If you live in the United States, this would be followed quickly by the return of a poll tax...
...then taxes on exercising your favorite right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Perhaps a 50 percent tax would be instituted on not having an item searched without a warrant. This could be conveniently administered via a Search Protection Plan you buy at the time of purchase. The item (for example, computer, luggage, chest of drawers, clothing, ammo storage box, safe, or even your entire house) then could not be searched without a warrant. The item would be registered and tagged with RFID (so police could figure out if they could search it). Best Buy would then pester you to buy these with your computer (to get their Tax Collection and Enhancement Commission).
One way to also fix the Federal debt problem!
(Seriously, the Supreme Court frowns on taxes and fees which substantially interfere with exercise of rights -- esp. those tailored to do just that).
The problem usually isn't that the entire procedure is unused (that's fairly easy to catch). Usually it's that some chunk of the procedure "appears" to be unreachable because callers should no longer (or perhaps ever should have) invoke(d) the procedure with parameters and state that causes the code in question to be executed.
Put the PhD on the app to keep it "legal" but leave it off the resume.
Hiring managers rarely see the app and few that have it actually look at it and those few that actually look at it usually have made up their mind about you by then (they look at it for stuff like salary history and perhaps reference checks).
Do mention the PhD verbally in your interview with the hiring manager (however, you probably should not mention it, unless the topic comes up, with any other interviewers). This way, the manager doesn't feel duped when/if she finally looks at the app during the final stages.
Khan Academy classes do little, if anything, to teach the student to learn and seek out information in less structured environments. A link to outside information is rare (vs. links to videos and exercises within Khan Academy that are related to the current video or exercise). Searching within Khan Academy for information on a simple concept can be problematic as well - esp. if you don't know exactly what you're looking for.
Although I like Khan Academy and think it could have a role in the classroom, it needs a lot of improvement. If such improvement doesn't happen at a faster pace than it is, Khan Academy is likely to fade into the sunset taking donor's money with them.
The folksy nature of the videos is tiring and the sloppy execution just wastes students' time and confuses them. If a "live" classroom teacher makes an error, as all humans do, it impacts about 30 students for a few minutes and the teacher can correct the error and get immediate feedback from the students about if they are still confused by the original error and clear up the confusion. Worst case, a bit of material gets deferred to the next class for those 30 students due to the delay caused by the error. When a video in Khan Academy makes an error, and then corrects it 30 seconds later, it leaves many viewers (perhaps hundreds of thousands) confused and there's no ability for Sal et al to sense that the students are confused and address that issue. If any significant error is made in a video, the video should be remade or edited as needed - failing to do so smacks of laziness and arrogance and demeans the value of the viewer's time while failing to set an expectation to students of what is expected of a public presentation.
Production quality is low as well. The simple thing of making the text as Sal scribbles easier to read, even something as simple as abandoning the black background and using slightly wider lines, would help.
It's obvious that the video lessons are not planned well. While the conversational tone and the "handwriting" helps keep attention, it's just painful to watch Sal stumble around deciding (and narrating his on the fly decisions) to "let's make that a different color" while he undoes and rewrites what he just did. I know Sal is very proud of the fact that he doesn't prepare for the videos -- but it comes off as arrogant (perhaps because it is arrogant).
And, of course, we all know about the sloppiness. Is (2 - -3) "subtracting a minus 3 from 2" or "subtracting a negative 3 from 2? Some such things float by in live classroom situations without causing problems, but why not get it right (or at least consistent across all Khan videos) when all you have to do is reshoot or edit a video?
The "coach" role is a joke for use by a teacher who is managing a classroom and responsible for monitoring student progress. If a school is going to invest significant instructional time/money using Khan Academy as a teaching tool, these problems MUST be addressed. The tools are clumsy to use and fail to provide good visibility into student progress in a meaningful way. For example, there's no way to direct students, during class times, to work first/only on exercises or videos that were assigned and this creates problems with focus and allows simple errors, such as when a student picks the wrong video and works on it for ten minutes, to go undetected (I've seen that often). For another example, "Teachers" should be able to set goals for their class and individual students and those goals should be "lockable".
Sal is enjoying his 15 minutes of popular media fame too much and isn't working hard enough to actually improve education.
I assume you are not from the U.S. so perhaps a quick US Civics lesson is in order.
