If people feel threatened and don't feel the State can protect them then the next time this happens a "victim" will offer a cash reward to whoever helps to assault or kill their perceived attacker..
Bollocks. People have offered rewards for information leading to arrests pretty much since state justice came into existence. Her attacker will get the same legal due process as they would otherwise. You have created an imaginary issue, with an imagined slippery slope.
Stop trying to equate trolling with doxxing+death threats.
The mainstream press, and thus the wider public, have redefined trolling to be harassing people online. Dislike it all you want, but from now on if you mention trolling it will be taken by most people to mean things like rape threats etc. Making up a strawman about the 'right to offend' because you haven't got anything to say about the original posters point isn't going to persuade anyone.
Just be glad that you're so unimportant, and have done so little of worth, that no one cares enough to harass you.
Semi-rational people appreciate that it isn't them knowing your address that is the issue, but using it. I'm sure if you, your boss, your parents etc were getting abusive phonecalls in the middle of the night. People were putting all sorts of crap in your letter box. Sending doctored pictures of you, false stories about being a child abuser etc to your neighbours. SWATing you. Your internet tough girl persona doesn't impress anyone.
This problem is easily solved by placing the liability of a "proper" locking system on the manufacturer and vendor of the car. If the system gets hacked, the manufacturer should be made liable to come up with a fix for that, or buy the car back from the owner at the original price of sale. In the UK most of the provisions for such a system are already in place.
The UK already has consumer protection laws that should be sufficient to cover this. Our statutory rights include that goods are 'fit for purpose' and 'last a reasonable length of time'. There are other relevant protections as well. I'm pretty sure that if the company that sold you a new car in the last ~8 years refused to rectify a security issue sufficient enough to make your car uninsurable you'd have grounds for a lawsuit.
And that's aside from the massive damage to the manufacturers reputation if they didn't resolve it anyway.
Seriously, if you have such a gigantic hard-on for Euros, I suggest you move there.
That old chestnut; always a clear sign of someone without anything worth saying who doesn't let it stop them. Thanks for providing a great example of the kind of idiocy he was joking about though.
My NFC credit cards work from inside my wallets outermost pockets. So it's actually faster to get wallet out, touch to NFC and put away than by Apple Pay etc. I've heard the argument that Apple Watch makes it faster, and possibly it does, but then so would attaching my credit card to my forearm and I have no intention of doing either!
Than opening wallet, removing card and swiping it, entering a pin / signing a signature, returning it to your wallet versus just touching a device to a reader and having your device authenticate via your fingerprint / continuous biometrics?
Went to London on Saturday. Got off my train, used my NFC credit card to tap onto/off all underground trains. Paid for lunch using NFC. Paid for dinner using Wahaca's app (you can pay and leave without having to wait for bill etc). Also went to the supermarket on Sunday and they have NFC payment. Didn't have to get my card out of the front pocket of wallet once all weekend. Phone payment has benefits, and downsides, but comparing to some some backwards implementation of card payment doesn't prove the need for it.
I use credit cards for everything paid off by direct debit at the end of every statement period. I get charged nothing for the card nor am I charged any interest. In return I get:
1/ Additional protection when buying things by credit card
2/ To keep an average of $1,500 extra in my current account
3/ Cashback/rewards from credit card provider. I've received $200 and 80,000 Avios (airmiles) so far this year.
4/ Perks including a number of free uses of business lounges, special offers inc 50% off a hotel stay I was making anyway
5/ The ability to spend ~$30,000 at no notice if I ever needed to, with a month or more to move funds to my current account to cover the direct debit.
There are people credit cards may be a bad idea for, and there are certainly bad ways to use a credit card, but only someone uninformed wouldn't know there's considerable benefits to be had from using them correctly.
It's just too bad we don't have a law like that in the US
Because you like it when the US goes full retard? Punishing people for the actions of their family members is stupid when Israel does it and it'd be equally stupid if America did it. There's no rational reason to restrict it to just terrorism offences, the only reason it would be is because people are completely irrational when it comes to terrorism.
I'm really not sure why you think the anecdotal evidence of one driver someone defines an entire industry. I'd also like to see something backing up the over 100% figure but I expect that driving is quite a high turnover role.
Are you contradicting this based on any more than a desire to be pointlessly argumentative?
It is a more reasonable assumption that the computational power will continue to increase in line with the long term trend than that it will not, lacking evidence to the contrary. Given that the most powerful computer currently is can reach 34 Petaflops and India is planning to build a ~130 Exaflop machine before 2018 it's clear that vastly more powerful machines can be built.
