If it's all lies, why do all the published facts prove you wrong and me right? THe path down the back of the two rows of houses is an "alley" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
What part of that map or definition of alley don't you like?
If a thug invade a home, with only the wife present, is this ok for her to get raped / killed, or can she DEFEND HERSELF and shoot the bastard ?
Ah, so you are a lying sack of shit that will talk about home invasions and SELF DEFENSE, then equate that with a cop who runs into danger, leaving himself no option but to open fire?
Stick to one lying strawman, when you move the goalposts so fast, I don't even know what your point is.
In their defense, you are taking a small hole. In reality, most of the time a small hole opens, the hole rips wide and takes off sections of the plane. A small bullet hole in the skin wouldn't hurt anyone. But if that causes a structural failure that rips the top off half the plane, other problems could happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
No freedom I have was won with rifles. The last war for my "freedom" was in the 1700s, and rifles weren't commonly used at the time, though they were present.
All the wars since were by two sides who both wanted to restrict, not expand my freedoms.
Does anyone know of an OSS backup where you can "hide" the target USB drive or partition from the user (so the ransomware won't just up and pave it over along with the My Documents, Desktop, D:, Local network drive targets)
Not OSS, but every major commercial package will allow remotely-triggered backups. Your server (no shares, the user can't get there) kicks off the backup, and pulls the data to it. Secure, and not shared on the network. I'm sure OSS would have something to do that, as that's the standard architecture for all commercial backups. Only the home backups are simple copy backups triggered from the end user.
They are on the Vatican time frame for apologies. I think the Vatican holds the record for the longest time from incident to apology. It's a challenge.
He committed homicide. I don't know the specifics of local law for whether it should be called "homicide" or "murder" or "manslaughter". He approached a dangerous person, initiated contact, then shot them.
The question is, will you run in armed, cornering them before they attack, or drive a car at them, shouting threats at them, before you "innocently" get attacked by the people you are harassing, and have to fight back with deadly force you happen to keep on you for just such occasions.
He attacked the suspects first. If he were unarmed, he'd have waited for the backup he supposedly called. And everyone would be alive. Unarmed cops are safer for themselves and others.
He was in a running car, confronted by people who were unarmed. He rolled down his window and left his car. If he were to have simply driven off and waited for backup, he'd have died how? OR are you saying that after he got out of the car and charged the two people, if he were unarmed at that point, he'd have been in trouble. Yes, and if I hopped into the tiger cage at the zoo and poked the tiger, I'd be in trouble too. Doesn't mean we should give guns to all zoo goers, and put ladders up to make climbing into the tiger cage easier.
The fact he killed someone should have generated a public trial. A closed door session with secret evidence presented to a (mostly) white jury didn't meet the public's demands.
Prosecutors can't do a damn thing unless they present that grand jury with compelling evidence and the GRAND JURY decides there's probable cause to bring charges.
Prosecutors control everything the grand jury sees. Grand juries are behind closed doors. So how do you know that the prosecutor doesn't lie to the grand jury?
I don't know why, but the coverage of Martin/Zimmerman was better. I don't know any of the details in the Brown case. For Martin/Zimmerman, the head of the neichborhood watch claims he followed Martin down a blind alley because he was lost, one block from his house, in a neighborhood he patrols regularly. After following the "suspect" down a blind alley, and trapping the dangerous person in a dead-end alley, he was approached by the suspect. Shots were fired. It isn't a case of duty to retreat or justifiable use of force. It is a new legal question. Can you deliberately put yourself into a situation where you think you'll need to use deadly force?
Call it the "poking the tiger" defense. Just because he went out looking for trouble, and found it, doesn't mean he loses any right to defend himself. If I were on the jury, the "facts" as presented by Zimmerman are enough for me to convict. He didn't have a duty to retreat, but he had a duty to not advance. His excuse that he was lost in a small gated community that he regularly patrols doesn't sound plausible.
But for the Brown case, I have never heard either side's version of the events.
The paid troublemakers. They make the biggest noise and are often inserted to stir up the crowd and get a counter-protest movement in those less affected. The FBI and CIA did it in the '60s to get the general population against counter-culture movements. But for some reason, I get accused of being a tinfoil hat type by pointing out history. People will repeat it.
Even assuming that the programming is perfect, which would be very unlikely, the Ram and CPU cores can have errors due to heat, impacts from subatomic particles and other reasons. The estimated incidence for errors due to particle impacts is about once a year, but even that is often enough to worry about in something like an automobile. Not to mention errors in the design of the hardware.
Oh, I didn't realize they stopped making buffered ECC RAM.
But my major concern is in the software, which would be suficiently large that it might be slower than humans to react to dangers.
It might take longer to identify a hazard, but it should act faster in all cases. Also the response will be optimal in more cases. Not because software is good, but because people are dumb. Most people, seeing a deer in the road, swerve. That's the wrong thing to do in almost all cases. Brake in a straight line. The deer might move, it might not. But the number of people who die in head-ons and tree strikes from dodging deer is non-zero and should be zero.