In the U.S., the Federal government has limited powers -- ONLY those explicitly ceded to it by the United States Constitution. The Federal government has no rights whatsoever. We elect politicians to administer those powers that we ceded to the Federal Government - and that is IT.
but I come down firmly on the side of wanting to know who owns assault weapons.
...but, from the original article [emphasis added]...
A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.
So, are "pistols and handguns" now "assault weapons"? Of course not (nor, of course, are most "assault" weapons really assault weapons, but that's another thread). So, how did publishing this information help you any more than publishing someone's 1040 or Medicare medical records help you?
Obviously the general public has a reasonable need to know the real identity of people making public statements (protected under the First Amendment just as Keeping and Bearing Arms is protected) so their names and addresses should be published as well. Mr/Ms Mordok-DestroyerOfWo, please publish your real name and address and all your aliases as it's in the public interest.
Nope. The courts are pretty consistent in not allowing laws/rules that, for all practical purposes, prevent you from exercising a right you have.
For example, a law requiring that all jury trials be held in rowboats in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in the winter during a heavy storm would not pass constitutional muster.
Nor would a law banning the manufacture and sale of all devices capable of transmitting sound or images pass constitutional muster as it would prevent the exercise of free speech and a free press.
Although I've not researched it and don't know if it's correct, some argue that usage of the word "arms" in the late 1700's meant weapons that an individual could carry on their person w/o additional assistance (such as horses or carts as would be required for a cannon) so a car with a gun mounted on it would not make the car an "arm".
The STATE governments issue/control/regulate drivers' licensing and car registration rather than the FEDERAL government (ignoring some modest unconstitutional incursions on this process by the Federal government over time). The US Constitution amended with just the Bill Of Rights gives the Federal government power over the states in a set list of areas and limits the states' powers in NO way beyond that. For example, it doesn't prevent a state or city from establishing a state or city religion, it doesn't guarantee US citizens that the state they live in won't seize their property w/o compensation, and it certainly does not prevent the states from interfering with their residents' transportation (except, maybe on "post roads" established, and therefore presumably controlled by, the Federal government ).
The 14th Amendment coupled with the Incorporation Doctrine changed that situation considerably and now states and other lower governments ARE controlled by the requirement for Due Process (a big and vague set of rights) and bound by most of the enumerated rights in the BoR (most recently, of course, the Second Amendment under McDonald v. Chicago). However, until the courts determine that a right is magically "incorporated" or that "due process" is not being exercised by the states with respect to that right, the states are free to ignore that right.
Intrastate transportation may be a "basic right" in your mind (and mine), but the base US Constitution plus the BoR doesn't protect it against STATE control in any way.
Oh, you're one of those who seems to think the Constitution means what it says and says what it means and that there are ten rather than eight Amendments. That is so old fashioned.
I agree with you in general, but bringing up the facts just confuses people raised in an era where the Federal Government and the Supreme Court seem to think that the only rights the Federal government needs to respect are the enumerated rights (and a few others found to be lurking in the penumbras of those rights) and that the Feds can control everything else.
However, in the case of operating cars on public roads, I don't see anything prohibiting the states from regulating that activity. The Constitution, prior to the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine imposed by the Supreme Court, bound the Federal government only. Even under the Incorporation Doctrine, it doesn't exclude states from imposing limitations unless the Federal government is also prohibited from doing so.
Most public roads, such as the one in front of most people's residence, are not reasonably considered "post roads" (which Congress has the power to establish and, presumably, regulate). I suppose an argument could be made that interstate highways are post roads (as there are no other types of roads that Congress is authorized to establish so, by process of elimination, the interstates had better be post roads). So, we know that regulation of all roads except, perhaps, the interstate highways must be left to the either the states or the people - and there's no evidence I see that the states are prohibited from establishing such regulations.
The right to operate a car on public roads is not a basic right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. However, you are free to own a car and operate it on your own land (perhaps your ranch) without registering or licensing the car and without holding a driver's license.
Also, your citation does not say that you can own anything you want, just that once you own it, the government can't take it from you without due process and/or compensation.
A driver's license tells you little about a persons belongings or lifestyle -- yet many states will not release the names and addresses of driver license holders due to privacy concerns. Oh, and having a driver's license isn't an enumerated right in the US Constitution. Drivers licenses are not considered shameful either.
Many states don't even release addresses associated with driver's licenses and car registrations without a justifiable need (such as you affirm that you were hit by a car with a particular license plate) or a court order.
