(1) Paper receipts should be required if the customer asks (2) Electronic receipts shouldn't require the customer to provide any information other than an email address ("burner" emails are easy to get).
Of course, this is only a proposal -- lots of things get proposed in CA without many of them actually becoming law.
I see your point, but I also see that you're throwing out some false equivalences.
Having restaurants not give out straws unless a patron asks for one is good policy -- no one is losing anything, and straws that people don't use don't end up polluting the environment.
It's a real reach to compare such a policy with cameras inside homes and cars.
Problem is that a "twitchy" car is more likely to run off the road if a driver is startled. Joysticks excel at FAST control, steering wheels work well for FINE control, which is what's needed when you're driving close to other vehicles and pedestrians.
Also, a wheel provides enough leverage to steer manually if the power assist system fails.
(Circa 2035) -- Developing countries with less money for stupid tech, a generally lower respect for rule of law, and a lower value on human life still exist. I'd say that the idea of moving to parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, or Latin America would be awfully appealing for me right about then...
Maybe in Europe, where privacy is considered by the EU to be a civil right. Not in the US, where a lot of judges read the Constitution literally and would laugh at UN authority over anything.
Anyone who connects their cell phone to a rental car and allows it to access contacts is pretty dumb. Bonus points for the people who don't even erase Bluetooth settings and logs before returning the car.
One of many reasons why I hope for economic and social collapse in the very near future -- if it sets tech back a few decades and puts us in a new dark age, this might actually be a good thing for humanity.
No. They're corporatist filth -- corporate paternalism dates back to Henry Ford (rot in hell), who used private investigators to catch his employees drinking off the job and fire them. Unfettered capitalism and Soviet-style Communism are just two sides of the same authoritarian coin.
Consumers have no understanding of technology. Most of them won't realize how much data the automakers offload. They'll only think: "It will keep my cheeeeeeellllldddreeeen saaaaaafe." Cowardice 101.
I rather like 80s-tech cars -- the NA Miata (designed in 1988 or so) is basically the pinnacle of automotive engineering. Give me an electric version without Tesla-style connected spyware crap, and I'd drive it forever. Even with an old-school steering wheel, aquaplaning, poor crash safety, and lack of ability to fly.
Only a few Northeastern states (other than MD/DC/VA) have them, and their use is generally limited to school zones. California also prohibits them. They're typiclaly used more in "low tax" states as a substitute for taxation.
Setting speed limits in the US tends to be done by politicians, not by engineers. Outside of a few Western states, they're set so that people exceed them by 5-10 mph, giving police an excuse to stop and run the IDs of virtually anyone in a car. That's one of the reasons police unions opposed higher limits, since it removed "probable cause" to look for drugs or 90% of the other bullshit that American cops do.
Germany also sets speed limits on motorways at actual safe speeds, not speeds where police have an excuse to stop virtually anybody that they don't like the looks of.
Better to give the average working person "free shit" than only giving mega-corporations and defense contractors "free shit." (Wars paid for at public expense, corrupt defense contracts, tax breaks for moving to a city.)
The rich have been getting "free shit" for decades in the US; why are you so against the rest of the people getting a bit of a leg up?
NOT being violent and anti-social sometimes means taking whatever abuse a greedy government is able to dish out lying down. Being violent and anti-social have their place -- I bet the British called the American colonists by the same epiphets.
This wasn't a question of speed cameras -- this is a question of the Macron government raising taxes on everyone while giving the rich and corporations tax breaks. aka disproportionally soaking the poor and middle classes.
If we're talking about the US, speed limits should be something like 25-30 mph (40-50 km/h) in towns where traffic mixes with pedestrians and cyclists, higher on highways with only motor vehicles (closer to 75-80 mph or 120-130km/h).
Slashdot Mirror
(1) Paper receipts should be required if the customer asks
(2) Electronic receipts shouldn't require the customer to provide any information other than an email address ("burner" emails are easy to get).
Of course, this is only a proposal -- lots of things get proposed in CA without many of them actually becoming law.
Landlord-tenant laws and home privacy protections are generally extremely strong as compared to laws pertaining to privacy in cars.
I see your point, but I also see that you're throwing out some false equivalences.
