The fact they're already better than human drivers, for one thing. You're the one who wants to risk every person in society who might be near a road, as humans did not evolve to perform such tasks, at the cost of over 30,000 deaths per year in the US.
Seeing as it doesn't use GPS to drive the car, just to navigate, your argument applies precisely as much to self-driving cars as human-driven cars. People can't detect as much detail as a LIDAR can, so I don't know why you're arguing in favor that the slow-reaction-time, limited-perception solution is better, except that you are being irrational, as every one of your posts on this subject seems to indicate.
So because you have no understanding of this technology, the problem lies with it, and not with your ignorance. Gotcha. You are a clever fellow, aren't you.
The actual problem is you think you being able to tell a car has had 500 people in it is somehow more important than the 30,000+ people who die in traffic accidents every year. You can be as entitled as you want, but don't pretend it's a sensible or honorable stance.
Some corporation figures out that they can save a lot of money and have far safer cars. Oh noes! So terrible! 30,000 people die in the US in traffic accidents alone. Self-driving cars can easily be better than human drivers, due to their massively-superior sensor packages, integration with the car's own systems, inter-car communication, and fantastic reaction times.
Seriously - were you abused by a self-driving car? It sounds like it, as you keep offering your own made-up nonsensical issues as evidence of the uselessness of self-driving cars. It's pathetic.
You believe they will, even though there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that. You might want to work on your logic there, bub. Microsoft makes money from everyone using Windows, whether they paid for Windows or not, simply because it keeps their market share up. These people who use it at home for free also use it at work, and they need to buy the extra software and support and so on, which Microsoft happily makes money from.
There is an easy way to stop the hateful situation - read about this stuff and stop making up answers for already-answered questions:)
Does your anti-spam HOSTS solution block inline spam like every single one of your posts? Your competitors do... strange how you never mention that when you vomit your incessant nonsense across Slashdot.
That's why Microsoft released Sysprep. Run that, then make your image. When you boot the image, it will detect all hardware and not assume it is running on the machine the image was taken from. This works in Windows 2000, XP, & Vista, at least.
They provide a country in which Google can make over 10 billion pounds a year. That's something Google should pay towards helping, surely. It's not grabbing their money, it's taking back the money they asked for and were not paid, by Google moving some numbers around between banks, in a direct, purposeful attempt to keep as many of those numbers as possible, to the detriment to the markets in which they made said money.
But I guess bitching about governments is more fun.
So you don't really have a point, just complaints about a phrase, and nothing particularly specific. Whatever gets you through the night, Mr. Fuck-You-I've-Got-Mine.
Even if there were data breaches left right and center, I'm sure that would be better than the cluster-fuck of healthcare in the US. As has already been pointed out, the government already has your data, so you'd lose nothing, but gain a lot of money, free time, and improved outcomes.
Isn't Zufriedenheit closer to "satisfied" or "contented" rather than the emotional state of happiness? That's what I always thought, judging by the way it's used over here anyway.
Stick to the facts, lest you wind up showing everyone you're more interested in having a pop at Microsoft than engaging in actual discourse. Like you just did.
What difference does it make if they get a free copy or pirate the software? They'll still be using Windows either way. Oh, it's Chrisq. You're not too good with logic, but great with gut-feelings and knee-jerk reactions. I'm surprised you didn't attempt to ham-fistedly twist this into an anti-Islam tirade like you usually do.
It would help if you didn't use the definition of animal behaviour from dictionary.com.
Driving is a behaviour. If we look at the other definitions of behaviour at dictionary.com (on the same page you got your definition):
manner of behaving or acting.
Often, behaviors. a behavior pattern.
the action or reaction of any material under given circumstances
we can see that you either made a mistake, don't know how a dictionary works, or decided to pervert the discussion by re-defining a word in order to tear apart those who use the word correctly, but not in accordance with your new, strict definition. Pick one:)
Heh. My apologies. Just figured out my mistake. Fair enough - you have a point. But, in my defence, it's a lot harder to hack a Facebook account now than it was in the era of Chat, even if it's still not as difficult as we would like.
Unless the hacker also has the hackee's card & pin, they're not getting anything... If this stops people having to do wire transfers to some anonymous individual, then surely that's far better.
Or this is just a nice feature which will encourage people to use Facebook and Messenger, allowing them to serve these people more ads. Not everything has to be directly monetised.
And please stop with the "yur the product! me so smrt!" nonsense. We get it. We are adults. We know these things cost money to run. You are not some wise oracle showing the world what they failed to see for years. Do you also chime in pointing out that 1984 is not an instruction manual?
I know you mean well, but we hear this every single time this is discussed, and it makes it harder to have a proper discussion. We get it.
Are you really so arrogant or paranoid that you think Facebook cares about you? Facebook doesn't have a guy at a desk whose only job is to track your movements online and plot against you. Facebook might care in order to put this person at the top of your Messenger list, or something equally anodyne.
If you're this scared of Facebook, don't use it. If you don't use it, stop jamming up discussions about how you don't use it. No-one cares. You are scared of Facebook, and that's OK.
To pay my rent I went up to the banking machine in the bank (like an ATM, but does transfers and other account-related stuff), typed in my landlord's details, added a message about who is paying, put the amount, and pressed "submit". It took about 3 minutes, and now my rent is paid automatically, without additional charges. This is not uncommon, and is quite probably the norm for most people over here in Europe.
Your experience sounds fresh out of the late 1800s - I do not envy you, and I hope you get better banking in the near future!
