You might even be considered an "unauthorized user" from twitter's perspective
That is precisely what triggers the fraud and abuse act.
but by giving you their password, the end-user has made you the defacto authorized user of that account.
The end user is not authorized to do that, per the Terms of Service.
Look, the point is that its is not an open and shut case. There is a valid legal argument, bolstered by recent court rulings that the CFAA can be triggered in this way. The most recent court cases was just such an example of an authorized user sharing their password with an ex-employee. Obviously that's not exactly the same thing.
But its close enough in a lot of ways, the twitter user, like the employee doesn't really 'own the account'. It is assigned to them and they aren't allowed to share it. So if they do share it the person they share it with is NOT an authorized user, and that in theory triggers the CFAA.
Yes, its all kinds of stupid... but the CFAA is all kinds of stupid too.
Is there a windows store for the desktop version of windows 10?
Yes.
I did not even know that. Does it also Work with Windows 7/8?
It was released with Windows 8.
It only carries the new 'modern ui' apps. There are a variety of technologies in place to make the apps more self contained (more sandboxed); as well as let you potentially deliver the same app to Windows Desktop, tablet, and phone, (and xbox) consumers in one transaction.
Its not all bad. The original 'metro' was far too "phone/tablet" and lousy for desktop. The only one I personally use is Netflix.
Its gotten better, the apps will run in windows now ("small w" windows ie not full screen), and they added title bars and so on to the desktop version but I still have zero desire to use it for games or anything paid.
Myself, I like steam and gog. Both steam and gog are cross-platform (mac+windows+linux); which I actually value a lot vs (winphone+windesktop+xbox) which I do not value at all.
I could see the Windows store coming to replace random download sites for a lot of things, and that would be a good thing for the user experience and for safety + security. (e.g. it would be a good source for stuff like CPU-Z, qbittorrent, Acrobat Reader, Dropbox... etc etc... ) Having all that in the windows store would be good for the windows platform -- updates could be centralized instead of each doing their own.
The trouble with that is right now none of those apps will actually currently work if delivered by the windows store; due to the restrictions and sandboxing etc. CPU-Z I think needs admin rights to get the CPU information it reports, which store apps can't have. Dropbox needs shell integration which store apps cant' have. qbitttorrent... not sure if the windows store can distribute GPL stuff due to GPL license rules on making source available via the distributor...Maybe it is? And acrobat reader installs browser plugins etc which the again... app store apps can't do.
So... its a neat concept, that needs to happen but the chasm between what an app store app can do, and what windows desktop users need is still too wide.
This is why MS is focussed on games -- games are generally pretty self contained, and they are hoping to tie it together with xbox which makes sense, and may be of some value to xbox owners... to be able to play chunks of their xbox library at home or on their laptop...
The point being... a good app store run by microsoft would be good for the windows ecosystem. However, if Microsoft tries to squeeze out the other app stores, that would be a bad thing.
Was he compelled to actually put his finger on the phone, or was he just compelled to surrender his fingerprints?
The 5th only applies to testimony. Your finger print is not testimony.
They can already compel you to put your finger onto a finger print scanner or inkpad to collect your fingerprint.
It seems to me, that if we allow the government the authority to compel you to stick your finger onto anything (e.g. an inkpad) to collect your fingerprint; its not unreasonable that they have the authority to make you touch your phone too. With a warrant of course.
The upshot really should be, a fingerprint is a good way to keep random theives, children, and coworkers out of your phone. Not the government. Use a proper password for stuff you don't want the government to see.
Sounds like he has had a lot of fun. Golf is kind of boring by comparison.
Its something he enjoys. I'm not saying he had to be 'boring'.
And I'm not suggesting that he was wrong to do what he enjoys... he's certainly lived the life he wants to live, and that's fine, even something admirable in its own way. (perhaps not his life choices in particular, but the notion making the most of life is.)
Its not a demonstration of a fantastic business acumen.
He appears to still have more money than I know how to spend.
So does Paris Hilton. I guess she's a fantastic business woman?
Again, you can't judge business success by wealth itself, only by ROI
I'm not judging the business, I'm judging the man. The ROI on the the business maybe for 4M, but the ROI on the MAN is -1M.
