Finding nothing is suspicious. Leave something in it that is 'embaressing' like old-people porn'. See that is legal, but embarressing. That means perhaps buying a DVD with the stuff if you think they will go after you for copyright infringement otherwise. The idea is to walk away, not only to not give the data. See it as an audit. If you leave something for them to find, they will be happy and you will know what to say when they find it. Unless they are really looking for something, they will be happy. And if they are really looking for something, the data is already deleted.
What I do when I cross the US border is wipe files I do not want them to see and put them encrypted on my server. I remove passwords, so there are no passwords to ask. Then when I am inside, I download the encrypted file and unzip it. This includes my.mozilla directory that has passwords remembered. I also delete my banking apps from my phone and remove my imap account to my mailserver, leaving just the one mail account to my spam account at gmx.com that looks legit.
So when they ask what my password is, I just say 'press enter' and they will think I am an idiot for not having a password on my devices.
So BETR, backup, erase, travel, restore . Because the idea is not that they should not get your data, the idea is that they think you don't have any data (worth anything to them) to begin with.
The ad business model was broken from day one. I remember when they started to apear and people started blocking them, even when they were a banner size and did not move and ther was only one on a page. People do not like ads. I do not want them on my computer, I do not want them in the streets or on TV, I do not want them on my underwear.
There is also no reason to justify why they exist. They exist to sell you stuff and to make money for the people who place them. So is insurance from the Mafia. Just because I understand why they are there does not mean I want them.
If a real-life adblock would exist that blocks out all the advertising (and branding while we are at it) I would happily use that. Just a fast glance of where I sit I see 25 brandnames and ads easily and some I probably do not even register anymore.
âoePeople are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
âoeYou, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
âoeFuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
âoeYou owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs.â â" banksy (Will look for the place where he got it from. It is not his, he adapted it.)
Yeah, it is hard to do, no matter who you are. So don't. The reason this happens is marketing and people buying into it.
Happens with a lot of things, if not everything; shoes, cars, houses, jobs (Oh noes, you are not going to college, but that means you must work with your hands and that is terrible and those are thieves, because look what they charge per hour)
I say there are not enough phones coming out or at least not enough competition. Samsung, Apple, Windows, Huwaii and that si about is realistically. I would like to have at least 20 more available with a lot more choice AND have 20 more telecom operators available to put something together what I need. I want a nice screen, but I do not want a camera.
I also see many people who work with 5 year old phones and they work. But that is in Belgium where is is possible to buy unbundled and locking phones is forbidden by the Communist state. That means I can still use any provider with any phone, regardless how old it is, as long as it can do GSM network. Nokia 3110? Just put in a card ad a working battery and you can call, sms and play snake. On the plus side, no Facebook App.
Mail? No thanks. I have my own domain and just get it through my provider. I have webmail and spamfiltering, so no reason to use them. Drive? No thanks, they already know too much about me. I do not really trust the cloud and have it at my home that has access. I have the knowledge, so I use it. Chrome? Not really. Android, because it was installed already on my phone. Maps? I used it a LOT. Since the last update where they changed many of the things, I use it less and less. On the desktop I used it to plan routes when traveling. Now I rather use paper maps to plan a trip and put that into some device with offline maps. What I use heavily is YouTube as an alternative to TV. I have addblock, so that is nice. Finding content that I have not yet seen and that I am interested in becomes harder as they present the same videos over and over again, regardless if I have already seen them or not. I sometimes have the idea they want to show me ONLY things I have already seen, so I drop cookies when I log out and use differnt ways to seach for that content, including Bing.
That would be WAY too long. 1 second is all that you need to do to get your car in gear if you have a manual and not have it in gear already. What would you do with the 4 other seconds? Remember that you are not allowed to drive when it is yellow. It is also not a dragstar countdown. Just a gentle reminder.
I just leqve it in 1st and hold down the clutch pedal and the break. Green? I move y foor from the break to the gas adn slowly release the clutch (or fast if I want to buy new tires). No, I never had an issue with my clutch. I am not playing with it, I hold it pressed in.
On an uphill, I do the same and someti,es I play with it. Relase the brake and play with gas and clutch just enough to not move.
That is not what it means. A crossing, regardless of the traffic lights; will mean you need to look left and right to be sure it is safe to pass. In Europe most of these intersections are converted or are already converted to roundabouts. They are safer and on most (not all) places they are faster with heavy traffic, but slower with little traffic. Why safer? Because you only need to pay attention to one road. The one to the left (or right if you drive on the wrong side) or the one on the right when you are on it. People will also need to slow down, so you everybody has more time to react. All this with or without lights.