There's a *huge* market for this. My grandmother in law is 93....
This is why we'll have it sooner rather than later. There are so many reasons why people can't drive. So many people who shouldn't be driving but are allowed to because stopping them is controversial (the elderly). So much money spent on paying people to drive (Taxis, Couriers, Hauliers).
A human, I might add that's breaking the law. Distracted driving is illegal.
Do you have any idea how stupid that point is? I suppose the people being held by ISIS shouldn't worry because most people wouldn't behead them, only someone breaking the law and that's illegal! I can stop locking my house as well because entering and taking my stuff is a crime! That must mean I shouldn't be concerned about it because it's illegal.
It's pretty fucking obvious that illegal, distracted or poor driving causes the vast majority of accidents. Unfortunately there's a lot of illegal, distracted or poor driving. If you can suggest somewhere one can drive where there isn't then maybe people there don't need to consider it, but people everywhere else do.
This. The biggest obstacles left for autonmous cars isn't technical they're legal and ethical. Building a car that gets a new traffic light right 99% of the time is probably trivial, but would putting a car on the road that will get it wrong 1% of the time be ethical and/or a legal liability? A previous example of a google car failing was that it slowed to a virtual stop when passing people walking along the side of the road; that is seen as a problem because the normal human behaviour is to drive past within a few feet of the person at a speed that could easily kill them if they moved in the way. The car is being more cautious, in order to avoid a genuine life threatening risk, but we see that as 'failing'.
Are there technical hurdles left? Obviously, but they aren't the hardest things to resolve.
I noticed the disconnect as well. I use Facebook and I still don't think what it needs is for people to be more blindly trusting on there. It's blind trust that leads to people following links to malicious sites etc.
You're going to be killed. I'm bound to be right, because when you die of natural causes in many years a bunch of muppets will claim I said you were going to "die" and thus I was right all those years ago;)
but you can't actually ignore that there's a treaty (the UN Charter is a treaty) that's US law under the constitution, and signers agreed not to cross other nation's borders with force without security council authorization..
Sadly it seems pretty clear that you can ignore it as I'm yet to see any remotely serious consideration of the idea of actually doing anything about the, imo, illegal intervention in Iraq.
Where was their market research? Where was their marketing? Any traditional non-technology startup that forgets do do these things will fail.
Bullshit. You think Facebook did market research before starting up? It's ludicrous to think that most companies do extensive market research and marketing at launch. It's also equally naive to think that doing market research and marketing automatically means you'll be a success.
But then this is the internet where you can respond to a post that in no way mentions market research, let alone says they didn't do any, by suggesting that's where they went wrong so obviously it's a +5 insightful post.
So does mine, however I think the submission is talking about emails in the spam folder. The majority of email in my spam folder has titles so incredibly bizarre as to self-evidently be junk, for example a load of spaced out nonsense letters surrounded by symbol characters. It's dissapointing that Google can't either define these as categorically unwanted and remove them entirely, or doesn't want to. Having them removed automatically would leave me with less email in my spam folder which would save me time when I check it for the rare false positives.
That said: Who the fuck wants to stream 2160p medium? I personally haven't found benefit from 720p and given that few of my monitors support 1080p there's no benefit to streaming at that resolution, especially given the mean quality of video entertainment available nowadays.
There isn't a screen in my house that isn't 1080p (even tablets and phones). The difference between SD and 1080p is huge (though I expect that a good quality 720p signal probably gives 75%+ of the benefit). I wasn't an early adoptor of HD but I'm a convert now I'm on it. I doubt I'll be an early adoptor of 4K either, and certainly don't expect the difference to be all that noticable but I'll probably get in on it in around 4-5 years when it's lost most of its price premium and become established.
It is a likely event (look at the % of people who get divorced!) and I fail to see why either pretending like, or actually, believing it couldn't possibly happen in your own case is the wise course of action. My view on a pre-nup would depend largely on the reason and fairness of contract rather than it existing.
London's Tube Drivers are extremely militant - it's normal to have a couple of strikes per year (sometimes over "normal" industrial disputes like pay, sometimes because, I suspect, they just want to remind people they can do it).
And it's worked for them so far sadly. They have an incredible deal compared to equivalent workers on other networks, regularly shake down the government for more by threatening not to do their job during major events, and continue to whine incessently. I'd pay more for my travel if it meant getting rid of drivers sooner because they're a liability to London's public transport.
You're right. In my experience American dicks are bigger, and far more common; you can barely swing super sized soda in the US without hitting a obese dick
How do US authorities feel about foreign nations hacking into US military and corporate computers?