Its meaningless to draw arbitrary boxes and look at them in isolation... what's the total package?
A business that *needlessly* flies around its executives on private jets. seats them in gold gilt chairs, and is wasting money (see definition of "needlessly").
A businessman that owns a business that is run responsibly, who then flies himself around on privates jets, gold gilt chairs... etc... is the same thing at the end of the day.
What are you suggesting? A person who is really great at making and managing money... until its his?
The other turned $150M into $100M while living an indulgent life making it to age 70. Do you think the later ex-athlete a business failure?
A business failure? Yes. Absolutely. Successful at life? Also yes. Absolutely.
If you want to tell me Trump has led a pretty fantastic life, sure, I won't argue that. But don't tell me he's a great *businessman*. He's pretty mediocre at business, at best.
IF I understand things correctly each project is usually a different corporation. Different investors for different projects, one failed project won't impact other projects, a failure doesn't impact anyone personally, etc. Basically look up all the reasons you want an S-Corp or LLC rather than a sole proprietorship for your own business. I think his bankruptcies are several of these projects failing. If only several projects failed out of dozens he's doing pretty well.
Quite so.
However, if trump had merely stuck his inheritance money in a market ETF and then fucked off to play golf for the last 25-30 years, he be 3x-5x as wealthy as he is now. (the variance depending on just how much you believe he's actually worth now.)
25 years of 'projects', wheeling and dealing, real estate, steaks, wines, universities, casinos.
My own simple investments have done better than Trump over the last 2-3 decades.
The only difference between people like me and Trump is that Trump started out with a couple hundred million, and I didn't, so even earning wildly sub-par returns he's STILL a billionaire, and I'm not.
Really, how much success do you want to attribute to a businessman who trailed the market by THAT much?
Must gambling businesses are subtle or outright frauds
No, not really. Gambling businesses don't need to cheat or commit fraud to win. That's built into the business. A slot machine in Vegas is a ripoff; but its exactly the ripoff it discloses itself to be. And its independently tested to make sure it pays out exactly the odds it says on the label.
These gaming gambling sites take all the advantages that are built into being a gambling business... and then they just outright cheat. Rig games for insiders or themselves. Lie outright about the odds. Etc.
Oh... and they not only let kids play, they market the sites them *directly*.
At the very least they need to be cleaned up (regulated) so that they rise to the level of legitimate gambling sites.
Take a very good look at how "high speed trading" works to get a sense of how much of stock market funds are sucked right out of the business by larger companies that can afford the "insider information' that a few microseconds of lead time on stock announcements provides.
That's really a separate discussion. But you are right, and its pretty easy to measure. Every dollar an HFT trader/algorithm extracts in profit is a dollar taken away from the retail buyer and seller. Every single dollar they make is essentially stolen in my opinion.
But again, nothing to do with gambling in general or steam in particular.
Well, one model would be to give people a sample limited service to hopefully upsell them into a paid spotify premium; that would be the classic 'how else'.
Note that spotify says this only applies to its non-paying customers.
But yeah, if you aren't paying for the service, this is pretty much what you should expect.
but a self declared actual former "demon summoner" should be respected and believed without question.
Well, to be fair, he was able to identify all the pokemon er... poke-demon attack types, from his direct personal experience with them. How does that not command instant faith and respect?
But I agree it's more often than not irrelevant and annoying.
Really? I love that 1/2 the time the discussion completely disregards the entire primary story and fixates on the also-ran throw away sentence at the end now. Saves me reading the headline or summary... half time the discussion won't be about it anyway.
The only thing that would be better would be if every article could have a meta discussion about why this is happening that prevents either topic from being discussed!:)/sarcasm off
I agree with you. Its stupid and distracting. Editors please stop.
Warning: Windows 10 is draining your battery by being a poorly conceived and implemented operating system. You should install Linux immediately.
And yet, I've found linux consistently drained my battery faster. Perhaps due to failures of the laptops to adhere to ACPI standards properly, perhaps due to driver issues with the video, and networking...
Doesn't really matter what the why is, what matters is the unit runs out of juice faster. Recent windows releases have been surprisingly good at sipping battery.
because this is exactly what they're doing as passengers.
