the population accepts the eradication of privacy and anonymity, we _all_ lose our anonymity and privacy.
I'm with you, but the idea that anyone can put up a fight for anything is silly. You can be disconnected from all of existence with the flick of a wrist. Rather than fighting you, they'll just make sure you wake up one morning accused of something hideous and your life will be over (as you insinuate yourself). Or you have no access to your finances or any services of any type. Or you just wind up in prison (estimated to be easily ten percent or more of the prison population that is innocent).
This is all about language and public perception. They start talking about you not having privacy and anonymity today so that you will just assume it is gone and not put up a fight about it tomorrow. It's the same way they eased us from "all you need to fly is a plane ticket" to "all you need to fly is give us multiple forms of identification, a credit card number, a strip search, and naked photographs of you stored in our database for eternity" and nobody cares. Well, unless you're underage and then suddenly your privacy matters (well, not their *privacy* per se, since that's not why they suddenly care when you're 17 instead of 19 going through the xray machine).
The fact is that I have privacy and anonymity because the government lets me have it. When they decide that I can't have it anymore, they'll just take it from me and I won't have a choice. The same way the government gives you the right to own and carry a gun, until they don't give you the right. And there's nothing you can do about that, either.
You can encrypt it *today*. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow, encryption alone becomes cause for suspicion and legal investigation.
We certainly don't want people being "anti-social" Goodness me, that's such an awful crime. We should start subsidizing and prescribing Soma. We must all be calm, beautiful, peaceful, placated, obeying zombies using the internet the way it is intended - to buy stuff and consume government directed news.
I've been to D&B a number of times and they only seem loosely qualified as "arcades". They seem more like the fairway at a carnival. Whack-a-mole and the modern shooters where you stomp your foot on a pedal and keep your finger on a trigger while flailing a toy uzi around spasmodically until you reach the end of the game and carnival fairway horse raising and ski-ball abound.
The problem with arcades are that you're mostly limited to old arcade games since new games are not as frequently manufactured or varied. You're competing with enthusiasts and collectors for the cabinets and spending a lot of time and money maintaining and repairing aging and ailing machines.
I've actually found the experience against he AI to be not so annoying as against humans. When you reach a certain level of player in Civilization, they seem to follow certain established flow-charts, but do it faster than the other guy.
I'm not whining because "people beat me so I hate the game". I'm just making the point that Civilization can often suffer from a very strong tendency to be predictable races along the same mapped path.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing of value? You buy those things with about $15 real world cash, each. That's what is so odd, here. If someone made that time of a real-world financial investment, I can't believe they transported them without some ridiculously heavy guard. Or in bulk, if they couldn't afford or find the protection.
The real shame of it is that this is $1,200 worth of PLEX that just vanishes. It's not like some pirates stole them from him. They just blew up the ship and they vanished into the ether, allowing CCP to eat up the cash. Nice.
Sick, but very common. You hear reports of false rape accusations all the time. There was the Duke Lacrosse case. There were the two women recently who claimed a guy raped them, when they were really just upset that the sex they had with him wasn't very good. There are cases where people are not only dragged through reputation-assassination in the public, but spend days, months, or years in prison for it. And of course, the best part of any sort of false accusation like this is that you can't question the supposed victims, because you'll be blamed for "blaming the victim". In fact, because of "rape-shield" laws, the public is almost always given the identity of the accused, but the accuser is protected from being identified. In a lot of cases, they remain protected and unidentified even after they have been found guilty of making up the rape accusation!
Here's a representative news article from a few months ago, where a 27 year old woman accused a man of rape and he SPENT FOUR YEARS IN PRISON for it before they discovered that he was innocent. In return, they sentenced her for "up to" three years. That's right, she'll spend fewer years imprisoned for an actual crime than the real victim spend for doing absolutely nothing.
Why did she accuse him of rape? Because she was hanging out with her girlfriends one night when she decided to head off with the guy in his car. When she came back to her friends, they were angry at her for ditching them. So she made up the rape story.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/justice_happened_things_system_solomon_JyyLFVitMM4bx63gpD1ouI
Crying "rape" has become the modern "sorry, I'm late - traffic was hell!".
This is just a variation on retribution through false rape claims. There have been a number of very public incidents of that recently. Substitute women with children and you've eradicated even the smallest chance there might have otherwise been that anyone would ever have questioned the accusation's veracity and destroyed someone's life.