As absolutely wrong as their position is ethically I don't think there's quite the hypocrisy being claimed. I doubt the Chinese are punishing the people hacking into American servers for them either, warrant or not. In theory a US warrant shouldn't even be valid for a server in the UK, so the FBI is commiting a crime in Britain by hacking a machine that is located there without a UK warrant. The question is whether the laws of the country the server is in make what the FBI did criminal, whether the country is willing to take it to court and whether they can do anything about it anyway.
The American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the same; they may have resorted to some guerrilla warfare type tactics, but against British soldiers
Learn a little history before lecturing people on it. There were plenty of appaling crimes against laoyalists by patriots during the revolutionary war. It's naive to think that the biggest difference between terrorist and freedom fighter can be found in semantics. Hell the US support of the Taliban followed by all out war against them should make a mockery of any attempt to pretend the labels are anything more than political these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Bollocks. People have offered rewards for information leading to arrests pretty much since state justice came into existence. Her attacker will get the same legal due process as they would otherwise. You have created an imaginary issue, with an imagined slippery slope.
The mainstream press, and thus the wider public, have redefined trolling to be harassing people online. Dislike it all you want, but from now on if you mention trolling it will be taken by most people to mean things like rape threats etc. Making up a strawman about the 'right to offend' because you haven't got anything to say about the original posters point isn't going to persuade anyone.
Just be glad that you're so unimportant, and have done so little of worth, that no one cares enough to harass you.
Semi-rational people appreciate that it isn't them knowing your address that is the issue, but using it. I'm sure if you, your boss, your parents etc were getting abusive phonecalls in the middle of the night. People were putting all sorts of crap in your letter box. Sending doctored pictures of you, false stories about being a child abuser etc to your neighbours. SWATing you. Your internet tough girl persona doesn't impress anyone.
The UK already has consumer protection laws that should be sufficient to cover this. Our statutory rights include that goods are 'fit for purpose' and 'last a reasonable length of time'. There are other relevant protections as well. I'm pretty sure that if the company that sold you a new car in the last ~8 years refused to rectify a security issue sufficient enough to make your car uninsurable you'd have grounds for a lawsuit.
And that's aside from the massive damage to the manufacturers reputation if they didn't resolve it anyway.
That old chestnut; always a clear sign of someone without anything worth saying who doesn't let it stop them. Thanks for providing a great example of the kind of idiocy he was joking about though.
My NFC credit cards work from inside my wallets outermost pockets. So it's actually faster to get wallet out, touch to NFC and put away than by Apple Pay etc. I've heard the argument that Apple Watch makes it faster, and possibly it does, but then so would attaching my credit card to my forearm and I have no intention of doing either!
Went to London on Saturday. Got off my train, used my NFC credit card to tap onto/off all underground trains. Paid for lunch using NFC. Paid for dinner using Wahaca's app (you can pay and leave without having to wait for bill etc). Also went to the supermarket on Sunday and they have NFC payment. Didn't have to get my card out of the front pocket of wallet once all weekend. Phone payment has benefits, and downsides, but comparing to some some backwards implementation of card payment doesn't prove the need for it.
I use credit cards for everything paid off by direct debit at the end of every statement period. I get charged nothing for the card nor am I charged any interest. In return I get:
1/ Additional protection when buying things by credit card
2/ To keep an average of $1,500 extra in my current account
3/ Cashback/rewards from credit card provider. I've received $200 and 80,000 Avios (airmiles) so far this year.
4/ Perks including a number of free uses of business lounges, special offers inc 50% off a hotel stay I was making anyway
5/ The ability to spend ~$30,000 at no notice if I ever needed to, with a month or more to move funds to my current account to cover the direct debit.
There are people credit cards may be a bad idea for, and there are certainly bad ways to use a credit card, but only someone uninformed wouldn't know there's considerable benefits to be had from using them correctly.
Because you like it when the US goes full retard? Punishing people for the actions of their family members is stupid when Israel does it and it'd be equally stupid if America did it. There's no rational reason to restrict it to just terrorism offences, the only reason it would be is because people are completely irrational when it comes to terrorism.
I'm really not sure why you think the anecdotal evidence of one driver someone defines an entire industry. I'd also like to see something backing up the over 100% figure but I expect that driving is quite a high turnover role.
Are you contradicting this based on any more than a desire to be pointlessly argumentative?
It is a more reasonable assumption that the computational power will continue to increase in line with the long term trend than that it will not, lacking evidence to the contrary. Given that the most powerful computer currently is can reach 34 Petaflops and India is planning to build a ~130 Exaflop machine before 2018 it's clear that vastly more powerful machines can be built.
