She may have committed a security breach, but it's hard to tell, because of all the lies from the accusers, the answers get muddled. It's not illegal to exclusively use personal email for official work at the federal level (it is at the state level in Alaska, why Palin is held to a higher standard, as is continually pointed out by the Hillary haters). She broke no law simply by using email. Then the accusations move on to confidential information she "breached", but then, there are so many accusations that are guesses, that it's hard to tell which are based in fact.
And now your problem with her is on the level of "she made a single personal local call at no cost, from the government phone, and that's misuse of government equipment." The problem is, that everyone uses government equipment for personal business when it doesn't cause cost. The idea is that small amounts of "personal" use are "authorized" as under those rules.
I also saw where the existing security team said they didn't need it. You wouldn't find a group of marines that would hold up their hands and admit they can't hold an embassy. So who do you listen to, the trained security force, or a scared diplomat, who also wants more lobster shipped over.
EPA will have to prove reproducibility, not actually reproduce it. Read again, slower this time, and without the rabid frothing at the mouth.
The law requires it be reproducible. If someone claims it isn't. How do you think that would be settled in a lawsuit? I think the only way would be for the EPA to prove reproducibility of it. If you think that requires actually reproducing it, then that's your opinion, not mine, even if I were to agree with it, I hadn't said it.
So you prefer ones that shit on the Windows community? Windows is larger, and the people on it have proven they are willing to pay for software. Seems to be a better target market for a for-profit company.
File a FOIA request for what the head of the FBI had to eat yesterday. He replies that the FOIA request is denied, because National Security. You look and find he had lunch with the president, and that day's menu is on whitehouse.gov. So you know what he had for lunch, but he's denying other related things for National Security, when it's provably not true because you know some of it from other sources that don't think it's National Security sensitive information. Sounds like lies to get out of FOIA requests. I think that's the point.
If Canada sent him back, it's a deportation. Deporting your own citizen is called "exile" and is illegal under modern treaties and international law. He'd be deported again to Canada when he got back to DR, as he likely wouldn't have the right to stay there permanently.
Of course, to stop the bouncing like that, International law only allows deportation to a country you have a "right" to be in.
And most places (local, not international law) don't allow someone to flee after getting stopped for an "illegal" act. You can't get stopped by customs for smuggling, and choose to return to your previous country to avoid prosecution.
I don't know what I did, or do, but I've never flown in the US without getting one of the TSA inspection notices put in my luggage, at least not since they started using them.
Do you think Canada wants a Detroit refugee? I didn't have any issues crossing in Montana. They were polite, but then they were polite at the US side when driving into Alaska a few days later.
In Windows, with file extensions blocked, you look at the "file type" field to make that determination. One would be notepad, one wordpad, and one I don't know how windows would report it. They are all uniquely identifiable. If associated with different applications, the application would be identified.
In order for a computer driver to be a viable replacement for a real driver, it doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be as good or better than a human driver.
I disagree. I see people calling for perfection, and I think that if every car was self-driving next year and the death toll in the USA was 20,000 dead people, that there'd be lots of lawsuits as the great macro-level reduction in deaths was objected to on a micro-level.
People are irrational about driving, and any decision that the computer makes that isn't provably perfect, will be challenged later by someone who lies and says they'd have taken the better action.
You are being obtuse. The equivalent is that the anti-environment crowd is asserting that gravity doesn't exist because Newton didn't publish the weight of the apple that fell from the tree.
And there's a consensus that gravity exists, and is roughly equal to the product of masses of the bodies and a constant, divided by the square od the distance between them.
Are you arguing that there's no scientific consensus about the Theory of Gravity? Remember, "It's just a theory", as that's the battle cry for Luddites that don't like any other scientific consensus or theory, like the Theory of Evolution.
The science now is getting correlations that are quite tight, and there's been more looking into the effects of lead poisoning that show mechanisms for that. The science is leaning heavily on the lead being linked to the crime rises in the '70s and '80s that were, at the time, blamed on blacks and crack. The crime correlates with lead in the environment, not race or drug use (though the last two correlate with the first, as the lead smelter in Dallas was in the middle of the poor, black area, so segregated because at the time, in the '50s, when the area was built up, the pollution was known).
But the science may never get to 100%. And a high bar on such actions would have meant the rules would never have been enforceable.
I agree. The car would never hand-over in such an emergency, and anyone who asserts that it would or should is an idiot Luddite. That was the gist of my point.