Also, for what it's worth, I heard a discussion with John Dvorak recently about this where he states that the current interpretation of most US law makes everything "child porn" even if there is nothing sexual about it. For example, the recent uproar over juveniles having to go through background x-ray machines at the airport, because a photograph of a seventeen year old girl through an x-ray machine just standing there is clearly pornographic.
It really wouldn't and doesn't take much to damage someone's reputation forever. All it takes is one upset person with no scruples who has access to the internet. Frankly, they wouldn't even need to involve the police or make such drastic claims. Say a few horrible things about them. Use their real name. Get it out there on the web so that Google indexes it and it appears every time the person's name is searched (so the more rare the name, the better the results of this action) and you have instant permanent revenge.
True, we are only relying on the word of Wikileaks in their claim that they issued the request to the Pentagon to assist in identifying and redacting certain portions of the documents, but I don't see what they could benefit from lying about that.
After your first two sentences, I was actually going to bring up the point that you did in the rest of your comment, which is that they are indeed playing around with the meaning of words again. We originally referred to the Taliban as . . . well, the Taliban, which was a violent organized religious and political movement in Afghanistan. Recently, however, they've re-defined it to apply to practically anyone they encounter and want to apply it to. Of course, this is just to justify their extended military action. Redefine your enemy to redefine the agenda.
Nothing is stopping the bug-hunters from accepting the cash and donating it.
When I talk about automation, I mean an automated transportation experience that can be over-ridden by the driver when it is necessary. If your car decides the correct speed to travel at is measure din Mach, you should probably be able to easily take over.
When I mention partially automated, I'm referring more to the example of the car from this article - where they are more "assists" than "controls" -- and I think those are exactly what you're describing a concern with. I suppose it depends how "partial" automation are implemented. Would your experience with ABS have a parallel in a system that automatically breaks just before impacting a car or pedestrian in front of you that you are clearly not reacting to fast enough to be safe on your own?
I don't have an answer for that. I guess it would only be derived from exhaustive real-world testing. I like the idea of such fail-safes in all vehicles, but mixing real-time human interaction/control with partial automation definitely seems open to much more complexity. It's one thing to negotiate automation in an automated caravan where the car just has to make sure it is going at-speed with the others in its group without getting too close or far away or drifting out of its lane. It's definitely another to negotiate countless variables from an active human driver.
The automated solutions I've seen actively worked on today are not so "robotic" as the example you describe. Some of them involve magnets in the road which help guide the vehicle and some of the solutions also involve "caravans" where there is a lead car and then a handful of other vehicles virtually tethered behind them in a very efficient, fast, safe caravan. Because they can automatically break very quickly as needed and they are in lanes which do not share the road with manual drivers, they can travel at greater speeds with more safety and fewer variables.
The demonstrations I've seen appear almost ridiculously simple, though they of course are comprised of great complexity to pull it off.
The problem with most of these solutions would really seem to be in the more urban environments. It's one thing to have a fleet of cars automatically handle themselves in a controlled system on an interstate or freeway, but how would it translate to stop and go traffic in city blocks? It would be easy to make the cars obey traffic laws and signs (so they don't go the wrong way, for example), but the same principal applied in those conditions may prove cumbersome.
I don't think insurance and liability would actually be as big of an issue. In an accident, you would deal with the person occupying the vehicle. That person could of course turn around and deal with the manufacturer if it is their liability. And if that proved to be the issue most of the time, then it would probably raise the price of the vehicles. But then individuals would probably have cheaper auto insurance themselves, as a result.
The point is that if you have a 90% reduction in accidents, you would probably have a huge reduction in lawsuits and insurance claims, too. So even if someone does have to pay out occasionally, it would balance out in the end. And everyone would be the safer for it.
If automation ever does happen, it's likely to occur in stages. Perhaps the same way we currently have public roads and private tollways.
It may also just be that we're awaiting some singularity at which point the culmination of so many advances will bring us more than simple modern cars with automation anyway.
This is only the case on the interstate. Driving on freeways and within cities is the complete opposite.
There are plenty of people who shouldn't be driving. Age shouldn't have much to do with it, but aptitude should. Unfortunately, we give licenses to any idiot with a pulse that can answer most of a list of twenty questions and take a brief street test without running someone over.
