This conclusion you have is because you're paranoid.
Modern cars already have wireless communication attached to their security systems. Government mandated backdoors wouldn't require a wide-ranging communications network to work.
Yes, but a punchline is important, because, you know, the punchy bit. The sudden subversion of expectations. A witty play on words is just so much better than this lazy approach you're pretending is "subtle".
There's so many good ones too, you could have implied that you're a jerk that honks your horn all the time at minor infractions, or any number of backhanded references to flipping the bird. Even "texting while driving" jokes would've been easy.
Yes, but abuse of power is always going to a problem, no matter how much of a hardass you are about this specific issue. Pointlessly punishing people who are easily understood to have done nothing wrong is worse.
Of course that can't be helped, because sometimes the laws themselves are poorly written or out of date. The judicial is more subjective than the executive is more subjective than the legislative. By necessity. Because all sorts of real world complexities start flowing into the nice tidy neat(ha) laws that have been written.
Oh, but the evidence is there. There's witness testimony, and while circumstantial, missing footage at exactly the right moment could easily be represented as corroboration of the testimony.
The defense would then have to come up with a narrative that sheds reasonable doubts on that interpretation.
In a court of law, conspicuous absence of evidence tends to get a bit of attention.
That seems to be the pervading problem with nanoscale [X] is that the creation process seems to require an expert with sophisticated instruments manually controlling manipulation tools like lasers to arrange the circuits. It's probably something that could be automated.
Is there any sort of tech in progress that addresses that problem?
I don't think there is an ultimate goal. It's easier to see through the lens of people trying to use the educational system to justify their own personal beliefs.
And why exactly does the scientific method do that? I think you'll find that the utility of falsification is established philosophically, not by observational fiat.
Yep, those ancient Egyptians and Chinese and Mayans weren't civilizations. Thank you for your totally informed perspective.
"My definition of civilization hinges on the thing I declared caused civilization, thus proving me right" might not be the clever argument you think it is.
Slashdot Mirror
How scary.
Law enforcement officers, able to help enforce the law and return stolen property. Oh! Why didn't we listen?!
Yes, go ahead. Please I assume your familiarity there means you're ready to actually answer the damned question.
This conclusion you have is because you're paranoid.
Modern cars already have wireless communication attached to their security systems. Government mandated backdoors wouldn't require a wide-ranging communications network to work.
Yes, but a punchline is important, because, you know, the punchy bit. The sudden subversion of expectations. A witty play on words is just so much better than this lazy approach you're pretending is "subtle".
We're not asking for perfect. We're asking for better
And your solution to this problem, is, of course, to jail people who took pictures of rabbits.
Somehow... I don't think you thought this all the way through.
Except, what if that only means 2 bogus convictions a year?
And just-world-hypothesis believing assholes just go on without thinking they must've deserved it.
Because lemme tell you about American politics.
Is that harm/risk equal or greater than the benefit to automated systems' safety?
It makes me sad that you omitted the punchline.
There's so many good ones too, you could have implied that you're a jerk that honks your horn all the time at minor infractions, or any number of backhanded references to flipping the bird. Even "texting while driving" jokes would've been easy.
It's such an easy delivery, and nothing.
To be fair, electors from both parties often do things no one wants.
Yes, but abuse of power is always going to a problem, no matter how much of a hardass you are about this specific issue. Pointlessly punishing people who are easily understood to have done nothing wrong is worse.
Because they sound good. It's like a diploma mill PhD, it lends a ton of credence to your publications, while not actually meaning anything.
Of course that can't be helped, because sometimes the laws themselves are poorly written or out of date. The judicial is more subjective than the executive is more subjective than the legislative. By necessity. Because all sorts of real world complexities start flowing into the nice tidy neat(ha) laws that have been written.
Constitutional amendments libertarians don't like are unconstitutional FYI.
Oh, but the evidence is there. There's witness testimony, and while circumstantial, missing footage at exactly the right moment could easily be represented as corroboration of the testimony.
The defense would then have to come up with a narrative that sheds reasonable doubts on that interpretation.
In a court of law, conspicuous absence of evidence tends to get a bit of attention.
Oh, what laws did they have? Please tell me about egyptian law under the nomarchs?
What they had was a society. Implied restrictions on behavior aren't the same as laws.
Technically that would be either tribalism or barbarism
No, it's really not. Ancient China and Ancient Egypt both lacked formal legal systems for centuries while being organized empires.
That seems to be the pervading problem with nanoscale [X] is that the creation process seems to require an expert with sophisticated instruments manually controlling manipulation tools like lasers to arrange the circuits. It's probably something that could be automated.
Is there any sort of tech in progress that addresses that problem?
I don't think there is an ultimate goal. It's easier to see through the lens of people trying to use the educational system to justify their own personal beliefs.
There's no way to articulate how just hard I rolled my eyes at that over HTTP.
I can't see any other way to interpret that except as saying that science itself is beyond human comprehension and fundamental to the universe.
No, we're talking about "rule of law", bro. That's an actual thing with a definition and everything.
No, they're dealing with other big companies. Screwing over rich people for easy money is harder.
And why exactly does the scientific method do that? I think you'll find that the utility of falsification is established philosophically, not by observational fiat.
Nah, I doubt that they want to go much further back than feudalism. Definitely after the advent of rule of law by a couple millennia.
Yep, those ancient Egyptians and Chinese and Mayans weren't civilizations. Thank you for your totally informed perspective.
"My definition of civilization hinges on the thing I declared caused civilization, thus proving me right" might not be the clever argument you think it is.