Obviously depends on the space available. e.g. not really an option in innercity, but there traffic will be slower anyway. From what I have seen in New England, not an issue there. In NYC, Boston or Providence city, yeah, not going to happen, just like in Amsterdam, Brussels or Paris, except for some exceptions.
In Belgium it is financed as follows: the money for tickets has to be used for traffic safety, so the police already does not get it. They will then look at the most dangerous crossings and start with those, working their way down. At a certain point, there is no use and they will look on what other way there is to make things safer. Often in the city that means building roads in such a way people will start driving slower at the crossing.
I see that with myself. I do car sharing. I only uise it to do shopping 90% of the time. I could easily take an electric car instead of a diesel one for the distances I do. It ios always less than 15KM, so there would be no issue in using an electric car.
Yet I don't. Why? Out of habit. I should start using them, because why not? When I speak about car sharing or about electric cars or about self driving cars or in fact about ANY new technology, the only thing I hear is why it won't work. I remember why the Walkman would be a bad idea and would never catch on. I remember when we said that mobile phones where a bad idea. I remember when we said that 4K was overkill. I even remember my parents talking about colour TV being stupid.
So yea, people will find excuses as to it being a bad idea, but more out of relutency to change rather than anything else.
And it is all not helped that it will cost the car industry also time and money to go that direction and they, at this moment, rather not invest and thus do not push. They have sold us the idea that the car is a status symbol and the more horse power it has, the better a person you are. They even add sounds to cars that are too silent, so you can feel better about yourself.
A pre-paid card is about the way you pay. It would be very easy to demand that people have a valid ID before they can buy a pre-paid card. An ID is needed in Belgium anyway and can be read by chip and is open source. Verification of the validity of the card can be done for free, automated if you like.
This is only the moment you get the pre-paid card, not each time you do a top-up.
And as it is not a contract, not having a residence is not an issue. They do not allow that, because they want their money, but with a pre-paid card, this will not be an issue.
So all you need is a valid ID and as those are obigatory anyway, no issues there.
A solution to the job loss would be a very socialist one and that will never happen, no matter how fair it would be.
What happens now is that if there are 10 people and van boss, they earn a total of say 15Whatevs. 1 for each worker and 5 for the bossman. They have an income of 15. If they have an income of 14, bossman earns only 4.
At the cost of 1 for a machine that replaces 4 workers, they take 2 machines and 2 people to work the machine. So now the cost is 2+2 for the machines. Income is still 15, so now bossman gets 11. 2 get 1 and the rest gets nothing. Oh and the bossman gets the idea to let 1 person work 2 machines for 1.5, so he gets another 0.5.
What would be fair would be to do the following. Instead of 2 people working 5 days, you take 10 people working 1 day each and have the rest of the week of. Bossman wanted the machines, so instead of getting 5, he gets 3. Or you could sqy that the cost of the 2 is devided over those 10 people as they get free time instead.
So they go from earning 1 and working 5 days to earning 0.8 and working 1 day.
In all this I have pretended that mr bossman does not do any acual hours. You can add that into the formula and you can do a lot more. In the end it comes to the fact that the money saved by getting rid of people will not go to the customers as they told, it will go to the shareholders who not really need it.
It would be nice, but that will never happen, because Bossman does not want 5, he wants 15 and then some.
In all the companies I worked, if the CEO would send something like that the least he would get to hear is to fuck off, regardless of what party or person he would be supporting. I could even agree with him in his choice and I still would tell him to fuck off. Depending on the CEO I would use other wording, but still.
And I do not care if he is the CEO and sole owner of the company. Besides an angry mail from me, he would most likely also reprimanded by the different Unions, by HR and if the company is big enough, by the newspapers.
If he would keep insisting that the rules of not using company network for private reason apply, he would need to officially retract the regulations for that.
If he starts mailing me from another place to my companies address, he will have broken the law about privacy. Also if he mails me at my home address.
There is no way any CEO here (at least in Belgium) would be stupid enough to send such a mail, because they know and understand that would be crossing many borders that they should not cross.
Why do many of the most repressive dictatorships in the world keep giving so much money to the Clinton foundation?
Of everything that you mentioned, this is the only scandal.
