Unlikely. If the engineers take the basic precaution of calculating how far ahead the car can detect a gap or obstacle they can easily work out the maximum speed the car can go and still stop in time. I can't imagine engineers working on a self-driving car for the consumer market would fail to test scenarios like that.
We get the reality we chose to buy. Most people are choosing to live in this world by preferring those products over others without the privacy problems.
What alternatives? There are very few, and they are inferior (Linux on the desktop, anyone?).
I reject your snobbish assertion that the citizenry deserves to have their privacy eroded. It's like you're watching a frog being slowly boiled and you're blaming the frog.
That may be true, but unless and until there is a law protecting your privacy in a meaningful way, your opinion on what is and is not any of your employer's business is irrelevant. They can get the data, so all they need is a motive.
The old work contract implied loyalty in both directions.
Employers broke the contract first.
Up to a point the company would be loyal to their more valuable workers
As someone else said, the very idea that a subset of the employees are the only ones who really matter is a characteristic of the post-loyalty environment.
A more accurate description of the "old way" is that employers used to provide training and advancement opportunities. Employees would take the training and get rewarded with advancement, or not and not get rewarded.
The new way is to provide neither training nor advancement. Employees must train on their own time at their own expense to avoid getting laid off, and must change jobs if they want to actually advance their careers.
As difficult as it may be to believe this, if you're poor and expecting to finance your education through a combination of grants, scholarships, and loans, working a summer job may be the worst decision you can make.
Things may have changed since my college days, and they may differ from state to state, but here is how my financial aid worked out.
New York State calculated financial aid eligibility taking the minimum income of the past 3 years. My sophomore year in high school I only got a part-time job and made about $800 all summer. I managed to save about half of it. My junior and senior years I worked almost full time in the summer and part-time during the year, and made about $3000-$4000 (this was at a time when minimum wage was $3.50/hr).
Freshman year in college, my aid paid for everything except books and activity fees (yes aid was more generous and costs were lower back then).
Sophomore year, my aid was reduced by $800 because of the earnings I'd made 3 years previously years and I had to take a student loan for that amount.
Junior year, my aid was reduced by about another $2200. I caught on to the pattern at that point. I was faced with the choice of quitting my part-time job right away and taking out a loan to pay expenses, or having to take an even bigger loan the next year. Remember, if I had not earned any money at all and just leeched off my parents, I would have come out of college debt-free.
So, my advice is, understand what your financial aid picture is going to be and how your earnings will affect it, before you rush out and get a job.
FYI, "Midnight at the Well of Souls" (or the series, anyway) has some oddball sex in it. Hermaphrodite-on-hermaphrodite and deer-on-centaur come to mind. Read it first before handing it to an 8-year-old.
Yes, but Verizon I'm sure will market this as beneficial to subscribers. "Now you get unlimited voice and text, and you can put all your devices on our network for CHEAP!" Conveniently sweeping under the rug the massive price increase on data...
If your definition of 'principles' includes the notion that bearing false witness is acceptable then I must question your moral compass as well as Chomsky's.
"Bearing false witness" is a Biblical turn of phrase. In that case, I'll call your attention to Matthew 7:1-2; but no hard feelings, see also Matthew 6:14.
My moral compass is fine, thanks. I think this Ayyadurai guy probably really believes his work is relevant and that he deserves to be remembered at least as co-inventor of email. I think Chomsky probably believes it too, but is choosing to wrap his argument in an unsupported accusation in order to amplify the attention. Now "unsupported" does not mean "insincere." Making statements one believes to be true, but can't support, is far from "false witness."
If you are referring to some other incident where Chomsky has been caught in an out-and-out lie and thoroughly discredited, I'm not aware of it. If you can cite the incident then it's quite possible you'll change my opinion of Chomsky.
I am getting annoyed with lawmakers calling this or that a "Bill of Rights." We've have the Airline Traveler's Bill of Rights, and the Credit Card User's Bill of Rights, and now this. To call these feeble gestures "Bills of Rights" cheapens the real Bill of Rights.
If the legislature and courts would pay attention to upholding the real, one-and-only Bill of Rights, this Internet "bill of rights" would emerge as corollaries to Amendments #1 and #4.
Edison (well, his lab monkeys anyway) DID get a viable working version going though.
That's my definition of "invented." There are other definitions that are perfectly reasonable, and clearly the Edison-lightbulb thing doesn't fit yours.