The hardest part of the programming is the ethics. So you hit a deer. Do you hit a dog? Child? Object that is 60% child, 40% other, and if you wait for a 100% ID, you'll have no choice but to hit it?
Also at that size the number of bugs will be quite significant, and debugging is not something that usually is taught in school.
debugging is taught in university programming classes. It isn't taught in the Programming for Dummies books, or many of the trade schools. But it is taught.
You assume that if I had all your experiences, I'd come to the same conclusion. I have similar experience, and still trust a computer over a person. A computer does what you tell it 100% of the time. That you are a programmer with vast experience not being able to make them do what you want is irrelevant. You should know that they always do what you tell them to, and "errors" are almost universally on the part of the programmer, not the computer.
Or are you asserting that computers do something other than what they are told to do?
No, we assume they knew about it, but middle management said "that'll never happen, just protect it from outside threats." Our experience with middle management is that they have the obvious pointed out to them, and they dismiss it, then order the opposite be done.
However, if that were true, then you would expect that the most unsafe drivers, the drunk drivers and those who who can't maintain a valid driver's license would have a far smaller share of the highway deaths than they actually do
The drunk driving statistics are invalid. If you slip a date a roofie, and you screw up the dose and kill them, then toss the body in the trunk and drive them to your body-drop. You stop at a red light, and are rear-ended by an elderly driver (sober) that fell asleep driving 20 mph in a 55 mph road, the crash would be listed as "alcohol involved" and "speed related", despite neither of those being the cause.
When that's the proper recording of that incident by federal recording standards, the system is broken.
Second, there is this unwarranted assertion that we can make self-driving vehicles substantially safer than any human driver.
That's a lie. I've not seen anyone state that, and certainly not me.
You are the one focusing on safety. Most of the rest of us are pointing out the benefit that it will greatly increase road capacity. Why do you ignore that and focus solely on safety, ignoring other's statements and making up strawman lies to talk about?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.hlntv.com/interacti...
If it's all lies, why do all the published facts prove you wrong and me right? THe path down the back of the two rows of houses is an "alley" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
What part of that map or definition of alley don't you like?
If a thug invade a home, with only the wife present, is this ok for her to get raped / killed, or can she DEFEND HERSELF and shoot the bastard ?
Ah, so you are a lying sack of shit that will talk about home invasions and SELF DEFENSE, then equate that with a cop who runs into danger, leaving himself no option but to open fire?
Stick to one lying strawman, when you move the goalposts so fast, I don't even know what your point is.
In their defense, you are taking a small hole. In reality, most of the time a small hole opens, the hole rips wide and takes off sections of the plane. A small bullet hole in the skin wouldn't hurt anyone. But if that causes a structural failure that rips the top off half the plane, other problems could happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
10% on *everyone's* income starting at the first dime
No taxes on property, fuel, death, profits, income, etc.
Death is only taxed as an alternative to, not addition to, income taxes. So death taxes, profit taxes, income taxes are on income.
As your plan is inconsistent, I can only assume you gave it as much thought as your description of it shows... None. And that shows.
No freedom I have was won with rifles. The last war for my "freedom" was in the 1700s, and rifles weren't commonly used at the time, though they were present.
All the wars since were by two sides who both wanted to restrict, not expand my freedoms.
Does anyone know of an OSS backup where you can "hide" the target USB drive or partition from the user (so the ransomware won't just up and pave it over along with the My Documents, Desktop, D:, Local network drive targets)
Not OSS, but every major commercial package will allow remotely-triggered backups. Your server (no shares, the user can't get there) kicks off the backup, and pulls the data to it. Secure, and not shared on the network. I'm sure OSS would have something to do that, as that's the standard architecture for all commercial backups. Only the home backups are simple copy backups triggered from the end user.
They are on the Vatican time frame for apologies. I think the Vatican holds the record for the longest time from incident to apology. It's a challenge.
BYOD done right is *more* secure than not. Done wrong is worse. That's the same with almost anything.
So the cop saw a suspect in a violent crime, and DEFENDED HIMSELF by approaching the dangerous person, threatening them, and escalating the situation?
No, he caused a confrontation, then shot an unarmed person. That's hunting, not SELF DEFENSE.
A trial of what charge?
He committed homicide. I don't know the specifics of local law for whether it should be called "homicide" or "murder" or "manslaughter". He approached a dangerous person, initiated contact, then shot them.
The CIA. That's what Reagan had (Bush was CIA), and Bush, and Bush Jr. The CIA is involved in the selection of the presidents in the USA.
The question is, will you run in armed, cornering them before they attack, or drive a car at them, shouting threats at them, before you "innocently" get attacked by the people you are harassing, and have to fight back with deadly force you happen to keep on you for just such occasions.
He attacked the suspects first. If he were unarmed, he'd have waited for the backup he supposedly called. And everyone would be alive. Unarmed cops are safer for themselves and others.
He was in a running car, confronted by people who were unarmed. He rolled down his window and left his car. If he were to have simply driven off and waited for backup, he'd have died how? OR are you saying that after he got out of the car and charged the two people, if he were unarmed at that point, he'd have been in trouble. Yes, and if I hopped into the tiger cage at the zoo and poked the tiger, I'd be in trouble too. Doesn't mean we should give guns to all zoo goers, and put ladders up to make climbing into the tiger cage easier.