And, of course all records of Medicare bills (including the ones for psychiatric visits, STD treatment etc) should be public. After all, there are massive Medicare tax dollars being spent and the public has the right to know how they are being spent and to whom benefits are accruing.
Perhaps the self-driving cars will be, at least early on, restricted to freeways.
I can think of some on-ramps to freeways where there is no way you can merge safely "by the book" in moderately heavy traffic (due to limited visibility, curves in road, acceleration lanes that are too short etc...). The only reason it works is some sort of unspoken but regionally understood communication between merging drivers and a modest fraction of drivers already on the freeway who begin to make a little slot for you to merge into. Merging drivers notice this slot being formed by just a small reduction in speed by someone 1/4 to 1/8 of a mile back and use that slot -- even though it's completely unsafe if the person "making" the slot isn't going to continue to help out -- in other words, physics would dictate that the slot isn't usable because intra-car spacing would be too small at the speed traffic is flowing at if the merging driver moved into the slot. It seems, a "lawyer approved" algorithm would have to just stop on the on-ramp to "be safe" even though only one in a thousand (or less) human drivers take that option. This would be quite a mess for traffic flow since, once stopped, the driver-less car would be blocking the on-ramp until traffic lightened up - perhaps hours later.
Perhaps traffic laws may need to change also. Maybe driver-less cars will need to have an indicator on them marking them as being in "driver-less mode" and drivers that normally have the "right of way" would be required to yield where they normally would not.
Obviously they will stop as quickly as possible (while remaining control) or, if needed and feasible, swerve to avoid a collision.
Sometimes, however, there's no option. Hit the dog (or is it a small child) that darted out or plow into the parked vehicles (or is that a parked vehicle with someone standing by the driver's door talking on their cell phone?) to avoid it? I'm trusting the human on that one (both in the identification and in determining the "cost" of each decision) more than software. I'm pretty convinced that most drivers and pedestrians make certain assumptions about each other that will be challenging to capture in driver-less cars. Even when humans are about to have an accident, they make instinctive decisions that reflect human morals.
For example, I regularly drive by intersections with no traffic control devices with humans standing on the corner. Sometimes they are obviously engaged in conversation and I notice that they have not asserted their right of way in the past several seconds. Other times, they are looking at me and I sense that they want to cross. In both cases, the pedestrian has the right of way but I act differently as a driver. If I didn't stop in the second case, I should get a ticket. If I stopped every time I encountered the first case, I'd not get where I was going very quickly. In both cases, the pedestrian was completely stationary.
It will be interesting to watch - I hope driver-less cars get good enough to use safely and efficiently in a mix of pedestrians, skate boarders, bicycles, driver-less cars, human driven cars, motorcycles, garbage trucks, emergency response vehicles, and construction activities.
Yes, it is contrived! However, the first and second cases were not meant to be the same case which I can see created some confusion.
I was thinking of a case where there is an intersection without traffic control. Shrub kid is standing on the corner waiting to cross the street but GoogleCar thinks it's a (perhaps recently planted so not in the database) stationary shrub (perhaps a jade plant with a lot of water in it). The kid, being a pedestrian at an intersection, has the right of way and takes it -- but it's too late by the time the kid moves for the car to come to a complete stop so the kid is hit, knocked to the ground and has permanent brain damage. The kid is, reasonably, used to human drivers who slow down when they see kids standing on a street corner waiting to cross.
A human who knows about Halloween and that shrubs were popular this year due to some animated movie that just came out should/would have recognized it was a probably a kid, not a newly planted shrub or two and slowed down in anticipation of the kid (shrub) stepping out. During the trial, the jury will see the video and say "I would have slowed and stopped yielding to the kid's right of way" (and, they are probably right about that).
Generally, I expect that the driver-less cars will make many fewer errors due to inattentive driving, speeding et al, but I'm skeptical that on public roads with idiot drivers and corner cases that there won't be some fairly spectacular screw-ups that juries will be very unsympathetic about.
I will be very interested to watch the eventual roll-out, if any, of driver-less cars for the general public on existing roads. Dealing with heavy inner city traffic during rush hour -- esp. where most of the cars are taxis will be interesting. In such environments, it's almost impossible to move at a reasonable clip if you only make "safe" lane changes -- you have to bully your way through a bit and sometimes count on other drivers not hitting you. GoogleCar however needs to "follow the rules" (exposing the lines of code that "bullied" the car through traffic would be a liability disaster, so such lines of code can't exist). I envision a GoogleCar "frozen in fear" until the human takes over.
