"Claim 'free market' while working hard to lock everyone else out of your industry'" is the first rule of business, and extends back to the first governments (and most religions).
Those are the only ones who can afford to be heard. Are you just jealous that when you sit on the street corner shouting at passer-bys, nobody listens to you?
The anti-profiling crowd doesn't like it but there are expectations of certain behaviors set by demonstrations of previous patterns based by geography and ethnicity.
Profiling works. When 90% of drug dealers are white, but 90% of people put in prison for drug dealing are Black, "profiling" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of racism. If you only arrest minorities for crime, they are the only ones caught doing it. Applies to rape too. You are a racist bastard. A lying bigot, and you are clinically insane. You should seek professional help. Seriously. You sound like a danger to yourself and others (though in your mind, mostly others, and you know you are too much a fat lazy bigot to actually get up and go outside, so you aren't "harmful", even when you meet all the clinical definitions).
Really? Someone is going to make a 'this product may drive through the side of a house if a cat runs in front of it' clause?
There are lots that are worse than that, and if you think that's how a self-driving car works, you are too dumb to use a computer. Please put it back in the box and return it where you got it.
You could be described as being just as looney for declaring yourself some arbiter of all that is true in the world.
Reality is the arbiter of what is real. Pointing out that you don't match reality doesn't make me The Arbiter. That you don't understand how reality works is another on your long list of mental illnesses. Seriously, it's a dangerous mental disease you have,
Fucking Alaska, I should have known.
Ah, and a bigot. I don't live in Alaska. I just have friends there, and lived there for a while. That you are a narrow-minded bigot is another to add to your mental diseases. You should seek help.
My goal here is to make sure that mentally ill people don't spread their lies unchecked. I'm only out to defend the truth, because it's silent when lying idiots like you make up stories about how someone somewhere giving their username would end you up on a watchlist. Yes, Google has the answer. It's never happened, and never will.
We already have laws that protect makers of certain products. We'll just "regulate" the auto industry in a manner than limits their liability to no more than the cost of the vehicle. That'll end all those pesky lawsuits.
Yes, you know the truth, about the government and the black helicopters, and anyone who asks for a single example is dismissed as a tool of the establishment.
"It happens" only in your mind. The government has all the data. They have so much, they can't do anything with it. It's never used as you describe. If it were, you'd be able to prove me wrong. You can't. You just point to one where it proved you wrong. The person who posted comments (And never gave up his username to the government) was punished for what he did, and nobody on his friends list was punished. Wow, exactly the opposite of what you assert, in every way.
But not over their username, or someone else giving their username. It was about jailing people who made threats, regardless of how they made them.
If their friends were jailed for simply being friends with them, then you'd have a point. But what you are describing is impossible, and not anywhere near what anyone wants to do.
In fact, your link proves you wrong. They had a username. They guessed the owner of the account. And they jailed the guessed owner of the account. The exact thing that you said can't happen, because they'd not be able to do it with just a "guess".
You proved yourself wrong. Great, we are both in agreement you are 100% wrong.
They have the username of one person. They would need cooperation from all the social media companies to do anything with it. So are you afraid of the government or Facebook?
There's nothing anyone could do with it. Worst case is nothing. Expected case is nothing. Nothing will happen, and even so, it's a proposal for an "optional" field. Nobody is talking about requiring it, and it's not in effect now, nor is it currently planned to be.
Ah, so you can recognize irony, just not understand it. And every definition of "universal" I can find allows for that statement to be true. That you can't figure it out is a limitation of your reasoning ability, not a problem with my statement.
So it's not a "privacy" issue, but a "fear of the government" issue. If you didn't lie to hide your paranoia, then I'd have been able to parse it without needing further clarification. You claim that publicly posting information is "private". Note, nowhere in TFS or TFA did they indicate they investigate "friends" of accounts of people entering. You are making many large unsubstantiated leaps to get to a conclusion you want to see.
There's a difference between age and old. Some people, like, say, Marisa Tomei may be 50+, but still looks younger than most 40-somethings and many 20-somethings. So she'd be unlikely to be condemned as "old" while others of the same age may have their age held against them. It's not your age, or risk of dying, but your "energy" and ability to take the stress and demands of the job.
it has privacy implications for those that have no intention of international travel and cannot be offered the opportunity to opt out.
Identifying the username of a person has a knock-on effect on everyone on the planet? This isn't login information. It's just the username of the one person. How is that an issue? You friend some terrorists, and you think that if they all give their username, it'll get you on a list?