Having restaurants not give out straws unless a patron asks for one is good policy -- no one is losing anything, and straws that people don't use don't end up polluting the environment.
It's a real reach to compare such a policy with cameras inside homes and cars.
SAAB used to make cars, Airbus can too, apparently...
That's one possible outcome -- the other is a French Revolutionary style leveling.
Problem is that a "twitchy" car is more likely to run off the road if a driver is startled. Joysticks excel at FAST control, steering wheels work well for FINE control, which is what's needed when you're driving close to other vehicles and pedestrians.
Also, a wheel provides enough leverage to steer manually if the power assist system fails.
"If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going!" :D
How about just having a few kids and letting them have a food fight? FOOD! FIGHT! FOOD! FIGHT!
Sadly doesn't apply in the United Shitholes, and cars are already typically very differently designed for different continents' markets.
(Circa 2035) -- Developing countries with less money for stupid tech, a generally lower respect for rule of law, and a lower value on human life still exist. I'd say that the idea of moving to parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, or Latin America would be awfully appealing for me right about then...
Maybe in Europe, where privacy is considered by the EU to be a civil right. Not in the US, where a lot of judges read the Constitution literally and would laugh at UN authority over anything.
Anyone who connects their cell phone to a rental car and allows it to access contacts is pretty dumb. Bonus points for the people who don't even erase Bluetooth settings and logs before returning the car.
One of many reasons why I hope for economic and social collapse in the very near future -- if it sets tech back a few decades and puts us in a new dark age, this might actually be a good thing for humanity.
No. They're corporatist filth -- corporate paternalism dates back to Henry Ford (rot in hell), who used private investigators to catch his employees drinking off the job and fire them. Unfettered capitalism and Soviet-style Communism are just two sides of the same authoritarian coin.
Consumers have no understanding of technology. Most of them won't realize how much data the automakers offload. They'll only think: "It will keep my cheeeeeeellllldddreeeen saaaaaafe." Cowardice 101.
I rather like 80s-tech cars -- the NA Miata (designed in 1988 or so) is basically the pinnacle of automotive engineering. Give me an electric version without Tesla-style connected spyware crap, and I'd drive it forever. Even with an old-school steering wheel, aquaplaning, poor crash safety, and lack of ability to fly.
https://www.amazon.com/YunList...
YunListen adapter with a 3.5mm jack -- supports DLNA as well as direct music streaming from a NAS.
If the neighbor's car got impounded and sold at city auction, it's perfectly legal to buy it and change the ignition keys.
They were counterproductive because they weren't violent enough. Clearly, the American Revolution was violent enough to be productive. :)
Yep, traps like this are a problem -- there should be a Federal law to pull highway funding for states that use tricks like this.
Only a few Northeastern states (other than MD/DC/VA) have them, and their use is generally limited to school zones. California also prohibits them. They're typiclaly used more in "low tax" states as a substitute for taxation.
Setting speed limits in the US tends to be done by politicians, not by engineers. Outside of a few Western states, they're set so that people exceed them by 5-10 mph, giving police an excuse to stop and run the IDs of virtually anyone in a car. That's one of the reasons police unions opposed higher limits, since it removed "probable cause" to look for drugs or 90% of the other bullshit that American cops do.
Germany also sets speed limits on motorways at actual safe speeds, not speeds where police have an excuse to stop virtually anybody that they don't like the looks of.
Better to give the average working person "free shit" than only giving mega-corporations and defense contractors "free shit." (Wars paid for at public expense, corrupt defense contracts, tax breaks for moving to a city.)
The rich have been getting "free shit" for decades in the US; why are you so against the rest of the people getting a bit of a leg up?
NOT being violent and anti-social sometimes means taking whatever abuse a greedy government is able to dish out lying down. Being violent and anti-social have their place -- I bet the British called the American colonists by the same epiphets. This wasn't a question of speed cameras -- this is a question of the Macron government raising taxes on everyone while giving the rich and corporations tax breaks. aka disproportionally soaking the poor and middle classes.
If we're talking about the US, speed limits should be something like 25-30 mph (40-50 km/h) in towns where traffic mixes with pedestrians and cyclists, higher on highways with only motor vehicles (closer to 75-80 mph or 120-130km/h).