Though older and younger drivers are the most dangerous, there are plenty of exceptions across the board (more dangerous people in the middle and some safer one toward the extreme young/old ages). I don't see why we can't require more frequent and thorough testing of people as they ramp up to learning and getting their license and then toward the more senior years to ensure they remain safe and capable drivers. Unfortunately, that isn't the case in most states (or any, for all I know?).
Of course, with an automated system, the human would be the brain of the system who can override in emergencies, but could otherwise carry on about their business in the cabin/cockpit while the car automates 99.9% of the process. Allowing mobility and independence to those young and old who may otherwise currently be a danger to the public or in an ideal world of more frequent and thorough testing, prevented from enjoying the freedom of travel seems like an ideal solution.
Yes, because an automated car will jam a transmitting fork in the owner's head so that they will be forced to do their bidding. You'll just hop in your car and have absolutely no influence or control over it, because something that offers automation somehow erases all decision-making from the driver. You'll want to go get a pizza and the car will demand that you go to a farmer's market for some veggies, instead. Yep, that's totally how it is.
See, this is exactly the kind of absurd reaction Americans have to the simple idea that they could have an automated vehicle and a framework to support it. You mean I ain't gonna have my foot directly on the pedals and my hands directly on the steering wheel all the time? WHAT ARE YOU SOME SORTA FUCKIN' PINKO COMMUNIST?!"
Of course, who would want to spend their time reading or relaxing or having a conversation or getting some work done on the way to the office when they could spend their time tapping the gas and break in gridlock for a couple hours each direction of their daily commute?
I'm no mathematician, but I suspect your personal anecdotal experiences may not be conclusive of the overall accident and fatality rate of the rest of the nation (or world).
Drivers with the greatest fatality rates are people under twenty-four years of age (especially under nineteen) and older drivers (over fifty or sixty - I forget which).
Stories of old people accidentally stepping on the gas instead of the break are pretty common and young people are just careless, inexperienced, irresponsible, and stupid. But of course, you can't dare take driving away from them, because getting behind the wheel of a 75mph 3,000lb chunk of steel before you can even be trusted to smoke, vote, hold a full time job, or live on your own is considered about as "unamerican" as you can get.
Are you a serious socialist? I can't imagine any other mentality that accepts both "Independent drivers cause 300 deaths per car accident" (wiping out a field of soccer players would take a lot of effort, and some would escape off the field into terrain I couldn't follow by the time I could turn and catch up; a restaurant would take a large amount of high explosives in the back) and "totally automated cars are completely feasible and will never cause fatalities when they malfunction." It's got to be a perfect-world-versus-horrible-decaying-world mentality.
I understand that you are being intentionally daft for the point of argument, but what part of "would be inherently safer, even taking failures into consideration" did you have difficulty comprehending? Even with a given failure rate in some sort of automated system, an automated system with a human in the vehicle is without any reasonable question far safer than one driven entirely by a human. A car doesn't eat and drink while driving, drive drunk, have conversations, turn around to smack the kids, finger a smoke in one hand, listen to the radio, try and read a book or newspaper, get dressed, put on make-up, shave, have the reaction time of a slug, have arguments with other people in the vehicle, make phone calls, text-message, or any other countless risky behaviors that huge portions of drivers regularly engage in.
As for your quoting a statement that I never made in any way (much less a quotable one) about "totally automated cars are completely feasible and will never cause fatalities when they malfunction". Well, nobody said that. I said the likely failure rate of automation would be far better than the fatality rate of human driving.
Most people are dangerous drivers at least some of the time. However, the most dangerous drivers are the elderly and those under twenty-four years of age. Public safety surpasses any need for "a feeling of independence" and an automated vehicle system would help both (all, actually) groups retain mobility and independence, just without the need of physically controlling every action of the vehicle at all times. I don't see why there is any issue with that. Do people get their tits twisted over the idea of a microwave stealing their vitality and independence versus building and stocking a fire so they can whip out a cast iron pan and cook dinner over it?
Also, I don't follow soccer, but I think you may have a confused understanding of the game. I seem to recall that there are only twenty-two players on a soccer field, not 300. I also think you may suffer some confusion over various political ideologies if automation as a compromise to allowing independence without the significant risk of very young and old drivers strikes you as "socialist".
To expand on my comment, Wikileaks released the initial documents and with-held this additional 15,000 documents BECAUSE they were concerned about the risk that these particular documents may contain some information that should be redacted for safety (in particular, names/locations, etc). As Wikileaks states, they approached the Pentagon and requested their assistance in identifying certain documents or items within these particular 15,000 documents that should be redacted. The Pentagon REFUSED to assist them in doing it.