I would not call that a scandall, because as you mentioned it is legal. Why would it be OK that KillThePlanet Inc. is allowed to give monies and not some other person. I am not even sure which one is worse for the American People. One thing is sure, neither has the interest of the (American) Public at heart and that is what you should be looking at.
That said, neither of the two candidates has the interest of the US public at heart; no matter what they say. One wants power and money; they other want money and power. The only thing that would work is if people all voted for a third candidate, but so many years of indoctrination that that won't work is paying off.
I guess these parties are too big to fail. You will need a revolution (does not need to be with blood) to do a serious change. Unfortunately people want change, but are unwilling to change.
Remember that this goes for both ways. They are working on defeating you, while you are trying to defeat them.
However they will be winning, just because they can have false positives and false negatives, you can however NEVER ever have a true positive.
And it will often just try to check if you are the person that you tell you are, so that would mean two identities. One where you walk when you are you and one with a pebble, where you are not you AND you must never mix those two up in any way.
Remember how kat.cr got caught. You only need to screw up once and it was all for naught.
Perhaps they should change the name to I-can't-believe-it's-not-an-autopilot
I am wondering that when they went with the word 'autopilot' they thought "Hey, everybody will know and understand that this means they still need to drive themselves and everybody will understand that is just Assisted Driving" as everybody knows what a pilot does and what his restrictions are. Or do you think they said "Let's call it Auto Pilot, because people will think it will drive itself with all the news about self-driving cars and we will put 'this is not a self-driving car' somewhere so we are secured from any legal action, just like we say "objects in this mirror are...".
I believe it is the second option. And as such they are liable. If it is the first one, they should fire their whole marketing department as well as any advertising company, because both are paid to understand what the impact of words is on people and how people react to them and they clearly did not able to do their job.
Because let us be real, those departments and companies can tell us what the impact is on the different color green used, on fonts and when to use what words and they had NO idea what Auto Pilot was to the people they were trying to sell cars to? Either incompetent or dishonest. They can take their pick.
getting a drivers licence is not the same as getting a pilot licence. Also when there are changes for pilots, they need to go back to school and they are regularly tested. So unless you are going to make at least the training the same, I would say that you can not compare the two. The people this is directed to are not pilots in general and will have no and are not expected to have any knowledge of how an auto-pilot in a plane works.
If you market something as auto-pilot than you damn well understand that people will think you mean that the car will drive itself. Marketing teams understand wording better than anybody (at least they tell us) and yet they are unable to understand how the most essential word of their prodcut will be interpreted? I call bullshit.
They oversold the capabilities of the product. Not uncommon in marketing and adverstising, but they have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
This is like a kid grabbing his brothers arm and yelling "stop hitting yourself". Technically he is right, yet we all know it is bullshit.
I will turn off adblocker for no reason at all. 1) I do not want static ads and also no text ads. 2) I do not care if they are respsible for the ad; because I do not want to see them 3) They should pay me anyway if an ad gets through, because they served t to me and I do not want them 4) I do not want to have the ability to make the mistake of allowing ads by accident and no datamining.
I do not want to see ads. Not on my PC, not on my tv and not on my underwear. I understand why companies want to do it, but I do not want to recieve or see them.
Telling what types would be allowed is telling that you prefer that they break your pinky instead of your leg. Sure one is better than the other, but how about I do not want anything broken?
The reason we start blocking them out now is because we can. If that were possible with ads on the road, we would do the same, or the ones in magazines or newspapers or on the radio or on tv or anywhere else.
The reason prices are going down is because companies now can measure the impact of those ads (or so they believe). They see how many people clicked on a link and how much revenue that created and can calculate how much it is worth to them.
As they have a direct link between the click and income, it is easier to defend to spend money on. An add somewhere else will always have a doubt.
It is also much easier to check by the customer how many people looked and reacted to an add. Newspapers? You can print 500.000 but how many of them are really read?
Don't forget the connection to external systems for reservations and even other airlines. Delta works together with others and I do not like to share my seat 13A on Delta with somebody who booked 13A via KLM at almost the same time on the same flight and a third who booked via a travel agent.
Do they mean lazy as being efficient or mazy as meaning sittng in front of a TV and do nothing?
Correlation is not causation.
I can imagine that intelligent people will have the intelligence to figure out a way to do things more efficiently.e.g. a smart waiter will sooner figure out that it is better to pay attention to customers, because it will save you from doing the same distance twice. So yeah, you will walk less. So it is true that lazy people move less.
