I'd like to eat regularly at Maxim's, shelter at the Ritz, bathe in Veen and use all the electricity I want. Since you think I'm entitled to that, are you going to pay for it?
Airbags were standard in some Chrysler models by 1988, and were available options in some GM models in the '70s. The government requirement didn't happen until 1991 with implementation not required until 1998.
Her complaint amounted to an admission that she couldn't find a job which would support her lifestyle choices. If she was qualified enough to get paid more, then options other than biting the hand which feeds her would have been available.
Since you asked, they were offered before any discussion of a requirement. As an example, seat belts were first made available in 1949, but weren't mandated by the feds until the '60s.
I'll add that padded dashboards, tire pressure monitors and backup cameras all preceded governmental requirements.
Your turn, name a few safety features which only appeared after regulation was announced.
Not just that - it's not the feds making the statement (an incorrect claim from the article, carried into the headline here), it's someone from UL trying to instill fear and drum up business for their private, for profit company.
The feds say they must meet a standard. The summary says none are certified to a standard. Those are two different things. A manufacturer could certainly manufacture a product to meet the standard, but not spend the extra time, money and effort to have it certified by a private organization.
Not saying there are ones which comply, only that the summary makes invalid assumptions.
"here is no constitutional right to buy a car with any particular characteristic,"
You seem confused. The US Constitution doesn't grant rights (although it does list some specific ones, just for good measure), it grants powers to government. Where a power is not specifically given, it is left with the states or the people. The right to free speech exists because the government is given no power to regulate speech, not because it's listed in the Bill of Rights. That's only there to reinforce that fact.
The federal government is given the power to regulate interstate commerce, which it uses to regulate emissions on vehicles sold in interstate commerce. They could, if they wanted to, prevents states from enforcing stricter standards since those interfere with interstate commerce.
"the Feds have an important say in the encryption debate, but in car emissions, much less so."
Huh? Exactly what power allows the Feds to regulate encryption, per se, more than car emissions? It could be argued that they might regulate it with regard to products sold in interstate commerce. But, encryption is used for speech, a right of the people, and one which is specifically enumerated, so there's a pretty strong argument they can't do that. In the case at hand, they're talking about preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce by preventing states from requiring insecure encryption. That doesn't interfere with speech rights at all.
Amazon, customer centric? Have you ever tried to use their search feature? It just gives you a few relevant hits, widely interspersed among completely unrelated crap.
ITIM there should be no reserved characters when naming computer scientists. Not sure if the names are case sensitive though. I suspect sensitivity training would tell us they are.
The submitter is obviously politically biased with the use of the term 'Luddite.'
The submitter is being dishonest and misleading.
The Luddites actively and physically fought against advancements in technology. Porsche has simply chosen not to adopt some, they're not trying to stop anyone else from creating a self-driving car. Big difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Closer to 0.001 Tbps.
So that would be what, 1 Gbps?
"implement intelligent, contextually aware and lightweight experiences natively into the mobile operating system"
That came out of one of those technobabble generators, didn't it?
It's obvious that the FBI doesn't have a good intellectual or legal argument, and they're now resorting to an emotional one.
Choosing to live in a high cost metropolitan area is a life choice. It is an analogy, not a straw man.
I'd like to eat regularly at Maxim's, shelter at the Ritz, bathe in Veen and use all the electricity I want. Since you think I'm entitled to that, are you going to pay for it?
Airbags were standard in some Chrysler models by 1988, and were available options in some GM models in the '70s. The government requirement didn't happen until 1991 with implementation not required until 1998.
Her complaint amounted to an admission that she couldn't find a job which would support her lifestyle choices. If she was qualified enough to get paid more, then options other than biting the hand which feeds her would have been available.
Since you asked, they were offered before any discussion of a requirement. As an example, seat belts were first made available in 1949, but weren't mandated by the feds until the '60s.
I'll add that padded dashboards, tire pressure monitors and backup cameras all preceded governmental requirements.
Your turn, name a few safety features which only appeared after regulation was announced.
"You wouldn't have any of the safety features in cars for example that you have today if left to the manufacturers."
Seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes and electronic stability control were all offered as options before being government mandated.
Not just that - it's not the feds making the statement (an incorrect claim from the article, carried into the headline here), it's someone from UL trying to instill fear and drum up business for their private, for profit company.
The feds say they must meet a standard. The summary says none are certified to a standard. Those are two different things. A manufacturer could certainly manufacture a product to meet the standard, but not spend the extra time, money and effort to have it certified by a private organization.
Not saying there are ones which comply, only that the summary makes invalid assumptions.
SJW doesn't mean what you think it means.
The author apparently hasn't heard of two stroke or Wankel engines.
A:When it's 2 1/2 years old.
"That whole privacy thing" gives the feds the right to regulate encryption?
You'll need to provide some logic to support that claim.
Huh? You seem even more confused than the OP.
"here is no constitutional right to buy a car with any particular characteristic,"
You seem confused. The US Constitution doesn't grant rights (although it does list some specific ones, just for good measure), it grants powers to government. Where a power is not specifically given, it is left with the states or the people. The right to free speech exists because the government is given no power to regulate speech, not because it's listed in the Bill of Rights. That's only there to reinforce that fact.
The federal government is given the power to regulate interstate commerce, which it uses to regulate emissions on vehicles sold in interstate commerce. They could, if they wanted to, prevents states from enforcing stricter standards since those interfere with interstate commerce.
"the Feds have an important say in the encryption debate, but in car emissions, much less so."
Huh? Exactly what power allows the Feds to regulate encryption, per se, more than car emissions? It could be argued that they might regulate it with regard to products sold in interstate commerce. But, encryption is used for speech, a right of the people, and one which is specifically enumerated, so there's a pretty strong argument they can't do that. In the case at hand, they're talking about preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce by preventing states from requiring insecure encryption. That doesn't interfere with speech rights at all.
Dogbert's Tech Support.
Nah, they just have a good index for "butt plugs."
Moore's law says nothing about power or speed. It's strictly about the number of transistors on a chip.
Amazon, customer centric? Have you ever tried to use their search feature? It just gives you a few relevant hits, widely interspersed among completely unrelated crap.
"DSL is high-speed Internet"
No, it isn't.
ITIM there should be no reserved characters when naming computer scientists. Not sure if the names are case sensitive though. I suspect sensitivity training would tell us they are.
The submitter is being dishonest and misleading.
The Luddites actively and physically fought against advancements in technology. Porsche has simply chosen not to adopt some, they're not trying to stop anyone else from creating a self-driving car. Big difference.