Hmm... maybe different definitions of "invented" are what this kerfuffle is really about.
As to Chomsky, as I've said, he most certainly must have been using Unix-based mail back in those days, so I can't figure out how he can justify coming to this guy's defense.
Hey, I admire Chomsky for his principles, but even I admit he has an ego the size of a planet and will use the thinnest pretext to get his name in the headlines again.
All TFA says is V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai wrote a program called "EMAIL" and registered a copyright for it. There is not even a claim that it was actually tried out over a network, or a discussion of how the protocol worked or how it would scale.
Certainly this does make clear that "email" was not a totally original idea when BBN "invented" it, but neither was the light bulb original when Edison invented it. There is a certain value to making something actually work. (And yes, I know Edison was a douchebag. He still invented the light bulb, dammit!)
If it's any consolation, BBN made as much money off licensing their e-mail technology as Ayyadurai did: zero. This was back in the days when researchers shared their work. Contrast with how today's technology companies behave with respect to intellectual property and you'll see why I think Chomsky's denunciation of BBN is a bit overblown.
I guess those voters didn't realize this isn't a Miss America pageant where if a minority wins, it's all special and great and fantastic and a leap forward. The person who wins a presidency election has to actually do something once they win and it actually affects people
I think the choice of president would matter a lot more if America were a pure dictatorship. It's not. The president cannot actually do a lot without the support of Congress. So the president matters, but his practical power is limited. Checks and balances really can work, as Congress has been proving since the mid-term elections.
So if you believe the president's power is limited and you believe checks and balances work, the choice of president becomes not a momentous determination of the future course of human history, but more like the choice between buying a Toyota or buying a Volkswagen. At that level, making a gesture to break the last great symbolic barrier seems like a reasonable factor to consider.
Thank you for saying that. It's a bloody outrage that I'm paying $60 a month for a smart phone and then some suit decides to start cramming advertising down my throat.
There is no reason to limit ourselves to the standards set by desperate ancestors who had to do terrible things to simply survive.
Let's not be apologists for our ancestors. They didn't burn each other at the stake or enslave their neighbors "just to survive." They did those things because they wanted to. To gain wealth or power. To the extent we do not want to do those things now, we're better people.
Slashdot Mirror
Drat, I spend all my mod points this morning and now I regret it. +1 informative.
Unlikely. If the engineers take the basic precaution of calculating how far ahead the car can detect a gap or obstacle they can easily work out the maximum speed the car can go and still stop in time. I can't imagine engineers working on a self-driving car for the consumer market would fail to test scenarios like that.
We have several reliable, compact, and cheap ways to store that amount of energy. The trouble is, they're all fossil fuels.
What alternatives? There are very few, and they are inferior (Linux on the desktop, anyone?).
I reject your snobbish assertion that the citizenry deserves to have their privacy eroded. It's like you're watching a frog being slowly boiled and you're blaming the frog.
For the sake of discussion: what is wrong with cash and/or what is the benefit of doing away with it?
Is anyone else troubled that civilian planes use unencrypted GPS and are therefore susceptible to spoofing?
I prefer the formulation, "When I was 18, I knew everything." (pause) "What the hell happened?"
That may be true, but unless and until there is a law protecting your privacy in a meaningful way, your opinion on what is and is not any of your employer's business is irrelevant. They can get the data, so all they need is a motive.
Getting your friends and acquaintances to track you. Oh, wait! That's Facebook.
If this only "borders on" evil, I'd hate to see what you consider "definitely evil."
I'm sure it's great, until an unidentified and presumably foreign person assassinates you on the way to work.
Israel spies on the US a hell of a lot. So on one hand it seems like a Faustian bargain for the NSA or CIA to get in bed with Mossad.
Employers broke the contract first.
As someone else said, the very idea that a subset of the employees are the only ones who really matter is a characteristic of the post-loyalty environment.
A more accurate description of the "old way" is that employers used to provide training and advancement opportunities. Employees would take the training and get rewarded with advancement, or not and not get rewarded.
The new way is to provide neither training nor advancement. Employees must train on their own time at their own expense to avoid getting laid off, and must change jobs if they want to actually advance their careers.
As difficult as it may be to believe this, if you're poor and expecting to finance your education through a combination of grants, scholarships, and loans, working a summer job may be the worst decision you can make.