However if you are smart, you will also realize that sitting in front of your tv and doing nothing is boring, so you will start playng games. Plaing games is more movement than sitting in front of a tv, so you move more.
The first is a more efficient way for energy (and increase tips if that is how your country works) and the second is to be more efficient with your personal time. So smart people are more efficient to reach their goals. It depends on their goals if that means more or less movement for the individual. And the goals will be different. Some want to be rich, others wat to be famous and yet others just want to have a great family life and free time to play with the kids.
Just because it can be done, does not mean it must be done and certainly not that it must be recorded.
Many a year ago, what happend was that if you did something, only a few people would know. Say I went to a pub, drank to much and would be singing at night. There would be some people who would wake up.and my friends would know. If I lived in a small town, the people who woke up would know me. However after a month, they would hardly remeber the day it happened and after a few years they might have forgotten it all, including me and my friends.
If it would have been worse, people might have called the police and that could have ened in a record, but most likely in a stern talk. Where I live it could even mean a night in a cell, but no record anywhere.
Now things have changed. The thing that has changed is the recording of everything and the logging of everything and yet people still have the same mentality around privacy. The game has changes, so the same rules should not apply anymore.
So it is not that they are able to see you, it is that they are able to record you and the majority of the law has not been build around that. That is why we in Europe have a right to be forgotten. That is why to us priviacy does not end at your doorstep. What it is is the most essential right. It is so essential that it is the basis of all other rights. Take that away and all the others become useless.
This is 2016. Pleqse let me know what insights the founding fathers had in the siciety we live in today. I also want to know why you need to hide behind something some people said more than 200 yeqrs ago. Don't you have any ideas of your own? There is a HUGE difference between what somebody said as a wisper to the neighbour and to put it in writing and for everybody to see for all eternity.
So please stop telling what somebody said 200 years ago and instead say what YOUR opinions are, because even the Founding Fathers knew that things would change and adaptations would be made to whatever they thought then was a good idea.
And if they did not think things would change, that, to me, means they where not that smart to begin with and that wouldnot be true.
Slashdot Mirror
Finding nothing is suspicious. Leave something in it that is 'embaressing' like old-people porn'. See that is legal, but embarressing. That means perhaps buying a DVD with the stuff if you think they will go after you for copyright infringement otherwise. The idea is to walk away, not only to not give the data.
See it as an audit. If you leave something for them to find, they will be happy and you will know what to say when they find it.
Unless they are really looking for something, they will be happy. And if they are really looking for something, the data is already deleted.
What I do when I cross the US border is wipe files I do not want them to see and put them encrypted on my server. I remove passwords, so there are no passwords to ask. Then when I am inside, I download the encrypted file and unzip it. .mozilla directory that has passwords remembered.
This includes my
I also delete my banking apps from my phone and remove my imap account to my mailserver, leaving just the one mail account to my spam account at gmx.com that looks legit.
So when they ask what my password is, I just say 'press enter' and they will think I am an idiot for not having a password on my devices.
So BETR, backup, erase, travel, restore . Because the idea is not that they should not get your data, the idea is that they think you don't have any data (worth anything to them) to begin with.
http://readingfrenzy.com/ledge...
http://readingfrenzy.com/ledge...
The ad business model was broken from day one.
I remember when they started to apear and people started blocking them, even when they were a banner size and did not move and ther was only one on a page.
People do not like ads. I do not want them on my computer, I do not want them in the streets or on TV, I do not want them on my underwear.
There is also no reason to justify why they exist. They exist to sell you stuff and to make money for the people who place them. So is insurance from the Mafia. Just because I understand why they are there does not mean I want them.
If a real-life adblock would exist that blocks out all the advertising (and branding while we are at it) I would happily use that. Just a fast glance of where I sit I see 25 brandnames and ads easily and some I probably do not even register anymore.
âoePeople are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
âoeYou, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
âoeFuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
âoeYou owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs.â
â" banksy (Will look for the place where he got it from. It is not his, he adapted it.)
Yeah, it is hard to do, no matter who you are. So don't. The reason this happens is marketing and people buying into it.
Happens with a lot of things, if not everything; shoes, cars, houses, jobs (Oh noes, you are not going to college, but that means you must work with your hands and that is terrible and those are thieves, because look what they charge per hour)
I say there are not enough phones coming out or at least not enough competition. Samsung, Apple, Windows, Huwaii and that si about is realistically. I would like to have at least 20 more available with a lot more choice AND have 20 more telecom operators available to put something together what I need. I want a nice screen, but I do not want a camera.