Sort of, but not really; they don't really need to be paying attention continuously; they can drift in and out as much as they please and still be plenty effective (at being annoying); they can even just be event driven and scan the situation whenever the vehicle begins an overt maneuver before opening their mouths.
"Why did you turn this way, you should have gone that way..."
Maybe not all people, but many people.
Most people aren't back seat drivers. It would need to be nearly all people for the feature to work. Not 1% or 5% or 10% or whatever.
What makes you think pilots are immune? Its just that at 10,000 feet over the atlantic the sky is pretty empty.
That said, they have all kinds of stuff to help them stay engaged. Paperwork and reports. Communications. A co-pilot, and flight crew to interact with. Plus its, you know, their job... so they are trained, and if they can't do it, they get fired.
Unlike a Tesla owner which only has to buy the car, doesn't have any training, and doesn't have anyone watching him drive to prevent him from being tempted.
Plus pilots working on paper work and checklists, go for walks and stretch their legs, they play cards, solve puzzles, and other activities that all would not be compatible with the requirements for driving a Tesla.
If you don't have your hands on the wheel, it will pop up a notice telling you to put your hands on the wheel. If you still don't, it will beep an alert at you. If you still don't, it will gradually slow the car to a stop (it assumes that you are disabled at that point).
And yet all the reviewers and so forth talk about their handsfree driving experience with it.
And Musk has himself said the car will drive from San Fransico to Seattle; almost without touching the controls at all.
You can't have that out there and then expect a reasonable person to think he REALLY has to have his hands on the wheel the whole time, just because the car beeps at him.
Additionally, its unreasonable to put a human being in a situation where they are expected to sit there doing nothing except being perpetually ready to act in case of an exceptional circumstances. Human beings aren't wired for that.
If we're driving and actively engaged, we can keep our attention on the task for long periods of time without much trouble. But we're supposed to just sit there "at the ready" that's a failure waiting to happen, because people don't work like that.
It would be like being told to sit in front of the oven and watch the thanksgiving turkey roast with our hand on the off switch the entire time, ready in case the bird catches fire or something.
We'll check it from time to time, we'll set a timer to help us remember to do that. If we smell smoke or something we'll react... but no human being can sit there doing nothing, with the expectation of doing nothing, but ready to do something for hours on end. Our attention WILL drift. You can't slap a warning sticker on something and expect it to override human nature.
The feature is fundamentally incompatible with human beings. When its ready to be responsible enough for driving that it can deal with anything that comes up, and if something comes up that it can't do it can pull over and then alert a passenger to take over as driver... then it's ready for people. Until then its just an accident waiting to happen.
That selective quote is just as bad as the bias you claim to be against.
He wrote "Time for a reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness"
So 1 in 3 does die from a smoking related illess Mr Pence? And you are going to use THAT statistic as support for "smoking doesn't kill". When it kills 1/3rd of smokers? How many smokers exactly Mike, does it need to kill before you consider it "something that kills"?
But wait, theres more he goes on, "and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer."
So 1 in 10 do get lung cancer? That's a full 10%. Again, Mike Pence, what percentage would it need to be before you recognize that as too much lung cancer? Remember, these aren't MY stats, Mike Pence, these are the onese in your own argument.
And THEN he says... "This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. If you are reading this article through the blue haze of cigarette smoke you should quit."
Ah Mike Pence, the voice of reason at last. An activity where 10% get lung cancer, and it's responsible for a full third of their deaths -- you'll concede that "it's not good for you". Hey Mike, having a heart attack has a 2 in 3 survival rate too. I guess you'd agree with the statement that "Heart attacks don't kill" and "They just aren't good for you".
And then you continue on... with: "The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric."
1 in 3 killed by smoking... right Mike Pence? That's what you are telling me. I think I'm going to go with smoking being pretty harmful to the nation.
And he was right.
Was he? I'm not going to say I support "back handed government disguised in do gooder healtcare rehetoric"; but I'm pretty sure he's pretty much dead wrong when he says "reality check, smoking doesn't kill". I think he needs a reality check.