The fact he killed someone should have generated a public trial. A closed door session with secret evidence presented to a (mostly) white jury didn't meet the public's demands.
So the death sentence handed out in the street by police is better? We can rename them "judges".
Prosecutors can't do a damn thing unless they present that grand jury with compelling evidence and the GRAND JURY decides there's probable cause to bring charges.
Prosecutors control everything the grand jury sees. Grand juries are behind closed doors. So how do you know that the prosecutor doesn't lie to the grand jury?
I don't know why, but the coverage of Martin/Zimmerman was better. I don't know any of the details in the Brown case. For Martin/Zimmerman, the head of the neichborhood watch claims he followed Martin down a blind alley because he was lost, one block from his house, in a neighborhood he patrols regularly. After following the "suspect" down a blind alley, and trapping the dangerous person in a dead-end alley, he was approached by the suspect. Shots were fired. It isn't a case of duty to retreat or justifiable use of force. It is a new legal question. Can you deliberately put yourself into a situation where you think you'll need to use deadly force?
Call it the "poking the tiger" defense. Just because he went out looking for trouble, and found it, doesn't mean he loses any right to defend himself. If I were on the jury, the "facts" as presented by Zimmerman are enough for me to convict. He didn't have a duty to retreat, but he had a duty to not advance. His excuse that he was lost in a small gated community that he regularly patrols doesn't sound plausible.
But for the Brown case, I have never heard either side's version of the events.
The paid troublemakers. They make the biggest noise and are often inserted to stir up the crowd and get a counter-protest movement in those less affected. The FBI and CIA did it in the '60s to get the general population against counter-culture movements. But for some reason, I get accused of being a tinfoil hat type by pointing out history. People will repeat it.
Even assuming that the programming is perfect, which would be very unlikely, the Ram and CPU cores can have errors due to heat, impacts from subatomic particles and other reasons. The estimated incidence for errors due to particle impacts is about once a year, but even that is often enough to worry about in something like an automobile. Not to mention errors in the design of the hardware.
Oh, I didn't realize they stopped making buffered ECC RAM.
But my major concern is in the software, which would be suficiently large that it might be slower than humans to react to dangers.
It might take longer to identify a hazard, but it should act faster in all cases. Also the response will be optimal in more cases. Not because software is good, but because people are dumb. Most people, seeing a deer in the road, swerve. That's the wrong thing to do in almost all cases. Brake in a straight line. The deer might move, it might not. But the number of people who die in head-ons and tree strikes from dodging deer is non-zero and should be zero.
The hardest part of the programming is the ethics. So you hit a deer. Do you hit a dog? Child? Object that is 60% child, 40% other, and if you wait for a 100% ID, you'll have no choice but to hit it?
Also at that size the number of bugs will be quite significant, and debugging is not something that usually is taught in school.
debugging is taught in university programming classes. It isn't taught in the Programming for Dummies books, or many of the trade schools. But it is taught.
You assume that if I had all your experiences, I'd come to the same conclusion. I have similar experience, and still trust a computer over a person. A computer does what you tell it 100% of the time. That you are a programmer with vast experience not being able to make them do what you want is irrelevant. You should know that they always do what you tell them to, and "errors" are almost universally on the part of the programmer, not the computer.
Or are you asserting that computers do something other than what they are told to do?
No, we assume they knew about it, but middle management said "that'll never happen, just protect it from outside threats." Our experience with middle management is that they have the obvious pointed out to them, and they dismiss it, then order the opposite be done.
Ah, so you've been scrubbing toilets since you were 6 months old. And are a 19 year old 9th grader, having been held back many times.
Nah, you are a hypocriical liar who refuses to answer simple questions about his asserted qualifications, while demanding the same of others.
Neither driver would be intoxicated.
Amazing, captain obvious. But it will be listed as a crash caused by a drunk driver, in federal statistics.
I'm unclear whether you are disagreeing with me, or FARS (and the cops that feed the data to it).
However, if that were true, then you would expect that the most unsafe drivers, the drunk drivers and those who who can't maintain a valid driver's license would have a far smaller share of the highway deaths than they actually do
The drunk driving statistics are invalid. If you slip a date a roofie, and you screw up the dose and kill them, then toss the body in the trunk and drive them to your body-drop. You stop at a red light, and are rear-ended by an elderly driver (sober) that fell asleep driving 20 mph in a 55 mph road, the crash would be listed as "alcohol involved" and "speed related", despite neither of those being the cause.
When that's the proper recording of that incident by federal recording standards, the system is broken.
Second, there is this unwarranted assertion that we can make self-driving vehicles substantially safer than any human driver.
That's a lie. I've not seen anyone state that, and certainly not me.
You are the one focusing on safety. Most of the rest of us are pointing out the benefit that it will greatly increase road capacity. Why do you ignore that and focus solely on safety, ignoring other's statements and making up strawman lies to talk about?