I also see many people who work with 5 year old phones and they work. But that is in Belgium where is is possible to buy unbundled and locking phones is forbidden by the Communist state. That means I can still use any provider with any phone, regardless how old it is, as long as it can do GSM network. Nokia 3110? Just put in a card ad a working battery and you can call, sms and play snake. On the plus side, no Facebook App.
Mail? No thanks. I have my own domain and just get it through my provider. I have webmail and spamfiltering, so no reason to use them.
Drive? No thanks, they already know too much about me. I do not really trust the cloud and have it at my home that has access. I have the knowledge, so I use it.
Chrome? Not really. Android, because it was installed already on my phone.
Maps? I used it a LOT. Since the last update where they changed many of the things, I use it less and less. On the desktop I used it to plan routes when traveling. Now I rather use paper maps to plan a trip and put that into some device with offline maps.
What I use heavily is YouTube as an alternative to TV. I have addblock, so that is nice. Finding content that I have not yet seen and that I am interested in becomes harder as they present the same videos over and over again, regardless if I have already seen them or not.
I sometimes have the idea they want to show me ONLY things I have already seen, so I drop cookies when I log out and use differnt ways to seach for that content, including Bing.
That would be WAY too long. 1 second is all that you need to do to get your car in gear if you have a manual and not have it in gear already. What would you do with the 4 other seconds?
Remember that you are not allowed to drive when it is yellow. It is also not a dragstar countdown.
Just a gentle reminder.
I just leqve it in 1st and hold down the clutch pedal and the break. Green? I move y foor from the break to the gas adn slowly release the clutch (or fast if I want to buy new tires).
No, I never had an issue with my clutch. I am not playing with it, I hold it pressed in.
On an uphill, I do the same and someti,es I play with it. Relase the brake and play with gas and clutch just enough to not move.
That is not what it means. A crossing, regardless of the traffic lights; will mean you need to look left and right to be sure it is safe to pass. In Europe most of these intersections are converted or are already converted to roundabouts. They are safer and on most (not all) places they are faster with heavy traffic, but slower with little traffic.
Why safer? Because you only need to pay attention to one road. The one to the left (or right if you drive on the wrong side) or the one on the right when you are on it. People will also need to slow down, so you everybody has more time to react.
All this with or without lights.
Obviously depends on the space available. e.g. not really an option in innercity, but there traffic will be slower anyway. From what I have seen in New England, not an issue there. In NYC, Boston or Providence city, yeah, not going to happen, just like in Amsterdam, Brussels or Paris, except for some exceptions.
In Belgium it is financed as follows: the money for tickets has to be used for traffic safety, so the police already does not get it. They will then look at the most dangerous crossings and start with those, working their way down. At a certain point, there is no use and they will look on what other way there is to make things safer. Often in the city that means building roads in such a way people will start driving slower at the crossing.
I see that with myself. I do car sharing. I only uise it to do shopping 90% of the time. I could easily take an electric car instead of a diesel one for the distances I do. It ios always less than 15KM, so there would be no issue in using an electric car.
Yet I don't. Why? Out of habit. I should start using them, because why not? When I speak about car sharing or about electric cars or about self driving cars or in fact about ANY new technology, the only thing I hear is why it won't work. I remember why the Walkman would be a bad idea and would never catch on. I remember when we said that mobile phones where a bad idea. I remember when we said that 4K was overkill. I even remember my parents talking about colour TV being stupid.
So yea, people will find excuses as to it being a bad idea, but more out of relutency to change rather than anything else.
And it is all not helped that it will cost the car industry also time and money to go that direction and they, at this moment, rather not invest and thus do not push. They have sold us the idea that the car is a status symbol and the more horse power it has, the better a person you are.
They even add sounds to cars that are too silent, so you can feel better about yourself.
A pre-paid card is about the way you pay. It would be very easy to demand that people have a valid ID before they can buy a pre-paid card. An ID is needed in Belgium anyway and can be read by chip and is open source.
Verification of the validity of the card can be done for free, automated if you like.
This is only the moment you get the pre-paid card, not each time you do a top-up.
And as it is not a contract, not having a residence is not an issue. They do not allow that, because they want their money, but with a pre-paid card, this will not be an issue.