That there is an exception doesn't invalidate the rule. The universal rule wouldn't even be applied absolutely. A computer can track those behind and infront as easily as just those in front. So, the rule would be invalidated when unsafe. Or, to follow it 100% of the time, you stop. When the truck behind you can't, you match their deceleration. If that fails, you'll be pushed into the car in front by the truck, but with minimized damage. As you said, swerving would be bad, because it could have taking you into oncoming traffic. So the safest thing can sometimes be the crash. When you have no other choice, you just minimise the impact speeds from all collisions.
I said you braked carelessly, and you objected in a manner I thought indicated you didn't brake. Instead, you were objecting to the characterization of your unsafe actions, not the actions taken. Just because braking can be done stupidly (And we'd expect nothing less from you) doesn't mean that it would be the wrong "default" action.
My statement is a standard rhetorical counterargument.
Oh, so you lied to make up a scenario that fit your argument, but didn't happen, and doesn't happen. " Instead of dodging, I braked and totaled my car." is an absolute in the past tense. Proper English in a rhetorical statement would have been something closer to "If, instead of dodging, I had braked, I'd have totaled my car." But basic English is beyond your abilities. You spent all your time on advanced assholery, and missed all the classes on basic grammar.
Can't work. Either you allow cars to spoof problems for lolz, or you have a centralized encryption system that locks you out of your own car.
At least that's how the nay-sayers say it. Better is a mix of the two, with mechanical backups. A car AI can run off of radar, IR, near IR with high-powered IR spot and flood lights (steered through adaptive optics to improve resolution of indistinct objects, and a 3D rendering broadcast to all nearby (a point-map based on the sender's location, with GPS-time and location and velocity, so mimimal information is broadcast, but enough for anyone to import a 3D rendering of it). Allow the inherited data to be repeated a few times, but not indefinitely, so everyone in a reasonable distance will know about it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Claim 'free market' while working hard to lock everyone else out of your industry'" is the first rule of business, and extends back to the first governments (and most religions).
Those are the only ones who can afford to be heard. Are you just jealous that when you sit on the street corner shouting at passer-bys, nobody listens to you?
The anti-profiling crowd doesn't like it but there are expectations of certain behaviors set by demonstrations of previous patterns based by geography and ethnicity.
Profiling works. When 90% of drug dealers are white, but 90% of people put in prison for drug dealing are Black, "profiling" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of racism. If you only arrest minorities for crime, they are the only ones caught doing it. Applies to rape too. You are a racist bastard. A lying bigot, and you are clinically insane. You should seek professional help. Seriously. You sound like a danger to yourself and others (though in your mind, mostly others, and you know you are too much a fat lazy bigot to actually get up and go outside, so you aren't "harmful", even when you meet all the clinical definitions).
Really? Someone is going to make a 'this product may drive through the side of a house if a cat runs in front of it' clause?
There are lots that are worse than that, and if you think that's how a self-driving car works, you are too dumb to use a computer. Please put it back in the box and return it where you got it.
You could be described as being just as looney for declaring yourself some arbiter of all that is true in the world.
Reality is the arbiter of what is real. Pointing out that you don't match reality doesn't make me The Arbiter. That you don't understand how reality works is another on your long list of mental illnesses. Seriously, it's a dangerous mental disease you have,
Fucking Alaska, I should have known.
Ah, and a bigot. I don't live in Alaska. I just have friends there, and lived there for a while. That you are a narrow-minded bigot is another to add to your mental diseases. You should seek help.
My goal here is to make sure that mentally ill people don't spread their lies unchecked. I'm only out to defend the truth, because it's silent when lying idiots like you make up stories about how someone somewhere giving their username would end you up on a watchlist. Yes, Google has the answer. It's never happened, and never will.
We already have laws that protect makers of certain products. We'll just "regulate" the auto industry in a manner than limits their liability to no more than the cost of the vehicle. That'll end all those pesky lawsuits.
Yes, you know the truth, about the government and the black helicopters, and anyone who asks for a single example is dismissed as a tool of the establishment.
You know, that's how mental diseases work.
Do you prefer the Office Space progress bar? 100 individual progress bars, 1 for each operation.
Self driving cars are easy and here because you don't need AI to beat the average driver.
Who would pay for that troll?
"It happens" only in your mind. The government has all the data. They have so much, they can't do anything with it. It's never used as you describe. If it were, you'd be able to prove me wrong. You can't. You just point to one where it proved you wrong. The person who posted comments (And never gave up his username to the government) was punished for what he did, and nobody on his friends list was punished. Wow, exactly the opposite of what you assert, in every way.