Apple's TOS is 56 pages long and reading it won't you much good since without lawyer translating from legalese to English you are probably going to miss quite a lot of legal traps anyway.
Especially as you have to read it (the itunes TOS in particular) on an iphone screen; because it jumped in the way of getting the free song you just got from starbucks.
Its unreasonable to have to read 56 pages of legalese to get a free song; so people do the reasonable thing: they don't read it.
And if they did read it, they wouldn't understand it, because they aren't lawyers; and its unreasonable to expect you to have a lawyer analyze a 56 page document for you, just to avail yourself of a free song. And then analyze it again six weeks from now when they update their TOS again.
And even if you had it analyzed each time, and then one day they make a change you don't like, what are you going to do? Its all or nothing, either your $600 iphone becomes mostly a paperweight as a bunch of features you were using now stop; or perhaps everything stops since you can't roll back an ios update for esxample, or you click agree; there is no negotiation; there is no I'll continue under the previous agreement option. So people do the reasonable thing: they ignore it because that's the only reasonable option.
And then it bites them in the ass when it says they waive their right to sue, and agree to hold the company not responsible even if the company does something catastrophically idiotic, etc, etc...
Like you said the entire thing is simply unacceptable.
Yeah, media spin is a factor, but Trump dug himself into that hole... the conversation you pasted, goes along, and then Tapper clarifies what he's asking:
Tapper said "Ku Klux Klan?"
He was looking for a response specifically to the KKK.
And Trump said: âoeBut you may have groups in there that are totally fine, and it would be very unfair. So, give me a list of the groups, and I will let you know."
Trump SHOULD have said: "Well, ok... I condemn the Ku Klux Klan; but you may have other groups in there that are totally fine..."
Then Tapper seeing that he did not answer the question, even gave him a 2nd chance; and said: "Okay. I mean, Iâ(TM)m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here"
And Trump says: "âoeI donâ(TM)t know any â" honestly, I donâ(TM)t know David Duke. I donâ(TM)t believe I have ever met him. Iâ(TM)m pretty sure I didnâ(TM)t meet him. And I just donâ(TM)t know anything about him.â
Trump should have said: "Ok... I yes the KKK; I obviously condemn the Ku Klux Klan [...]"
He didn't. This shit show was his own mess.
As for your claim that the MSM was spinning - yes they were. That's what they do... they have 24 hour channels to fill and eyeballs to collect for advertisers.
But Trump was spinning too. 2 days later he was talking about a bad earpiece, that he couldn't hear properly, that he disavowed DD at the time; despite the fact that he absolutely had NOT, etc. Both sides spin, always, that's the game.
And seriously, the conversations you pasted don't really fit your narrative at all.
Was it as big a deal as the MSM made it out to be? Of course not.
But was Trump inexplicably avoiding condemning the Ku Klux Klan? When asked directly about the ku klux klan? specifically by name? Twice in a row? Its hard to conclude anything else from his responses.
And don't talk about Linux - Joe Sixpack is never going to install it - can't, won't.
But dell might, if people balk at buying PCs that require a subscription. Or chromebooks or android PCs or something along those lines...
In my opinion linux doesn't sell well because people 'want windows' and linux is 'close but not windows' but if microsoft pulls a subscription model out, people might suddenly want NOT windows... and be a lot more open to alternatives. And because they are sitting their pining for windows they're satisfaction with the alternatives will be a lot higher.
Slashdot Mirror
You might even be considered an "unauthorized user" from twitter's perspective
That is precisely what triggers the fraud and abuse act.
but by giving you their password,
the end-user has made you the defacto authorized user of that account.
The end user is not authorized to do that, per the Terms of Service.
Look, the point is that its is not an open and shut case. There is a valid legal argument, bolstered by recent court rulings that the CFAA can be triggered in this way. The most recent court cases was just such an example of an authorized user sharing their password with an ex-employee. Obviously that's not exactly the same thing.
But its close enough in a lot of ways, the twitter user, like the employee doesn't really 'own the account'. It is assigned to them and they aren't allowed to share it. So if they do share it the person they share it with is NOT an authorized user, and that in theory triggers the CFAA.