Now in case the driver is drunk or has no license, I would expect that there is a "can't drive" button that he presses, and the car would either try to turn around and get out of the situation, or would just stop.
At first, the cars would call AAA or the manufacturer's included roadside assistance. Perhaps an On Star type service for the car to "explain" why it can't continue, and the driver to explain why he can't continue, so a sober decision maker with the ability to direct the car remotely, not drive, but direct, can make the decision for the best course of action.
Stopping for an unknown situation isn't an emergency. There's a lot of time for someone to control the situation, even if that someone isn't in the car. And some non-emergencies require action. If a tree is down, blocking a road, do you just turn around? Or do you stop, notify the passengers, and call it in to the highway patrol so they can work on clearing it? Does it matter if someone is already there, clearing it, and they'll be done in 10 minutes, and the alternate route will take 30 minutes more? What if the numbers are both 20 minutes, so the rational decision is to wait (using less fuel, for the same result), but the arrival time is critical, and the alternate route will be less risk, and waiting for it to be cleared is more variable?
Human drivers now can't handle this. Most will take the alternate route, as it feels like progress, even if it's progress in the wrong direction. But the rational decision may be to wait.
I find it funny that most complaints about computer drivers is that they might not do what an irrational driver would do. Even if optimal, if it isn't what I'd do, then it's the wrong thing.
It is easy for EPA to have a huge negative impact on society and any industry it involves itself in./quote>It's easy for the military to have a huge negative impact on society and any industry it involves itself in. Are you arguing that the EPA is *worse* than no EPA? That since the EPA started, the benefits to the quality of life aren't worth the costs to the industries it has involved itself in? Overall, has the EPA done good or bad?
Because if this law passes, the cost for the EPA to function will increase greatly, and what it does, good or bad, will be reduced.
It started under a Republican, but it got bad under a Democrat, so let's blame the Democrats. I've heard that with Vietnam as well. It was Eisenhower that ordered democratic elections in Vietnam be disrupted to prevent democracy, fearing a vote favoring the North, and Eisenhower who sent in the first US troops, and under Eisenhower when the first US soldier was killed. But Kennedy sent more people in trying to clean up Eisenhower's mess, and LBJ get the largest share of the "blame". ISIS started under Bush, but got worse under Obama, so it's 100% Obama's fault. Got it. It's all the Democrat's fault. Care to blame Obama for the lunar and solar calendars not lining up?
And no, I'm not a Democrat. I don't like either of them. But the hypocrisy doesn't seem to be even between their supporters.
No, Your job is to have a license so that the rules on driverless cars don't need law changes. You aren't supposed to touch the controls unless KITT asks you to.
So you never ride drunk in a cab in case the cabbie has a heart attack? For every argument about this, substitute chauffeured car for self-driven car and run it through that filter first.
You'll find that people hold self-driven cars to a much higher standard than we have today. I think people just fear change.
Driving on the road isn't the problem, it's driving on the road and not hitting the deer that just ran into it, or avoiding the knucklehead who just swerved into your lane because he's drunk.
That's not a solved problem for a licensed driver, so why is it a requirement for a computer driver?
Part of the problem with your question is, the answer for humans won't agree. Stay in your lane and ignore it is likely the best answer if your goal is minimizing injury, but not if you are minimizing property damage. For that, staying in your lane and engaging maximum braking would likely be best. The usual human response is to swerve wildly to avoid the collision. More people die from trees trying to avoid deer than are injured from hitting one. But people would still want the computer to swerve.
It's an illogical emotional response that makes computer drivers impossible. Not because making the car do what you want is hard, but because articulating what you would want it to do is hard.
Yeah, we need pilots because a plane isn't safe in failure modes. A car (usually) is. It slows down and stops. It doesn't fall out of the sky. Well, I guess it could, if the failure were really spectacular.
My biggest issue with them is I can't get people to tell me how they work. If you are coming up to a blind corner, and the "safe" speed (the speed at which you could stop if there was a hidden brick wall at the point of least visibility) is 20 mph, yet the average driver takes the corner at 55 mph, and the car can physically take the corner at 80 mph, would you, shoud you program the car to go 20 mph, or 80 mph, or some other speed?
The problems with the discussion are that we don't know what we want it to do, not that we are worried it won't do it. Can the "driver" tune the car to "most safe" or "best time" or "average traffic" modes?
Whether it works is not up for discussion until someone can answer what "works" is.
As stated above, a half a century has not perfected "self driving" anything else. It's much better today than 50plus years ago but not even close to the point where you can fly without a human.