Things may have changed since my college days, and they may differ from state to state, but here is how my financial aid worked out.
New York State calculated financial aid eligibility taking the minimum income of the past 3 years. My sophomore year in high school I only got a part-time job and made about $800 all summer. I managed to save about half of it. My junior and senior years I worked almost full time in the summer and part-time during the year, and made about $3000-$4000 (this was at a time when minimum wage was $3.50/hr).
Freshman year in college, my aid paid for everything except books and activity fees (yes aid was more generous and costs were lower back then).
Sophomore year, my aid was reduced by $800 because of the earnings I'd made 3 years previously years and I had to take a student loan for that amount.
Junior year, my aid was reduced by about another $2200. I caught on to the pattern at that point. I was faced with the choice of quitting my part-time job right away and taking out a loan to pay expenses, or having to take an even bigger loan the next year. Remember, if I had not earned any money at all and just leeched off my parents, I would have come out of college debt-free.
So, my advice is, understand what your financial aid picture is going to be and how your earnings will affect it, before you rush out and get a job.
Smart money is on the evil Dr. Entropy. :-)
FYI, "Midnight at the Well of Souls" (or the series, anyway) has some oddball sex in it. Hermaphrodite-on-hermaphrodite and deer-on-centaur come to mind. Read it first before handing it to an 8-year-old.
Yes, but Verizon I'm sure will market this as beneficial to subscribers. "Now you get unlimited voice and text, and you can put all your devices on our network for CHEAP!" Conveniently sweeping under the rug the massive price increase on data...
"Bearing false witness" is a Biblical turn of phrase. In that case, I'll call your attention to Matthew 7:1-2; but no hard feelings, see also Matthew 6:14.
My moral compass is fine, thanks. I think this Ayyadurai guy probably really believes his work is relevant and that he deserves to be remembered at least as co-inventor of email. I think Chomsky probably believes it too, but is choosing to wrap his argument in an unsupported accusation in order to amplify the attention. Now "unsupported" does not mean "insincere." Making statements one believes to be true, but can't support, is far from "false witness."
If you are referring to some other incident where Chomsky has been caught in an out-and-out lie and thoroughly discredited, I'm not aware of it. If you can cite the incident then it's quite possible you'll change my opinion of Chomsky.
I am getting annoyed with lawmakers calling this or that a "Bill of Rights." We've have the Airline Traveler's Bill of Rights, and the Credit Card User's Bill of Rights, and now this. To call these feeble gestures "Bills of Rights" cheapens the real Bill of Rights.
If the legislature and courts would pay attention to upholding the real, one-and-only Bill of Rights, this Internet "bill of rights" would emerge as corollaries to Amendments #1 and #4.
That's my definition of "invented." There are other definitions that are perfectly reasonable, and clearly the Edison-lightbulb thing doesn't fit yours.
Hmm ... maybe different definitions of "invented" are what this kerfuffle is really about.
Hey, I admire Chomsky for his principles, but even I admit he has an ego the size of a planet and will use the thinnest pretext to get his name in the headlines again.
All TFA says is V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai wrote a program called "EMAIL" and registered a copyright for it. There is not even a claim that it was actually tried out over a network, or a discussion of how the protocol worked or how it would scale.
Certainly this does make clear that "email" was not a totally original idea when BBN "invented" it, but neither was the light bulb original when Edison invented it. There is a certain value to making something actually work. (And yes, I know Edison was a douchebag. He still invented the light bulb, dammit!)
If it's any consolation, BBN made as much money off licensing their e-mail technology as Ayyadurai did: zero. This was back in the days when researchers shared their work. Contrast with how today's technology companies behave with respect to intellectual property and you'll see why I think Chomsky's denunciation of BBN is a bit overblown.
I think the choice of president would matter a lot more if America were a pure dictatorship. It's not. The president cannot actually do a lot without the support of Congress. So the president matters, but his practical power is limited. Checks and balances really can work, as Congress has been proving since the mid-term elections.
So if you believe the president's power is limited and you believe checks and balances work, the choice of president becomes not a momentous determination of the future course of human history, but more like the choice between buying a Toyota or buying a Volkswagen. At that level, making a gesture to break the last great symbolic barrier seems like a reasonable factor to consider.
Thank you for saying that. It's a bloody outrage that I'm paying $60 a month for a smart phone and then some suit decides to start cramming advertising down my throat.