When a person does something a little stupid or shows a bit of poor judgement that results in a collision, a jury can relate a little to that (they are, after all, human and realize that the glare of on coming headlights may have caused you to not see the stop sign) and they are likely to be a little more forgiving.
When a machine does something a "little stupid", it's likely to be something non-techi human on a jury can't relate to as well ("What do you mean the computer couldn't tell a difference between a shrub and a kid dressed in a shrub costume on Halloween - the kid was carrying a plastic pumpkin, that was a a dead giveaway it was a kid, not a shrub, and that it had the right of way and might step out into the crosswalk."). Also, the deep pockets is "the Google" so it's "free money" the jury is giving away.
I have no problem with eating GMO foods because I don't think there's likely to be any risks associated with them (I think it's more likely they are safer if they reduce the use of pesticides or herbicides on the crop).
However, the reality is that "GMO Free" foods are preferred by some and may therefore command a higher price.
If someone knowingly and intentionally introduces something new into the environment which would prevent nearby "GMO Free" farmers from being able to grow "GMO free" food and that has a negative economic impact on these farmers, the person introducing the item should be liable for damages and stop doing it.
It doesn't seem different to me than if one land owner sprays herbicides on their land and overspray drifts onto an adjacent farmer's and and stunts his crop reducing yield. I would think (but I have no idea what the law says) that the sprayer is liable for the reduction in value of the crop.
In the Disney case, right of first sale (or first giveaway?) should prevail. If Disney gives me a DVD for no reason that I can discern, it's mine to do what I like with it just as if I bought it. So, that precludes copying and selling unauthorized copies of it (not for reasons of contracts or license terms, for reasons of copyright law).
Receiving a single unsolicited DVD from Disney probably causes me indiscernible harm even if I don't want it. If it came in the mail, it's understood that junk mail is yours to do what you wish with but the sender has no liability for the simple cost of the recipient discarding it. If, however, a Disney truck (accidentally or intentionally) unloaded a 48 ft trailer full of DVDs onto your front lawn, it's their responsibility to remove it or compensate you for the cost of removal (and to repair/pay for repairs of any damage to your lawn) if you don't want them.
Ah... That does change the complexion of the case a bit. Although I don't think it changes my thoughts about what the general outcome should be.
I think it is the responsibility of someone who wants to protect their interests in something not to distribute that something onto other people's land. If I knowingly store cases of fresh fruit on your land, I would expect that you should be able to use it for almost any purpose you desire.
Given that the downwind farmer seemed to think there was extra value in the Monsanto derived seed, I wouldn't advocate that he could hold Monsanto's feet to the fire to pay for altering his crop's genetic makeup.
The neighboring farmer didn't sign a license agreement with Monsanto.
Perhaps Monsanto should go after the farmer who didn't control their "Monsanto Pollen and Seed" properly (that, of course, will never happen because they are Monsanto's customer!) if the license requires that the licensee exercises such control over the product.
It seems to me that the farmer whose crop got cross pollinated has no obligation to return or avoid use of that which someone distributed onto their property voluntarily -- much as if I leave a flyer on your front door, it's yours to do with as you like. This is not a case of "lost" property -- the distribution is expected, predictable, well known, and the actual item being distributed has no direct economic value.
It seems to me that the "cross pollinated" farmer has more of a cause of action against Monsanto (for knowingly distributing a manipulated organism that interferes with the farmer's ability to grow premium valued organic, non-GMO crops).
I'd be tempted to make an offer to Monsanto if I was a neighboring farmer whose crops had gotten cross pollinated: 'Monsanto, get every last bit of your pollution off my property. Access to do so will be granted at the rate of $x/acre per day until you return the land in an "as found" condition with the exception of getting your crap off it'
Supermarkets I shop at offer self-serve checkout and they take cash (paper and coin) and allow you to pay with multiple methods. So, I start by paying cash and putting any change I have in my pocket into the machine, then I pay the balance w/a credit card. Since I started doing that, I no longer have change piling up and I pay no surcharges. Obviously it's a way to maintain the "no extra change" steady state but not a good way to get rid of a backlog of change.
Slashdot Mirror
There are exceptions to this (generally true) rule - a firing squad performing an execution...
...and mob and gang hits...
...and probably some (covert?) military operations.