That's a legal, not technical issue. We have self-driving drones. But we won't trust a self-driving drone with flying a human around. That's the difference. We have 100% automatic driving (cars and planes), but don't use them for legal, not technical, reasons.
How many will risk being stranded if automated systems begin shutting down because they are confused and overwhelmed by bad weather, outdated maps, or other unforeseen circumstances?
Fewer than get stranded because they run out of gas today.
Automated cars suck. Horribly. They don't work. And they are still many many times better than the aggressive, dumb uncoordinated animals we give drivers licenses today.
Given that operator handoff is most likely to happen either under relatively hairy conditions, or when some system failure has left the automated systems unable to cope,
Disagree 100%. I think handoff will be in quiet, planned circumstances. More like an airplane autopilot than a dumb cruise control that has a high chance of spinning out in hydroplane situations, or would happily ram you into the back of the car in front or run you of the road if you stopped paying attention long enough.
If the weather is getting bad, the car would warn the driver. Then 5+ minutes later, if the driver orders the car to continue into the unsafe situation, the car will pull over in the nearest safe spot, and call AAA or the manufacturer or whatever to report a fault.
Ah, so by the rules in this law, Global Warming can never be proven. Just like it's never been proven that smoking causes cancer. No study on that is "reproducable" because anything that would prove a link by exposing humans to smoke is unethical (thus illegal). It's illegal to prove smoking causes cancer, and thus illegal to repoduce any proof to that effect, so the EPA couldn't regulate smoke, because nobody can replicate a study proving smoke (or lead, or whatever) causes problems in humans.
So, is it malice or stupidity that gives us this catch 22 that makes all effective regulation illegal, and only ineffective regulation could be legal? I vote malice.
And, since all lawyers are morons, it'll take generations to settle on a definition, and every new rule will be challenged and argued for decades.
If it's so simple and clear, why didn't they follow the standard practice and define it in the front of the law under definitions? And no, I don't know it's not there. I haven't seen the full law yet. But if it's not there, it should be vetoed on principle. Let Congress define the word in the law, or block the law.
I don't want to waste taxpayer money on settling all these issues in the courts. Why do you want to give the courts more power and waste billions on litigation?
Slashdot Mirror
She may have committed a security breach, but it's hard to tell, because of all the lies from the accusers, the answers get muddled. It's not illegal to exclusively use personal email for official work at the federal level (it is at the state level in Alaska, why Palin is held to a higher standard, as is continually pointed out by the Hillary haters). She broke no law simply by using email. Then the accusations move on to confidential information she "breached", but then, there are so many accusations that are guesses, that it's hard to tell which are based in fact.
And now your problem with her is on the level of "she made a single personal local call at no cost, from the government phone, and that's misuse of government equipment." The problem is, that everyone uses government equipment for personal business when it doesn't cause cost. The idea is that small amounts of "personal" use are "authorized" as under those rules.
I also saw where the existing security team said they didn't need it. You wouldn't find a group of marines that would hold up their hands and admit they can't hold an embassy. So who do you listen to, the trained security force, or a scared diplomat, who also wants more lobster shipped over.
EPA will have to prove reproducibility, not actually reproduce it. Read again, slower this time, and without the rabid frothing at the mouth.
The law requires it be reproducible. If someone claims it isn't. How do you think that would be settled in a lawsuit? I think the only way would be for the EPA to prove reproducibility of it. If you think that requires actually reproducing it, then that's your opinion, not mine, even if I were to agree with it, I hadn't said it.
So you prefer ones that shit on the Windows community? Windows is larger, and the people on it have proven they are willing to pay for software. Seems to be a better target market for a for-profit company.
File a FOIA request for what the head of the FBI had to eat yesterday. He replies that the FOIA request is denied, because National Security. You look and find he had lunch with the president, and that day's menu is on whitehouse.gov. So you know what he had for lunch, but he's denying other related things for National Security, when it's provably not true because you know some of it from other sources that don't think it's National Security sensitive information. Sounds like lies to get out of FOIA requests. I think that's the point.
If Canada sent him back, it's a deportation. Deporting your own citizen is called "exile" and is illegal under modern treaties and international law. He'd be deported again to Canada when he got back to DR, as he likely wouldn't have the right to stay there permanently.
Of course, to stop the bouncing like that, International law only allows deportation to a country you have a "right" to be in.