Yes, its all kinds of stupid... but the CFAA is all kinds of stupid too.
Is there a windows store for the desktop version of windows 10?
Yes.
I did not even know that. Does it also Work with Windows 7/8?
It was released with Windows 8.
It only carries the new 'modern ui' apps. There are a variety of technologies in place to make the apps more self contained (more sandboxed); as well as let you potentially deliver the same app to Windows Desktop, tablet, and phone, (and xbox) consumers in one transaction.
Its not all bad. The original 'metro' was far too "phone/tablet" and lousy for desktop. The only one I personally use is Netflix.
Its gotten better, the apps will run in windows now ("small w" windows ie not full screen), and they added title bars and so on to the desktop version but I still have zero desire to use it for games or anything paid.
Myself, I like steam and gog. Both steam and gog are cross-platform (mac+windows+linux); which I actually value a lot vs (winphone+windesktop+xbox) which I do not value at all.
I could see the Windows store coming to replace random download sites for a lot of things, and that would be a good thing for the user experience and for safety + security. (e.g. it would be a good source for stuff like CPU-Z, qbittorrent, Acrobat Reader, Dropbox... etc etc... ) Having all that in the windows store would be good for the windows platform -- updates could be centralized instead of each doing their own.
The trouble with that is right now none of those apps will actually currently work if delivered by the windows store; due to the restrictions and sandboxing etc. CPU-Z I think needs admin rights to get the CPU information it reports, which store apps can't have. Dropbox needs shell integration which store apps cant' have. qbitttorrent... not sure if the windows store can distribute GPL stuff due to GPL license rules on making source available via the distributor...Maybe it is? And acrobat reader installs browser plugins etc which the again... app store apps can't do.
So... its a neat concept, that needs to happen but the chasm between what an app store app can do, and what windows desktop users need is still too wide.
This is why MS is focussed on games -- games are generally pretty self contained, and they are hoping to tie it together with xbox which makes sense, and may be of some value to xbox owners... to be able to play chunks of their xbox library at home or on their laptop...
The point being... a good app store run by microsoft would be good for the windows ecosystem. However, if Microsoft tries to squeeze out the other app stores, that would be a bad thing.
Was he compelled to actually put his finger on the phone, or was he just compelled to surrender his fingerprints?
The 5th only applies to testimony. Your finger print is not testimony.
They can already compel you to put your finger onto a finger print scanner or inkpad to collect your fingerprint.
It seems to me, that if we allow the government the authority to compel you to stick your finger onto anything (e.g. an inkpad) to collect your fingerprint; its not unreasonable that they have the authority to make you touch your phone too. With a warrant of course.
The upshot really should be, a fingerprint is a good way to keep random theives, children, and coworkers out of your phone. Not the government. Use a proper password for stuff you don't want the government to see.
Sounds like he has had a lot of fun. Golf is kind of boring by comparison.
Its something he enjoys. I'm not saying he had to be 'boring'.
And I'm not suggesting that he was wrong to do what he enjoys... he's certainly lived the life he wants to live, and that's fine, even something admirable in its own way. (perhaps not his life choices in particular, but the notion making the most of life is.)
Its not a demonstration of a fantastic business acumen.
He appears to still have more money than I know how to spend.
So does Paris Hilton. I guess she's a fantastic business woman?
Again, you can't judge business success by wealth itself, only by ROI
I'm not judging the business, I'm judging the man. The ROI on the the business maybe for 4M, but the ROI on the MAN is -1M.
Its meaningless to draw arbitrary boxes and look at them in isolation... what's the total package?
A business that *needlessly* flies around its executives on private jets. seats them in gold gilt chairs, and is wasting money (see definition of "needlessly").
A businessman that owns a business that is run responsibly, who then flies himself around on privates jets, gold gilt chairs... etc... is the same thing at the end of the day.
What are you suggesting? A person who is really great at making and managing money... until its his?
The other turned $150M into $100M while living an indulgent life making it to age 70. Do you think the later ex-athlete a business failure?
A business failure? Yes. Absolutely.
Successful at life? Also yes. Absolutely.