If you live in the United States, this would be followed quickly by the return of a poll tax...
...then taxes on exercising your favorite right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Perhaps a 50 percent tax would be instituted on not having an item searched without a warrant. This could be conveniently administered via a Search Protection Plan you buy at the time of purchase. The item (for example, computer, luggage, chest of drawers, clothing, ammo storage box, safe, or even your entire house) then could not be searched without a warrant. The item would be registered and tagged with RFID (so police could figure out if they could search it). Best Buy would then pester you to buy these with your computer (to get their Tax Collection and Enhancement Commission).
One way to also fix the Federal debt problem!
(Seriously, the Supreme Court frowns on taxes and fees which substantially interfere with exercise of rights -- esp. those tailored to do just that).
The problem usually isn't that the entire procedure is unused (that's fairly easy to catch). Usually it's that some chunk of the procedure "appears" to be unreachable because callers should no longer (or perhaps ever should have) invoke(d) the procedure with parameters and state that causes the code in question to be executed.
Put the PhD on the app to keep it "legal" but leave it off the resume.
Hiring managers rarely see the app and few that have it actually look at it and those few that actually look at it usually have made up their mind about you by then (they look at it for stuff like salary history and perhaps reference checks).
Do mention the PhD verbally in your interview with the hiring manager (however, you probably should not mention it, unless the topic comes up, with any other interviewers). This way, the manager doesn't feel duped when/if she finally looks at the app during the final stages.
Khan Academy classes do little, if anything, to teach the student to learn and seek out information in less structured environments. A link to outside information is rare (vs. links to videos and exercises within Khan Academy that are related to the current video or exercise). Searching within Khan Academy for information on a simple concept can be problematic as well - esp. if you don't know exactly what you're looking for.
Although I like Khan Academy and think it could have a role in the classroom, it needs a lot of improvement. If such improvement doesn't happen at a faster pace than it is, Khan Academy is likely to fade into the sunset taking donor's money with them.
The folksy nature of the videos is tiring and the sloppy execution just wastes students' time and confuses them. If a "live" classroom teacher makes an error, as all humans do, it impacts about 30 students for a few minutes and the teacher can correct the error and get immediate feedback from the students about if they are still confused by the original error and clear up the confusion. Worst case, a bit of material gets deferred to the next class for those 30 students due to the delay caused by the error. When a video in Khan Academy makes an error, and then corrects it 30 seconds later, it leaves many viewers (perhaps hundreds of thousands) confused and there's no ability for Sal et al to sense that the students are confused and address that issue. If any significant error is made in a video, the video should be remade or edited as needed - failing to do so smacks of laziness and arrogance and demeans the value of the viewer's time while failing to set an expectation to students of what is expected of a public presentation.
Production quality is low as well. The simple thing of making the text as Sal scribbles easier to read, even something as simple as abandoning the black background and using slightly wider lines, would help.
It's obvious that the video lessons are not planned well. While the conversational tone and the "handwriting" helps keep attention, it's just painful to watch Sal stumble around deciding (and narrating his on the fly decisions) to "let's make that a different color" while he undoes and rewrites what he just did. I know Sal is very proud of the fact that he doesn't prepare for the videos -- but it comes off as arrogant (perhaps because it is arrogant).
And, of course, we all know about the sloppiness. Is (2 - -3) "subtracting a minus 3 from 2" or "subtracting a negative 3 from 2? Some such things float by in live classroom situations without causing problems, but why not get it right (or at least consistent across all Khan videos) when all you have to do is reshoot or edit a video?
The "coach" role is a joke for use by a teacher who is managing a classroom and responsible for monitoring student progress. If a school is going to invest significant instructional time/money using Khan Academy as a teaching tool, these problems MUST be addressed. The tools are clumsy to use and fail to provide good visibility into student progress in a meaningful way. For example, there's no way to direct students, during class times, to work first/only on exercises or videos that were assigned and this creates problems with focus and allows simple errors, such as when a student picks the wrong video and works on it for ten minutes, to go undetected (I've seen that often). For another example, "Teachers" should be able to set goals for their class and individual students and those goals should be "lockable".
Sal is enjoying his 15 minutes of popular media fame too much and isn't working hard enough to actually improve education.
I assume you are not from the U.S. so perhaps a quick US Civics lesson is in order.
In the U.S., the Federal government has limited powers -- ONLY those explicitly ceded to it by the United States Constitution. The Federal government has no rights whatsoever. We elect politicians to administer those powers that we ceded to the Federal Government - and that is IT.