So all you need is a valid ID and as those are obigatory anyway, no issues there.
A solution to the job loss would be a very socialist one and that will never happen, no matter how fair it would be.
What happens now is that if there are 10 people and van boss, they earn a total of say 15Whatevs. 1 for each worker and 5 for the bossman. They have an income of 15. If they have an income of 14, bossman earns only 4.
At the cost of 1 for a machine that replaces 4 workers, they take 2 machines and 2 people to work the machine. So now the cost is 2+2 for the machines. Income is still 15, so now bossman gets 11. 2 get 1 and the rest gets nothing. Oh and the bossman gets the idea to let 1 person work 2 machines for 1.5, so he gets another 0.5.
What would be fair would be to do the following. Instead of 2 people working 5 days, you take 10 people working 1 day each and have the rest of the week of. Bossman wanted the machines, so instead of getting 5, he gets 3.
Or you could sqy that the cost of the 2 is devided over those 10 people as they get free time instead.
So they go from earning 1 and working 5 days to earning 0.8 and working 1 day.
In all this I have pretended that mr bossman does not do any acual hours. You can add that into the formula and you can do a lot more. In the end it comes to the fact that the money saved by getting rid of people will not go to the customers as they told, it will go to the shareholders who not really need it.
It would be nice, but that will never happen, because Bossman does not want 5, he wants 15 and then some.
In all the companies I worked, if the CEO would send something like that the least he would get to hear is to fuck off, regardless of what party or person he would be supporting. I could even agree with him in his choice and I still would tell him to fuck off. Depending on the CEO I would use other wording, but still.
And I do not care if he is the CEO and sole owner of the company. Besides an angry mail from me, he would most likely also reprimanded by the different Unions, by HR and if the company is big enough, by the newspapers.
If he would keep insisting that the rules of not using company network for private reason apply, he would need to officially retract the regulations for that.
If he starts mailing me from another place to my companies address, he will have broken the law about privacy. Also if he mails me at my home address.
There is no way any CEO here (at least in Belgium) would be stupid enough to send such a mail, because they know and understand that would be crossing many borders that they should not cross.
I would not call that a scandall, because as you mentioned it is legal.
Why would it be OK that KillThePlanet Inc. is allowed to give monies and not some other person. I am not even sure which one is worse for the American People. One thing is sure, neither has the interest of the (American) Public at heart and that is what you should be looking at.
That said, neither of the two candidates has the interest of the US public at heart; no matter what they say. One wants power and money; they other want money and power. The only thing that would work is if people all voted for a third candidate, but so many years of indoctrination that that won't work is paying off.
I guess these parties are too big to fail. You will need a revolution (does not need to be with blood) to do a serious change. Unfortunately people want change, but are unwilling to change.
Remember that this goes for both ways. They are working on defeating you, while you are trying to defeat them.
However they will be winning, just because they can have false positives and false negatives, you can however NEVER ever have a true positive.
And it will often just try to check if you are the person that you tell you are, so that would mean two identities. One where you walk when you are you and one with a pebble, where you are not you AND you must never mix those two up in any way.
Remember how kat.cr got caught. You only need to screw up once and it was all for naught.
Perhaps they should change the name to I-can't-believe-it's-not-an-autopilot
I am wondering that when they went with the word 'autopilot' they thought "Hey, everybody will know and understand that this means they still need to drive themselves and everybody will understand that is just Assisted Driving" as everybody knows what a pilot does and what his restrictions are. ...".
Or do you think they said "Let's call it Auto Pilot, because people will think it will drive itself with all the news about self-driving cars and we will put 'this is not a self-driving car' somewhere so we are secured from any legal action, just like we say "objects in this mirror are
I believe it is the second option. And as such they are liable. If it is the first one, they should fire their whole marketing department as well as any advertising company, because both are paid to understand what the impact of words is on people and how people react to them and they clearly did not able to do their job.
Because let us be real, those departments and companies can tell us what the impact is on the different color green used, on fonts and when to use what words and they had NO idea what Auto Pilot was to the people they were trying to sell cars to? Either incompetent or dishonest. They can take their pick.
getting a drivers licence is not the same as getting a pilot licence. Also when there are changes for pilots, they need to go back to school and they are regularly tested.
So unless you are going to make at least the training the same, I would say that you can not compare the two.
The people this is directed to are not pilots in general and will have no and are not expected to have any knowledge of how an auto-pilot in a plane works.