If you want to tell me Trump has led a pretty fantastic life, sure, I won't argue that. But don't tell me he's a great *businessman*. He's pretty mediocre at business, at best.
IF I understand things correctly each project is usually a different corporation. Different investors for different projects, one failed project won't impact other projects, a failure doesn't impact anyone personally, etc. Basically look up all the reasons you want an S-Corp or LLC rather than a sole proprietorship for your own business. I think his bankruptcies are several of these projects failing. If only several projects failed out of dozens he's doing pretty well.
Quite so.
However, if trump had merely stuck his inheritance money in a market ETF and then fucked off to play golf for the last 25-30 years, he be 3x-5x as wealthy as he is now. (the variance depending on just how much you believe he's actually worth now.)
25 years of 'projects', wheeling and dealing, real estate, steaks, wines, universities, casinos.
My own simple investments have done better than Trump over the last 2-3 decades.
The only difference between people like me and Trump is that Trump started out with a couple hundred million, and I didn't, so even earning wildly sub-par returns he's STILL a billionaire, and I'm not.
Really, how much success do you want to attribute to a businessman who trailed the market by THAT much?
It's not just "these sites".
These are the bottom feeding scum though.
Must gambling businesses are subtle or outright frauds
No, not really. Gambling businesses don't need to cheat or commit fraud to win. That's built into the business. A slot machine in Vegas is a ripoff; but its exactly the ripoff it discloses itself to be. And its independently tested to make sure it pays out exactly the odds it says on the label.
These gaming gambling sites take all the advantages that are built into being a gambling business... and then they just outright cheat. Rig games for insiders or themselves. Lie outright about the odds. Etc.
Oh... and they not only let kids play, they market the sites them *directly*.
At the very least they need to be cleaned up (regulated) so that they rise to the level of legitimate gambling sites.
Take a very good look at how "high speed trading" works to get a sense of how much of stock market funds are sucked right out of the business by larger companies that can afford the "insider information' that a few microseconds of lead time on stock announcements provides.
That's really a separate discussion. But you are right, and its pretty easy to measure. Every dollar an HFT trader/algorithm extracts in profit is a dollar taken away from the retail buyer and seller. Every single dollar they make is essentially stolen in my opinion.
But again, nothing to do with gambling in general or steam in particular.
How else would all of these services be "free"?
Well, one model would be to give people a sample limited service to hopefully upsell them into a paid spotify premium; that would be the classic 'how else'.
Note that spotify says this only applies to its non-paying customers.
But yeah, if you aren't paying for the service, this is pretty much what you should expect.
It's almost like they hired Tay to do their PR.
Tay was too busy submitting new burger ideas.
but a self declared actual former "demon summoner" should be respected and believed without question.
Well, to be fair, he was able to identify all the pokemon er... poke-demon attack types, from his direct personal experience with them. How does that not command instant faith and respect?
Beyond the far side of crazy
To where the days have 4 corners. timecube!!
Wow... just wow.
Now understand that I clicked that link fully expecting a whole lot of religious crazy.
And I was still not even slightly prepared for the direction it took.
But I agree it's more often than not irrelevant and annoying.
Really? I love that 1/2 the time the discussion completely disregards the entire primary story and fixates on the also-ran throw away sentence at the end now. Saves me reading the headline or summary... half time the discussion won't be about it anyway.
The only thing that would be better would be if every article could have a meta discussion about why this is happening that prevents either topic from being discussed! :) /sarcasm off
I agree with you. Its stupid and distracting. Editors please stop.
Warning: Windows 10 is draining your battery by being a poorly conceived and implemented operating system. You should install Linux immediately.
And yet, I've found linux consistently drained my battery faster. Perhaps due to failures of the laptops to adhere to ACPI standards properly, perhaps due to driver issues with the video, and networking ...
Doesn't really matter what the why is, what matters is the unit runs out of juice faster. Recent windows releases have been surprisingly good at sipping battery.
one could also sit in there restaurant on a cellular internet connection and look at porn.
And as someone who at an early stage in life did a stint as managed fast food; you'd ask that customer to stop and/or leave.
but this is the *wrong* thing to do
At best it means the poor teenaged shift manager doesn't has to ask a few creeps to leave.