...but, from the original article [emphasis added] ...
So, are "pistols and handguns" now "assault weapons"? Of course not (nor, of course, are most "assault" weapons really assault weapons, but that's another thread). So, how did publishing this information help you any more than publishing someone's 1040 or Medicare medical records help you?
Obviously the general public has a reasonable need to know the real identity of people making public statements (protected under the First Amendment just as Keeping and Bearing Arms is protected) so their names and addresses should be published as well. Mr/Ms Mordok-DestroyerOfWo, please publish your real name and address and all your aliases as it's in the public interest.
Nope. The courts are pretty consistent in not allowing laws/rules that, for all practical purposes, prevent you from exercising a right you have.
For example, a law requiring that all jury trials be held in rowboats in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in the winter during a heavy storm would not pass constitutional muster.
Nor would a law banning the manufacture and sale of all devices capable of transmitting sound or images pass constitutional muster as it would prevent the exercise of free speech and a free press.
Although I've not researched it and don't know if it's correct, some argue that usage of the word "arms" in the late 1700's meant weapons that an individual could carry on their person w/o additional assistance (such as horses or carts as would be required for a cannon) so a car with a gun mounted on it would not make the car an "arm".
I don't see what you are arguing about.
The STATE governments issue/control/regulate drivers' licensing and car registration rather than the FEDERAL government (ignoring some modest unconstitutional incursions on this process by the Federal government over time). The US Constitution amended with just the Bill Of Rights gives the Federal government power over the states in a set list of areas and limits the states' powers in NO way beyond that. For example, it doesn't prevent a state or city from establishing a state or city religion, it doesn't guarantee US citizens that the state they live in won't seize their property w/o compensation, and it certainly does not prevent the states from interfering with their residents' transportation (except, maybe on "post roads" established, and therefore presumably controlled by, the Federal government ).
The 14th Amendment coupled with the Incorporation Doctrine changed that situation considerably and now states and other lower governments ARE controlled by the requirement for Due Process (a big and vague set of rights) and bound by most of the enumerated rights in the BoR (most recently, of course, the Second Amendment under McDonald v. Chicago). However, until the courts determine that a right is magically "incorporated" or that "due process" is not being exercised by the states with respect to that right, the states are free to ignore that right.
Intrastate transportation may be a "basic right" in your mind (and mine), but the base US Constitution plus the BoR doesn't protect it against STATE control in any way.
Oh, you're one of those who seems to think the Constitution means what it says and says what it means and that there are ten rather than eight Amendments. That is so old fashioned.
I agree with you in general, but bringing up the facts just confuses people raised in an era where the Federal Government and the Supreme Court seem to think that the only rights the Federal government needs to respect are the enumerated rights (and a few others found to be lurking in the penumbras of those rights) and that the Feds can control everything else.
However, in the case of operating cars on public roads, I don't see anything prohibiting the states from regulating that activity. The Constitution, prior to the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine imposed by the Supreme Court, bound the Federal government only. Even under the Incorporation Doctrine, it doesn't exclude states from imposing limitations unless the Federal government is also prohibited from doing so.
Most public roads, such as the one in front of most people's residence, are not reasonably considered "post roads" (which Congress has the power to establish and, presumably, regulate). I suppose an argument could be made that interstate highways are post roads (as there are no other types of roads that Congress is authorized to establish so, by process of elimination, the interstates had better be post roads). So, we know that regulation of all roads except, perhaps, the interstate highways must be left to the either the states or the people - and there's no evidence I see that the states are prohibited from establishing such regulations.
I should have been clearer - sorry.
The right to operate a car on public roads is not a basic right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. However, you are free to own a car and operate it on your own land (perhaps your ranch) without registering or licensing the car and without holding a driver's license.
Also, your citation does not say that you can own anything you want, just that once you own it, the government can't take it from you without due process and/or compensation.
A driver's license tells you little about a persons belongings or lifestyle -- yet many states will not release the names and addresses of driver license holders due to privacy concerns. Oh, and having a driver's license isn't an enumerated right in the US Constitution. Drivers licenses are not considered shameful either.
Many states don't even release addresses associated with driver's licenses and car registrations without a justifiable need (such as you affirm that you were hit by a car with a particular license plate) or a court order.
Possession of a car is not a basic right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. So, no, they are not alike at all.