So if you're going to try and claim that Assange and Wikileaks don't care about people's safety that might be directly impacted by release of these documents, then you MUST also claim the same of the Government. The government is pouting and saying that they would rather tell Wikileaks to eat it than disagree with them AND at least have a chance to promote the safety of those very people they claim to be concerned about.
Of course, old people will also be upset and angry by either the car in the article (with some automation) or the desired auto-car itself. They have lived long lives and fought in wars, so who are we to strip them of their independence and prevent them from exercising their hard-earned god-given rights to wipe out entire fields of soccer playing children or entire restaurants full of diners?
Does this mean we have already jumped to the conclusion that they'll have a propensity for open relationships?
I'm really interested in the promise of an automated car that you don't have to get a license for or actually drive. They would be inherently safer, even taking failures into consideration. Of course, this will never fly (in America, at least) because we have this mentality that we need to be actively behind the wheel of a six ton three-story tall truck with twelve wheels, wider than two lanes of traffic, with a pair of truck-nuts dangling off the back. To pick our snot-nosed kids up from the grade school.
If the government was after me and I felt I might risk being picked up and "disappeared", I might suddenly decide to become a "fame whore", too. Get my name and face out there in every fucking place imaginable.
Yeah, too bad Wikileaks redacts identifying names of at-risk persons before publishing, which invalidates your entire comment.
The thing is, people *AREN'T* anonymous online, unless there is some magical ISP out there who isn't requiring a social security number and credit card (or similar identification processes) to create and bill service and accounts.
Of course, the problem is that they're not talking just about anonymity at your point of connection. They're talking about some permanent identity exposing you everywhere in all circumstances. Not just so that someone could subpoena a website to find your IP and then your ISP to associate your IP with your real life identity, but so that when you visit a news site or a videogame site or a medical information site or a social network, everyone you interact with will know exactly who you are.
No, we _all_ get exactly what those people tolerate. When much or most of the population accepts the eradication of privacy and anonymity, we _all_ lose our anonymity and privacy.
I'm with you, but the idea that anyone can put up a fight for anything is silly. You can be disconnected from all of existence with the flick of a wrist. Rather than fighting you, they'll just make sure you wake up one morning accused of something hideous and your life will be over (as you insinuate yourself). Or you have no access to your finances or any services of any type. Or you just wind up in prison (estimated to be easily ten percent or more of the prison population that is innocent).
This is all about language and public perception. They start talking about you not having privacy and anonymity today so that you will just assume it is gone and not put up a fight about it tomorrow. It's the same way they eased us from "all you need to fly is a plane ticket" to "all you need to fly is give us multiple forms of identification, a credit card number, a strip search, and naked photographs of you stored in our database for eternity" and nobody cares. Well, unless you're underage and then suddenly your privacy matters (well, not their *privacy* per se, since that's not why they suddenly care when you're 17 instead of 19 going through the xray machine).
The fact is that I have privacy and anonymity because the government lets me have it. When they decide that I can't have it anymore, they'll just take it from me and I won't have a choice. The same way the government gives you the right to own and carry a gun, until they don't give you the right. And there's nothing you can do about that, either.
You can encrypt it *today*. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow, encryption alone becomes cause for suspicion and legal investigation.
We certainly don't want people being "anti-social" Goodness me, that's such an awful crime. We should start subsidizing and prescribing Soma. We must all be calm, beautiful, peaceful, placated, obeying zombies using the internet the way it is intended - to buy stuff and consume government directed news.
I've been to D&B a number of times and they only seem loosely qualified as "arcades". They seem more like the fairway at a carnival. Whack-a-mole and the modern shooters where you stomp your foot on a pedal and keep your finger on a trigger while flailing a toy uzi around spasmodically until you reach the end of the game and carnival fairway horse raising and ski-ball abound.
The problem with arcades are that you're mostly limited to old arcade games since new games are not as frequently manufactured or varied. You're competing with enthusiasts and collectors for the cabinets and spending a lot of time and money maintaining and repairing aging and ailing machines.
I've actually found the experience against he AI to be not so annoying as against humans. When you reach a certain level of player in Civilization, they seem to follow certain established flow-charts, but do it faster than the other guy.
I'm not whining because "people beat me so I hate the game". I'm just making the point that Civilization can often suffer from a very strong tendency to be predictable races along the same mapped path.