Slashdot Mirror
The fact they're already better than human drivers, for one thing. You're the one who wants to risk every person in society who might be near a road, as humans did not evolve to perform such tasks, at the cost of over 30,000 deaths per year in the US.
Seeing as it doesn't use GPS to drive the car, just to navigate, your argument applies precisely as much to self-driving cars as human-driven cars. People can't detect as much detail as a LIDAR can, so I don't know why you're arguing in favor that the slow-reaction-time, limited-perception solution is better, except that you are being irrational, as every one of your posts on this subject seems to indicate.
So because you have no understanding of this technology, the problem lies with it, and not with your ignorance. Gotcha. You are a clever fellow, aren't you.
The actual problem is you think you being able to tell a car has had 500 people in it is somehow more important than the 30,000+ people who die in traffic accidents every year. You can be as entitled as you want, but don't pretend it's a sensible or honorable stance.
Some corporation figures out that they can save a lot of money and have far safer cars. Oh noes! So terrible! 30,000 people die in the US in traffic accidents alone. Self-driving cars can easily be better than human drivers, due to their massively-superior sensor packages, integration with the car's own systems, inter-car communication, and fantastic reaction times.
Seriously - were you abused by a self-driving car? It sounds like it, as you keep offering your own made-up nonsensical issues as evidence of the uselessness of self-driving cars. It's pathetic.
No.
You believe they will, even though there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that. You might want to work on your logic there, bub. Microsoft makes money from everyone using Windows, whether they paid for Windows or not, simply because it keeps their market share up. These people who use it at home for free also use it at work, and they need to buy the extra software and support and so on, which Microsoft happily makes money from.
There is an easy way to stop the hateful situation - read about this stuff and stop making up answers for already-answered questions :)
Does your anti-spam HOSTS solution block inline spam like every single one of your posts? Your competitors do... strange how you never mention that when you vomit your incessant nonsense across Slashdot.
That's why Microsoft released Sysprep. Run that, then make your image. When you boot the image, it will detect all hardware and not assume it is running on the machine the image was taken from. This works in Windows 2000, XP, & Vista, at least.
My position is you're making stuff up.
Now what?
They provide a country in which Google can make over 10 billion pounds a year. That's something Google should pay towards helping, surely. It's not grabbing their money, it's taking back the money they asked for and were not paid, by Google moving some numbers around between banks, in a direct, purposeful attempt to keep as many of those numbers as possible, to the detriment to the markets in which they made said money.
But I guess bitching about governments is more fun.
So you don't really have a point, just complaints about a phrase, and nothing particularly specific. Whatever gets you through the night, Mr. Fuck-You-I've-Got-Mine.
Even if there were data breaches left right and center, I'm sure that would be better than the cluster-fuck of healthcare in the US. As has already been pointed out, the government already has your data, so you'd lose nothing, but gain a lot of money, free time, and improved outcomes.
So the problem is not enough bilingualism, then, surely. Your argument is all over the place.
Isn't Zufriedenheit closer to "satisfied" or "contented" rather than the emotional state of happiness? That's what I always thought, judging by the way it's used over here anyway.
And translations for "racist asshat", by the looks of it.
I heard it comes alive at night and eats cats!
Stick to the facts, lest you wind up showing everyone you're more interested in having a pop at Microsoft than engaging in actual discourse. Like you just did.
What difference does it make if they get a free copy or pirate the software? They'll still be using Windows either way. Oh, it's Chrisq. You're not too good with logic, but great with gut-feelings and knee-jerk reactions. I'm surprised you didn't attempt to ham-fistedly twist this into an anti-Islam tirade like you usually do.
It would help if you didn't use the definition of animal behaviour from dictionary.com.
Driving is a behaviour. If we look at the other definitions of behaviour at dictionary.com (on the same page you got your definition):
we can see that you either made a mistake, don't know how a dictionary works, or decided to pervert the discussion by re-defining a word in order to tear apart those who use the word correctly, but not in accordance with your new, strict definition. Pick one :)
Heh. My apologies. Just figured out my mistake. Fair enough - you have a point. But, in my defence, it's a lot harder to hack a Facebook account now than it was in the era of Chat, even if it's still not as difficult as we would like.
Unless the hacker also has the hackee's card & pin, they're not getting anything... If this stops people having to do wire transfers to some anonymous individual, then surely that's far better.
Or this is just a nice feature which will encourage people to use Facebook and Messenger, allowing them to serve these people more ads. Not everything has to be directly monetised.
And please stop with the "yur the product! me so smrt!" nonsense. We get it. We are adults. We know these things cost money to run. You are not some wise oracle showing the world what they failed to see for years. Do you also chime in pointing out that 1984 is not an instruction manual?
I know you mean well, but we hear this every single time this is discussed, and it makes it harder to have a proper discussion. We get it.
Are you really so arrogant or paranoid that you think Facebook cares about you? Facebook doesn't have a guy at a desk whose only job is to track your movements online and plot against you. Facebook might care in order to put this person at the top of your Messenger list, or something equally anodyne.
If you're this scared of Facebook, don't use it. If you don't use it, stop jamming up discussions about how you don't use it. No-one cares. You are scared of Facebook, and that's OK.
To pay my rent I went up to the banking machine in the bank (like an ATM, but does transfers and other account-related stuff), typed in my landlord's details, added a message about who is paying, put the amount, and pressed "submit". It took about 3 minutes, and now my rent is paid automatically, without additional charges. This is not uncommon, and is quite probably the norm for most people over here in Europe.
Your experience sounds fresh out of the late 1800s - I do not envy you, and I hope you get better banking in the near future!
It could disclose information an attacker could use to gain root access to the server, then they could do whatever they wanted.