And, of course all records of Medicare bills (including the ones for psychiatric visits, STD treatment etc) should be public. After all, there are massive Medicare tax dollars being spent and the public has the right to know how they are being spent and to whom benefits are accruing.
Perhaps the self-driving cars will be, at least early on, restricted to freeways.
I can think of some on-ramps to freeways where there is no way you can merge safely "by the book" in moderately heavy traffic (due to limited visibility, curves in road, acceleration lanes that are too short etc...). The only reason it works is some sort of unspoken but regionally understood communication between merging drivers and a modest fraction of drivers already on the freeway who begin to make a little slot for you to merge into. Merging drivers notice this slot being formed by just a small reduction in speed by someone 1/4 to 1/8 of a mile back and use that slot -- even though it's completely unsafe if the person "making" the slot isn't going to continue to help out -- in other words, physics would dictate that the slot isn't usable because intra-car spacing would be too small at the speed traffic is flowing at if the merging driver moved into the slot. It seems, a "lawyer approved" algorithm would have to just stop on the on-ramp to "be safe" even though only one in a thousand (or less) human drivers take that option. This would be quite a mess for traffic flow since, once stopped, the driver-less car would be blocking the on-ramp until traffic lightened up - perhaps hours later.
Perhaps traffic laws may need to change also. Maybe driver-less cars will need to have an indicator on them marking them as being in "driver-less mode" and drivers that normally have the "right of way" would be required to yield where they normally would not.
Obviously they will stop as quickly as possible (while remaining control) or, if needed and feasible, swerve to avoid a collision.
Sometimes, however, there's no option. Hit the dog (or is it a small child) that darted out or plow into the parked vehicles (or is that a parked vehicle with someone standing by the driver's door talking on their cell phone?) to avoid it? I'm trusting the human on that one (both in the identification and in determining the "cost" of each decision) more than software. I'm pretty convinced that most drivers and pedestrians make certain assumptions about each other that will be challenging to capture in driver-less cars. Even when humans are about to have an accident, they make instinctive decisions that reflect human morals.
For example, I regularly drive by intersections with no traffic control devices with humans standing on the corner. Sometimes they are obviously engaged in conversation and I notice that they have not asserted their right of way in the past several seconds. Other times, they are looking at me and I sense that they want to cross. In both cases, the pedestrian has the right of way but I act differently as a driver. If I didn't stop in the second case, I should get a ticket. If I stopped every time I encountered the first case, I'd not get where I was going very quickly. In both cases, the pedestrian was completely stationary.
It will be interesting to watch - I hope driver-less cars get good enough to use safely and efficiently in a mix of pedestrians, skate boarders, bicycles, driver-less cars, human driven cars, motorcycles, garbage trucks, emergency response vehicles, and construction activities.
Yes, it is contrived! However, the first and second cases were not meant to be the same case which I can see created some confusion.
I was thinking of a case where there is an intersection without traffic control. Shrub kid is standing on the corner waiting to cross the street but GoogleCar thinks it's a (perhaps recently planted so not in the database) stationary shrub (perhaps a jade plant with a lot of water in it). The kid, being a pedestrian at an intersection, has the right of way and takes it -- but it's too late by the time the kid moves for the car to come to a complete stop so the kid is hit, knocked to the ground and has permanent brain damage. The kid is, reasonably, used to human drivers who slow down when they see kids standing on a street corner waiting to cross.
A human who knows about Halloween and that shrubs were popular this year due to some animated movie that just came out should/would have recognized it was a probably a kid, not a newly planted shrub or two and slowed down in anticipation of the kid (shrub) stepping out. During the trial, the jury will see the video and say "I would have slowed and stopped yielding to the kid's right of way" (and, they are probably right about that).
Generally, I expect that the driver-less cars will make many fewer errors due to inattentive driving, speeding et al, but I'm skeptical that on public roads with idiot drivers and corner cases that there won't be some fairly spectacular screw-ups that juries will be very unsympathetic about.
I will be very interested to watch the eventual roll-out, if any, of driver-less cars for the general public on existing roads. Dealing with heavy inner city traffic during rush hour -- esp. where most of the cars are taxis will be interesting. In such environments, it's almost impossible to move at a reasonable clip if you only make "safe" lane changes -- you have to bully your way through a bit and sometimes count on other drivers not hitting you. GoogleCar however needs to "follow the rules" (exposing the lines of code that "bullied" the car through traffic would be a liability disaster, so such lines of code can't exist). I envision a GoogleCar "frozen in fear" until the human takes over.