This move is stupid and caters to conservatives at the expense of the rest of there customers.
It caters to conservatives, but at the expense of nobody.
I just want McD people to mind their own business and to not stick their noses into mine. Is it too much to ask for?
And you want this consideration while you are literally sitting in the middle of their business?
The way I see it, they'll keep their nose out your business; as long as you keep your ass out of theirs.
are you even sure he knows what the KKK is?
Let's just say that If he doesn't them its yet another example why he's not fit to be president.
I guess you've never heard of a back-seat driver,
Was that really necessary or productive?
because this is exactly what they're doing as passengers.
Sort of, but not really; they don't really need to be paying attention continuously; they can drift in and out as much as they please and still be plenty effective (at being annoying); they can even just be event driven and scan the situation whenever the vehicle begins an overt maneuver before opening their mouths.
"Why did you turn this way, you should have gone that way..."
Maybe not all people, but many people.
Most people aren't back seat drivers. It would need to be nearly all people for the feature to work. Not 1% or 5% or 10% or whatever.
What a crock of shit. According to this logic, commercial flight should be the most dangerous form of transportation.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL...
What makes you think pilots are immune? Its just that at 10,000 feet over the atlantic the sky is pretty empty.
That said, they have all kinds of stuff to help them stay engaged. Paperwork and reports. Communications. A co-pilot, and flight crew to interact with. Plus its, you know, their job... so they are trained, and if they can't do it, they get fired.
Unlike a Tesla owner which only has to buy the car, doesn't have any training, and doesn't have anyone watching him drive to prevent him from being tempted.
Plus pilots working on paper work and checklists, go for walks and stretch their legs, they play cards, solve puzzles, and other activities that all would not be compatible with the requirements for driving a Tesla.
If you don't have your hands on the wheel, it will pop up a notice telling you to put your hands on the wheel. If you still don't, it will beep an alert at you. If you still don't, it will gradually slow the car to a stop (it assumes that you are disabled at that point).
And yet all the reviewers and so forth talk about their handsfree driving experience with it.
And Musk has himself said the car will drive from San Fransico to Seattle; almost without touching the controls at all.
You can't have that out there and then expect a reasonable person to think he REALLY has to have his hands on the wheel the whole time, just because the car beeps at him.
Additionally, its unreasonable to put a human being in a situation where they are expected to sit there doing nothing except being perpetually ready to act in case of an exceptional circumstances. Human beings aren't wired for that.
If we're driving and actively engaged, we can keep our attention on the task for long periods of time without much trouble. But we're supposed to just sit there "at the ready" that's a failure waiting to happen, because people don't work like that.
It would be like being told to sit in front of the oven and watch the thanksgiving turkey roast with our hand on the off switch the entire time, ready in case the bird catches fire or something.
We'll check it from time to time, we'll set a timer to help us remember to do that. If we smell smoke or something we'll react ... but no human being can sit there doing nothing, with the expectation of doing nothing, but ready to do something for hours on end. Our attention WILL drift. You can't slap a warning sticker on something and expect it to override human nature.
The feature is fundamentally incompatible with human beings. When its ready to be responsible enough for driving that it can deal with anything that comes up, and if something comes up that it can't do it can pull over and then alert a passenger to take over as driver... then it's ready for people. Until then its just an accident waiting to happen.
That selective quote is just as bad as the bias you claim to be against.
He wrote "Time for a reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness"
So 1 in 3 does die from a smoking related illess Mr Pence? And you are going to use THAT statistic as support for "smoking doesn't kill". When it kills 1/3rd of smokers? How many smokers exactly Mike, does it need to kill before you consider it "something that kills"?
But wait, theres more he goes on, "and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer."
So 1 in 10 do get lung cancer? That's a full 10%. Again, Mike Pence, what percentage would it need to be before you recognize that as too much lung cancer? Remember, these aren't MY stats, Mike Pence, these are the onese in your own argument.
And THEN he says... "This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. If you are reading this article through the blue haze of cigarette smoke you should quit."