And most places (local, not international law) don't allow someone to flee after getting stopped for an "illegal" act. You can't get stopped by customs for smuggling, and choose to return to your previous country to avoid prosecution.
I don't know what I did, or do, but I've never flown in the US without getting one of the TSA inspection notices put in my luggage, at least not since they started using them.
Do you think Canada wants a Detroit refugee? I didn't have any issues crossing in Montana. They were polite, but then they were polite at the US side when driving into Alaska a few days later.
In Windows, with file extensions blocked, you look at the "file type" field to make that determination. One would be notepad, one wordpad, and one I don't know how windows would report it. They are all uniquely identifiable. If associated with different applications, the application would be identified.
In order for a computer driver to be a viable replacement for a real driver, it doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be as good or better than a human driver.
I disagree. I see people calling for perfection, and I think that if every car was self-driving next year and the death toll in the USA was 20,000 dead people, that there'd be lots of lawsuits as the great macro-level reduction in deaths was objected to on a micro-level.
People are irrational about driving, and any decision that the computer makes that isn't provably perfect, will be challenged later by someone who lies and says they'd have taken the better action.
You are being obtuse. The equivalent is that the anti-environment crowd is asserting that gravity doesn't exist because Newton didn't publish the weight of the apple that fell from the tree.
And there's a consensus that gravity exists, and is roughly equal to the product of masses of the bodies and a constant, divided by the square od the distance between them.
Are you arguing that there's no scientific consensus about the Theory of Gravity? Remember, "It's just a theory", as that's the battle cry for Luddites that don't like any other scientific consensus or theory, like the Theory of Evolution.
The science now is getting correlations that are quite tight, and there's been more looking into the effects of lead poisoning that show mechanisms for that. The science is leaning heavily on the lead being linked to the crime rises in the '70s and '80s that were, at the time, blamed on blacks and crack. The crime correlates with lead in the environment, not race or drug use (though the last two correlate with the first, as the lead smelter in Dallas was in the middle of the poor, black area, so segregated because at the time, in the '50s, when the area was built up, the pollution was known).
But the science may never get to 100%. And a high bar on such actions would have meant the rules would never have been enforceable.
Now in case the driver is drunk or has no license, I would expect that there is a "can't drive" button that he presses, and the car would either try to turn around and get out of the situation, or would just stop.
At first, the cars would call AAA or the manufacturer's included roadside assistance. Perhaps an On Star type service for the car to "explain" why it can't continue, and the driver to explain why he can't continue, so a sober decision maker with the ability to direct the car remotely, not drive, but direct, can make the decision for the best course of action.
Stopping for an unknown situation isn't an emergency. There's a lot of time for someone to control the situation, even if that someone isn't in the car. And some non-emergencies require action. If a tree is down, blocking a road, do you just turn around? Or do you stop, notify the passengers, and call it in to the highway patrol so they can work on clearing it? Does it matter if someone is already there, clearing it, and they'll be done in 10 minutes, and the alternate route will take 30 minutes more? What if the numbers are both 20 minutes, so the rational decision is to wait (using less fuel, for the same result), but the arrival time is critical, and the alternate route will be less risk, and waiting for it to be cleared is more variable?
Human drivers now can't handle this. Most will take the alternate route, as it feels like progress, even if it's progress in the wrong direction. But the rational decision may be to wait.
I find it funny that most complaints about computer drivers is that they might not do what an irrational driver would do. Even if optimal, if it isn't what I'd do, then it's the wrong thing.
Well. Since I'm a teetotaler myself, I technically NEVER ride drunk.
Irrelevant to the sanity test:
For every argument about this, substitute chauffeured car for self-driven car and run it through that filter first.
Because if they don't anonymize it, they could track down every person in the study to verify the integrity of the data. Wasn't that the point?
It is easy for EPA to have a huge negative impact on society and any industry it involves itself in./quote>It's easy for the military to have a huge negative impact on society and any industry it involves itself in. Are you arguing that the EPA is *worse* than no EPA? That since the EPA started, the benefits to the quality of life aren't worth the costs to the industries it has involved itself in? Overall, has the EPA done good or bad?
Because if this law passes, the cost for the EPA to function will increase greatly, and what it does, good or bad, will be reduced.