This is why we'll have it sooner rather than later. There are so many reasons why people can't drive. So many people who shouldn't be driving but are allowed to because stopping them is controversial (the elderly). So much money spent on paying people to drive (Taxis, Couriers, Hauliers).
Do you have any idea how stupid that point is? I suppose the people being held by ISIS shouldn't worry because most people wouldn't behead them, only someone breaking the law and that's illegal! I can stop locking my house as well because entering and taking my stuff is a crime! That must mean I shouldn't be concerned about it because it's illegal.
It's pretty fucking obvious that illegal, distracted or poor driving causes the vast majority of accidents. Unfortunately there's a lot of illegal, distracted or poor driving. If you can suggest somewhere one can drive where there isn't then maybe people there don't need to consider it, but people everywhere else do.
This. The biggest obstacles left for autonmous cars isn't technical they're legal and ethical. Building a car that gets a new traffic light right 99% of the time is probably trivial, but would putting a car on the road that will get it wrong 1% of the time be ethical and/or a legal liability? A previous example of a google car failing was that it slowed to a virtual stop when passing people walking along the side of the road; that is seen as a problem because the normal human behaviour is to drive past within a few feet of the person at a speed that could easily kill them if they moved in the way. The car is being more cautious, in order to avoid a genuine life threatening risk, but we see that as 'failing'.
Are there technical hurdles left? Obviously, but they aren't the hardest things to resolve.
I noticed the disconnect as well. I use Facebook and I still don't think what it needs is for people to be more blindly trusting on there. It's blind trust that leads to people following links to malicious sites etc.
You're going to be killed. I'm bound to be right, because when you die of natural causes in many years a bunch of muppets will claim I said you were going to "die" and thus I was right all those years ago ;)
Sadly it seems pretty clear that you can ignore it as I'm yet to see any remotely serious consideration of the idea of actually doing anything about the, imo, illegal intervention in Iraq.
Bullshit. You think Facebook did market research before starting up? It's ludicrous to think that most companies do extensive market research and marketing at launch. It's also equally naive to think that doing market research and marketing automatically means you'll be a success.
But then this is the internet where you can respond to a post that in no way mentions market research, let alone says they didn't do any, by suggesting that's where they went wrong so obviously it's a +5 insightful post.
So does mine, however I think the submission is talking about emails in the spam folder. The majority of email in my spam folder has titles so incredibly bizarre as to self-evidently be junk, for example a load of spaced out nonsense letters surrounded by symbol characters. It's dissapointing that Google can't either define these as categorically unwanted and remove them entirely, or doesn't want to. Having them removed automatically would leave me with less email in my spam folder which would save me time when I check it for the rare false positives.
There isn't a screen in my house that isn't 1080p (even tablets and phones). The difference between SD and 1080p is huge (though I expect that a good quality 720p signal probably gives 75%+ of the benefit). I wasn't an early adoptor of HD but I'm a convert now I'm on it. I doubt I'll be an early adoptor of 4K either, and certainly don't expect the difference to be all that noticable but I'll probably get in on it in around 4-5 years when it's lost most of its price premium and become established.
It is a likely event (look at the % of people who get divorced!) and I fail to see why either pretending like, or actually, believing it couldn't possibly happen in your own case is the wise course of action. My view on a pre-nup would depend largely on the reason and fairness of contract rather than it existing.
And it's worked for them so far sadly. They have an incredible deal compared to equivalent workers on other networks, regularly shake down the government for more by threatening not to do their job during major events, and continue to whine incessently. I'd pay more for my travel if it meant getting rid of drivers sooner because they're a liability to London's public transport.
You're right. In my experience American dicks are bigger, and far more common; you can barely swing super sized soda in the US without hitting a obese dick
As absolutely wrong as their position is ethically I don't think there's quite the hypocrisy being claimed. I doubt the Chinese are punishing the people hacking into American servers for them either, warrant or not. In theory a US warrant shouldn't even be valid for a server in the UK, so the FBI is commiting a crime in Britain by hacking a machine that is located there without a UK warrant. The question is whether the laws of the country the server is in make what the FBI did criminal, whether the country is willing to take it to court and whether they can do anything about it anyway.
Learn a little history before lecturing people on it. There were plenty of appaling crimes against laoyalists by patriots during the revolutionary war. It's naive to think that the biggest difference between terrorist and freedom fighter can be found in semantics. Hell the US support of the Taliban followed by all out war against them should make a mockery of any attempt to pretend the labels are anything more than political these days.