Ah Mike Pence, the voice of reason at last. An activity where 10% get lung cancer, and it's responsible for a full third of their deaths -- you'll concede that "it's not good for you". Hey Mike, having a heart attack has a 2 in 3 survival rate too. I guess you'd agree with the statement that "Heart attacks don't kill" and "They just aren't good for you".
And then you continue on... with: "The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric."
1 in 3 killed by smoking... right Mike Pence? That's what you are telling me. I think I'm going to go with smoking being pretty harmful to the nation.
And he was right.
Was he? I'm not going to say I support "back handed government disguised in do gooder healtcare rehetoric"; but I'm pretty sure he's pretty much dead wrong when he says "reality check, smoking doesn't kill". I think he needs a reality check.
and many times a 2 year tech grad would be able to do a wonderful job. But they want the MIT grad to do their web page.
... and they want to pay him less than the even the 2 year college grad would accept.
Apple's TOS is 56 pages long and reading it won't you much good since without lawyer translating from legalese to English you are probably going to miss quite a lot of legal traps anyway.
Especially as you have to read it (the itunes TOS in particular) on an iphone screen; because it jumped in the way of getting the free song you just got from starbucks.
Its unreasonable to have to read 56 pages of legalese to get a free song; so people do the reasonable thing: they don't read it.
And if they did read it, they wouldn't understand it, because they aren't lawyers; and its unreasonable to expect you to have a lawyer analyze a 56 page document for you, just to avail yourself of a free song. And then analyze it again six weeks from now when they update their TOS again.
And even if you had it analyzed each time, and then one day they make a change you don't like, what are you going to do? Its all or nothing, either your $600 iphone becomes mostly a paperweight as a bunch of features you were using now stop; or perhaps everything stops since you can't roll back an ios update for esxample, or you click agree; there is no negotiation; there is no I'll continue under the previous agreement option. So people do the reasonable thing: they ignore it because that's the only reasonable option.
And then it bites them in the ass when it says they waive their right to sue, and agree to hold the company not responsible even if the company does something catastrophically idiotic, etc, etc...
Like you said the entire thing is simply unacceptable.
Yeah, media spin is a factor, but Trump dug himself into that hole... the conversation you pasted, goes along, and then Tapper clarifies what he's asking:
Tapper said "Ku Klux Klan?"
He was looking for a response specifically to the KKK.
And Trump said: âoeBut you may have groups in there that are totally fine, and it would be very unfair. So, give me a list of the groups, and I will let you know."
Trump SHOULD have said: "Well, ok... I condemn the Ku Klux Klan; but you may have other groups in there that are totally fine..."
Then Tapper seeing that he did not answer the question, even gave him a 2nd chance; and said:
"Okay. I mean, Iâ(TM)m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here"
And Trump says: "âoeI donâ(TM)t know any â" honestly, I donâ(TM)t know David Duke. I donâ(TM)t believe I have ever met him. Iâ(TM)m pretty sure I didnâ(TM)t meet him. And I just donâ(TM)t know anything about him.â
Trump should have said: "Ok... I yes the KKK; I obviously condemn the Ku Klux Klan [...]"
He didn't. This shit show was his own mess.
As for your claim that the MSM was spinning - yes they were. That's what they do ... they have 24 hour channels to fill and eyeballs to collect for advertisers.
But Trump was spinning too. 2 days later he was talking about a bad earpiece, that he couldn't hear properly, that he disavowed DD at the time; despite the fact that he absolutely had NOT, etc. Both sides spin, always, that's the game.
And seriously, the conversations you pasted don't really fit your narrative at all.
Was it as big a deal as the MSM made it out to be? Of course not.
But was Trump inexplicably avoiding condemning the Ku Klux Klan? When asked directly about the ku klux klan? specifically by name? Twice in a row? Its hard to conclude anything else from his responses.
And don't talk about Linux - Joe Sixpack is never going to install it - can't, won't.
But dell might, if people balk at buying PCs that require a subscription. Or chromebooks or android PCs or something along those lines...
In my opinion linux doesn't sell well because people 'want windows' and linux is 'close but not windows' but if microsoft pulls a subscription model out, people might suddenly want NOT windows... and be a lot more open to alternatives. And because they are sitting their pining for windows they're satisfaction with the alternatives will be a lot higher.