It started under a Republican, but it got bad under a Democrat, so let's blame the Democrats. I've heard that with Vietnam as well. It was Eisenhower that ordered democratic elections in Vietnam be disrupted to prevent democracy, fearing a vote favoring the North, and Eisenhower who sent in the first US troops, and under Eisenhower when the first US soldier was killed. But Kennedy sent more people in trying to clean up Eisenhower's mess, and LBJ get the largest share of the "blame". ISIS started under Bush, but got worse under Obama, so it's 100% Obama's fault. Got it. It's all the Democrat's fault. Care to blame Obama for the lunar and solar calendars not lining up?
And no, I'm not a Democrat. I don't like either of them. But the hypocrisy doesn't seem to be even between their supporters.
No, Your job is to have a license so that the rules on driverless cars don't need law changes. You aren't supposed to touch the controls unless KITT asks you to.
So you never ride drunk in a cab in case the cabbie has a heart attack? For every argument about this, substitute chauffeured car for self-driven car and run it through that filter first.
You'll find that people hold self-driven cars to a much higher standard than we have today. I think people just fear change.
Driving on the road isn't the problem, it's driving on the road and not hitting the deer that just ran into it, or avoiding the knucklehead who just swerved into your lane because he's drunk.
That's not a solved problem for a licensed driver, so why is it a requirement for a computer driver?
Part of the problem with your question is, the answer for humans won't agree. Stay in your lane and ignore it is likely the best answer if your goal is minimizing injury, but not if you are minimizing property damage. For that, staying in your lane and engaging maximum braking would likely be best. The usual human response is to swerve wildly to avoid the collision. More people die from trees trying to avoid deer than are injured from hitting one. But people would still want the computer to swerve.
It's an illogical emotional response that makes computer drivers impossible. Not because making the car do what you want is hard, but because articulating what you would want it to do is hard.
My biggest issue with them is I can't get people to tell me how they work. If you are coming up to a blind corner, and the "safe" speed (the speed at which you could stop if there was a hidden brick wall at the point of least visibility) is 20 mph, yet the average driver takes the corner at 55 mph, and the car can physically take the corner at 80 mph, would you, shoud you program the car to go 20 mph, or 80 mph, or some other speed?
The problems with the discussion are that we don't know what we want it to do, not that we are worried it won't do it. Can the "driver" tune the car to "most safe" or "best time" or "average traffic" modes?
Whether it works is not up for discussion until someone can answer what "works" is.
As stated above, a half a century has not perfected "self driving" anything else. It's much better today than 50plus years ago but not even close to the point where you can fly without a human.
That's a legal, not technical issue. We have self-driving drones. But we won't trust a self-driving drone with flying a human around. That's the difference. We have 100% automatic driving (cars and planes), but don't use them for legal, not technical, reasons.
How many will risk being stranded if automated systems begin shutting down because they are confused and overwhelmed by bad weather, outdated maps, or other unforeseen circumstances?
Fewer than get stranded because they run out of gas today.
Automated cars suck. Horribly. They don't work. And they are still many many times better than the aggressive, dumb uncoordinated animals we give drivers licenses today.
Given that operator handoff is most likely to happen either under relatively hairy conditions, or when some system failure has left the automated systems unable to cope,
Disagree 100%. I think handoff will be in quiet, planned circumstances. More like an airplane autopilot than a dumb cruise control that has a high chance of spinning out in hydroplane situations, or would happily ram you into the back of the car in front or run you of the road if you stopped paying attention long enough.
If the weather is getting bad, the car would warn the driver. Then 5+ minutes later, if the driver orders the car to continue into the unsafe situation, the car will pull over in the nearest safe spot, and call AAA or the manufacturer or whatever to report a fault.
Ah, so by the rules in this law, Global Warming can never be proven. Just like it's never been proven that smoking causes cancer. No study on that is "reproducable" because anything that would prove a link by exposing humans to smoke is unethical (thus illegal). It's illegal to prove smoking causes cancer, and thus illegal to repoduce any proof to that effect, so the EPA couldn't regulate smoke, because nobody can replicate a study proving smoke (or lead, or whatever) causes problems in humans.
So, is it malice or stupidity that gives us this catch 22 that makes all effective regulation illegal, and only ineffective regulation could be legal? I vote malice.
And, since all lawyers are morons, it'll take generations to settle on a definition, and every new rule will be challenged and argued for decades.
If it's so simple and clear, why didn't they follow the standard practice and define it in the front of the law under definitions? And no, I don't know it's not there. I haven't seen the full law yet. But if it's not there, it should be vetoed on principle. Let Congress define the word in the law, or block the law.
I don't want to waste taxpayer money on settling all these issues in the courts. Why do you want to give the courts more power and waste billions on litigation?