Lawyers?
When a person does something a little stupid or shows a bit of poor judgement that results in a collision, a jury can relate a little to that (they are, after all, human and realize that the glare of on coming headlights may have caused you to not see the stop sign) and they are likely to be a little more forgiving.
When a machine does something a "little stupid", it's likely to be something non-techi human on a jury can't relate to as well ("What do you mean the computer couldn't tell a difference between a shrub and a kid dressed in a shrub costume on Halloween - the kid was carrying a plastic pumpkin, that was a a dead giveaway it was a kid, not a shrub, and that it had the right of way and might step out into the crosswalk."). Also, the deep pockets is "the Google" so it's "free money" the jury is giving away.
I have no problem with eating GMO foods because I don't think there's likely to be any risks associated with them (I think it's more likely they are safer if they reduce the use of pesticides or herbicides on the crop).
However, the reality is that "GMO Free" foods are preferred by some and may therefore command a higher price.
If someone knowingly and intentionally introduces something new into the environment which would prevent nearby "GMO Free" farmers from being able to grow "GMO free" food and that has a negative economic impact on these farmers, the person introducing the item should be liable for damages and stop doing it.
It doesn't seem different to me than if one land owner sprays herbicides on their land and overspray drifts onto an adjacent farmer's and and stunts his crop reducing yield. I would think (but I have no idea what the law says) that the sprayer is liable for the reduction in value of the crop.
In the Disney case, right of first sale (or first giveaway?) should prevail. If Disney gives me a DVD for no reason that I can discern, it's mine to do what I like with it just as if I bought it. So, that precludes copying and selling unauthorized copies of it (not for reasons of contracts or license terms, for reasons of copyright law).
Receiving a single unsolicited DVD from Disney probably causes me indiscernible harm even if I don't want it. If it came in the mail, it's understood that junk mail is yours to do what you wish with but the sender has no liability for the simple cost of the recipient discarding it. If, however, a Disney truck (accidentally or intentionally) unloaded a 48 ft trailer full of DVDs onto your front lawn, it's their responsibility to remove it or compensate you for the cost of removal (and to repair/pay for repairs of any damage to your lawn) if you don't want them.
Ah... That does change the complexion of the case a bit. Although I don't think it changes my thoughts about what the general outcome should be.
I think it is the responsibility of someone who wants to protect their interests in something not to distribute that something onto other people's land. If I knowingly store cases of fresh fruit on your land, I would expect that you should be able to use it for almost any purpose you desire.
Given that the downwind farmer seemed to think there was extra value in the Monsanto derived seed, I wouldn't advocate that he could hold Monsanto's feet to the fire to pay for altering his crop's genetic makeup.
This always intrigued me.
The neighboring farmer didn't sign a license agreement with Monsanto.
Perhaps Monsanto should go after the farmer who didn't control their "Monsanto Pollen and Seed" properly (that, of course, will never happen because they are Monsanto's customer!) if the license requires that the licensee exercises such control over the product.
It seems to me that the farmer whose crop got cross pollinated has no obligation to return or avoid use of that which someone distributed onto their property voluntarily -- much as if I leave a flyer on your front door, it's yours to do with as you like. This is not a case of "lost" property -- the distribution is expected, predictable, well known, and the actual item being distributed has no direct economic value.
It seems to me that the "cross pollinated" farmer has more of a cause of action against Monsanto (for knowingly distributing a manipulated organism that interferes with the farmer's ability to grow premium valued organic, non-GMO crops).
I'd be tempted to make an offer to Monsanto if I was a neighboring farmer whose crops had gotten cross pollinated: 'Monsanto, get every last bit of your pollution off my property. Access to do so will be granted at the rate of $x/acre per day until you return the land in an "as found" condition with the exception of getting your crap off it'
Yes, but if you read it really fast you don' t notice the redundancy. Think of it as ECC or parity.
Supermarkets I shop at offer self-serve checkout and they take cash (paper and coin) and allow you to pay with multiple methods. So, I start by paying cash and putting any change I have in my pocket into the machine, then I pay the balance w/a credit card. Since I started doing that, I no longer have change piling up and I pay no surcharges. Obviously it's a way to maintain the "no extra change" steady state but not a good way to get rid of a backlog of change.