If you market something as auto-pilot than you damn well understand that people will think you mean that the car will drive itself. Marketing teams understand wording better than anybody (at least they tell us) and yet they are unable to understand how the most essential word of their prodcut will be interpreted? I call bullshit.
They oversold the capabilities of the product. Not uncommon in marketing and adverstising, but they have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
This is like a kid grabbing his brothers arm and yelling "stop hitting yourself". Technically he is right, yet we all know it is bullshit.
I will turn off adblocker for no reason at all.
1) I do not want static ads and also no text ads.
2) I do not care if they are respsible for the ad; because I do not want to see them
3) They should pay me anyway if an ad gets through, because they served t to me and I do not want them
4) I do not want to have the ability to make the mistake of allowing ads by accident and no datamining.
I do not want to see ads. Not on my PC, not on my tv and not on my underwear. I understand why companies want to do it, but I do not want to recieve or see them.
Telling what types would be allowed is telling that you prefer that they break your pinky instead of your leg. Sure one is better than the other, but how about I do not want anything broken?
The reason we start blocking them out now is because we can. If that were possible with ads on the road, we would do the same, or the ones in magazines or newspapers or on the radio or on tv or anywhere else.
The reason prices are going down is because companies now can measure the impact of those ads (or so they believe). They see how many people clicked on a link and how much revenue that created and can calculate how much it is worth to them.
As they have a direct link between the click and income, it is easier to defend to spend money on. An add somewhere else will always have a doubt.
It is also much easier to check by the customer how many people looked and reacted to an add. Newspapers? You can print 500.000 but how many of them are really read?
"I do it because all my friends do it" was never a great idea.
Don't forget the connection to external systems for reservations and even other airlines. Delta works together with others and I do not like to share my seat 13A on Delta with somebody who booked 13A via KLM at almost the same time on the same flight and a third who booked via a travel agent.
And not only add it, maker it unpossible to remove it unless you root your device.
Do they mean lazy as being efficient or mazy as meaning sittng in front of a TV and do nothing?
Correlation is not causation.
I can imagine that intelligent people will have the intelligence to figure out a way to do things more efficiently.e.g. a smart waiter will sooner figure out that it is better to pay attention to customers, because it will save you from doing the same distance twice. So yeah, you will walk less. So it is true that lazy people move less.
However if you are smart, you will also realize that sitting in front of your tv and doing nothing is boring, so you will start playng games. Plaing games is more movement than sitting in front of a tv, so you move more.
The first is a more efficient way for energy (and increase tips if that is how your country works) and the second is to be more efficient with your personal time.
So smart people are more efficient to reach their goals. It depends on their goals if that means more or less movement for the individual. And the goals will be different. Some want to be rich, others wat to be famous and yet others just want to have a great family life and free time to play with the kids.
They do it to show what could be done with the hack in the article.
Just because it can be done, does not mean it must be done and certainly not that it must be recorded.
Many a year ago, what happend was that if you did something, only a few people would know. Say I went to a pub, drank to much and would be singing at night. There would be some people who would wake up.and my friends would know. If I lived in a small town, the people who woke up would know me.
However after a month, they would hardly remeber the day it happened and after a few years they might have forgotten it all, including me and my friends.
If it would have been worse, people might have called the police and that could have ened in a record, but most likely in a stern talk. Where I live it could even mean a night in a cell, but no record anywhere.
Now things have changed. The thing that has changed is the recording of everything and the logging of everything and yet people still have the same mentality around privacy. The game has changes, so the same rules should not apply anymore.
So it is not that they are able to see you, it is that they are able to record you and the majority of the law has not been build around that. That is why we in Europe have a right to be forgotten. That is why to us priviacy does not end at your doorstep. What it is is the most essential right. It is so essential that it is the basis of all other rights. Take that away and all the others become useless.
This is 2016. Pleqse let me know what insights the founding fathers had in the siciety we live in today. I also want to know why you need to hide behind something some people said more than 200 yeqrs ago.
Don't you have any ideas of your own? There is a HUGE difference between what somebody said as a wisper to the neighbour and to put it in writing and for everybody to see for all eternity.
So please stop telling what somebody said 200 years ago and instead say what YOUR opinions are, because even the Founding Fathers knew that things would change and adaptations would be made to whatever they thought then was a good idea.
And if they did not think things would change, that, to me, means they where not that smart to begin with and that wouldnot be true.