But not over their username, or someone else giving their username. It was about jailing people who made threats, regardless of how they made them.
If their friends were jailed for simply being friends with them, then you'd have a point. But what you are describing is impossible, and not anywhere near what anyone wants to do.
In fact, your link proves you wrong. They had a username. They guessed the owner of the account. And they jailed the guessed owner of the account. The exact thing that you said can't happen, because they'd not be able to do it with just a "guess".
You proved yourself wrong. Great, we are both in agreement you are 100% wrong.
Nobody in the history of the planet has been convicted because they gave a username.
You're not trolling hard enough.
And you assert that the government has all that capability, but can't make an educated guess of the username associated with the traveler's name?
Your idea of government is surprisingly competent and incompetent at the same time.
They have the username of one person. They would need cooperation from all the social media companies to do anything with it. So are you afraid of the government or Facebook?
There's nothing anyone could do with it. Worst case is nothing. Expected case is nothing. Nothing will happen, and even so, it's a proposal for an "optional" field. Nobody is talking about requiring it, and it's not in effect now, nor is it currently planned to be.
Ah, so you can recognize irony, just not understand it. And every definition of "universal" I can find allows for that statement to be true. That you can't figure it out is a limitation of your reasoning ability, not a problem with my statement.
So it's not a "privacy" issue, but a "fear of the government" issue. If you didn't lie to hide your paranoia, then I'd have been able to parse it without needing further clarification. You claim that publicly posting information is "private". Note, nowhere in TFS or TFA did they indicate they investigate "friends" of accounts of people entering. You are making many large unsubstantiated leaps to get to a conclusion you want to see.
Next time, look at the facts.
There's a difference between age and old. Some people, like, say, Marisa Tomei may be 50+, but still looks younger than most 40-somethings and many 20-somethings. So she'd be unlikely to be condemned as "old" while others of the same age may have their age held against them. It's not your age, or risk of dying, but your "energy" and ability to take the stress and demands of the job.
it has privacy implications for those that have no intention of international travel and cannot be offered the opportunity to opt out.
Identifying the username of a person has a knock-on effect on everyone on the planet? This isn't login information. It's just the username of the one person. How is that an issue? You friend some terrorists, and you think that if they all give their username, it'll get you on a list?
That there is an exception doesn't invalidate the rule. The universal rule wouldn't even be applied absolutely. A computer can track those behind and infront as easily as just those in front. So, the rule would be invalidated when unsafe. Or, to follow it 100% of the time, you stop. When the truck behind you can't, you match their deceleration. If that fails, you'll be pushed into the car in front by the truck, but with minimized damage. As you said, swerving would be bad, because it could have taking you into oncoming traffic. So the safest thing can sometimes be the crash. When you have no other choice, you just minimise the impact speeds from all collisions.
I said you braked carelessly, and you objected in a manner I thought indicated you didn't brake. Instead, you were objecting to the characterization of your unsafe actions, not the actions taken. Just because braking can be done stupidly (And we'd expect nothing less from you) doesn't mean that it would be the wrong "default" action.
My statement is a standard rhetorical counterargument.
The example was not rhetorical
So what did happen? Did you swerve? Did you brake? I honestly can't tell what actually happened from your words. You both swerved and braked.
My statement is a standard rhetorical counterargument.
Oh, so you lied to make up a scenario that fit your argument, but didn't happen, and doesn't happen. " Instead of dodging, I braked and totaled my car." is an absolute in the past tense. Proper English in a rhetorical statement would have been something closer to "If, instead of dodging, I had braked, I'd have totaled my car." But basic English is beyond your abilities. You spent all your time on advanced assholery, and missed all the classes on basic grammar.
Can't work. Either you allow cars to spoof problems for lolz, or you have a centralized encryption system that locks you out of your own car.
At least that's how the nay-sayers say it. Better is a mix of the two, with mechanical backups. A car AI can run off of radar, IR, near IR with high-powered IR spot and flood lights (steered through adaptive optics to improve resolution of indistinct objects, and a 3D rendering broadcast to all nearby (a point-map based on the sender's location, with GPS-time and location and velocity, so mimimal information is broadcast, but enough for anyone to import a 3D rendering of it). Allow the inherited data to be repeated a few times, but not indefinitely, so everyone in a reasonable distance will know about it.