Could the government take control of someones self-driving car, so that when he gets in it transports him to their office instead of his requested destination?
Of course that's going to happen. Or at the very least, it will notify the police you are ready for capture, wait for them to get behind you, and pull off to the side of the road.
I know the situation. It was laid out as something bad in the person I originally responded to. I argued that it was reasonable, not bad. Hublan then replied while adding nothing to the conversation. This is what happens when you don't read the context (what people are replying to).
You recall incorrectly. Why would a stewardess give somebody a lighter on an airplane? And what would he answer that he wanted it for, to light his shoe bomb? Is that what gave him away? You know, it's 2013 and the facts of this case are at your fingertips. No need for your poor recall, especially after you've been called out on it.
I think you're confused. At least I am by your statement. Suppose I call you a pedophile and you sue me for defamation. Who do you think the burden of proof regarding pedophile or not should lie on, me for making the pedophile claim or you for suing for defamation?
Instead we have a Shoe Bomber who forgets to bring matches with him
I've never heard that. He had matches and tried to light the fuse. He failed because he had a flight delay (due to security screening being suspicious) and sweated through his shoes.
I mean, a senator and high ranking official just lost their jobs because of... wait for it... $90,000 of questionable expenses. It was a huge deal and all over the news here. US government officials wipe their asses with that kind of money and nobody blinks.
Ted Stevens: "The prosecution charged that Stevens lied on his Senate financial disclosure forms, in effect concealing $250,000 worth of gifts and home renovations from a wealthy oilman, Bill Allen, and his oil services company, VECO.
During the trial Stevens defense lawyers argued that Stevens paid $160,000 for the home renovations and did nothing wrong."
I don't think it's so horrible. What if somebody called you a pedophile. How would you prove that you weren't a pedophile? Wouldn't it make much more sense to say what evidence the person making the claim had?
"Penn and Teller did an program about lie detectors. Firstly, why are they not being prosecuted, since they explained how to beat them?"
From the article:
In his speech in June, Customs official Schwartz acknowledged that teaching the techniques _ known in polygraph circles as "countermeasures" _ isn't always illegal and might be protected under the First Amendment in some situations.
"I'm teaching about countermeasures right now. The polygraph schools are supposed to be teaching about countermeasures," he said. "So teaching about countermeasures in and of itself certainly is not only not illegal, it's protected. You have a right to free speech in this country."
But instructors may be prosecuted if they know that the people they're teaching plan to lie about crimes during federal polygraphs, he said.
In that scenario, prosecutors may pursue charges of false statements, wire fraud, obstructing an agency proceeding and "misprision of felony," which is defined as having knowledge of serious criminal conduct and attempting to conceal it.
That's very interesting. I'll note the caveats "currently" and "foreseeable future", so it's possible they will. There's also been murmurings about this happening because they are sitting on so much cash.
To me, without the possibility of dividends it's a pyramid scheme. You buy the stock because the company is doing well, but unless it happens to be gobbled up by a bigger company, without dividends you buy because you expect somebody else to buy as the company grows. The whole thing is built on air, and the real profits go to exorbitant salaries.
The only reason we're talking about this guy is because he killed himself and left a public suicide note, and Yahoo censored his speech. Think of all the dead people whose writings are taught in school. They can't talk back anymore either, but their words live on and so does the conversation among the living.
He explicitly says that his reasons are not health related.
So he does, but he was in the early stages of dementia, and that was the overriding factor, so he contradicted himself. Not that I blame the guy, health care wasn't going to save him, and he had other reasons too.
Give everyone a basic income, and peg it to inflation.
That doesn't work well, because nobody wants to do the shit jobs if they have a guaranteed income. Yeah yeah, one day we'll have machines to do them all. Right now we don't.
Darn, I wonder if I could have given Martin Manley some hope if he would have read this!
Probably not. First is the problem of getting a political solution implemented even supposing it would work. Second, he said he didn't have any health issues, but he did. He was in early stages of dementia, and that is what bothered him the most.
If you're going to kill yourself before anybody has a chance to issue a rebuttal, there's no point in free speech at all.
That's bullshit. The conversation continues for those who are alive. The lesson here is that if you're going to put up a suicide site, you need a host committed to keeping it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you got damages, big fucking deal. After being hassled, you were just allowed to do what you should have been able to do in the first place.
And Slashdot needs to let you edit after posting...
No, Slashdot has it right. Editing posts is like trying to edit history, 1984 style.
We can only hope....
...that they fail. Comeuppance for all their predatory and monopolistic practices.
Is there any news on how big that was?
If only there was a search engine to find out such answers. Alas, I guess we'll never know.
Could the government take control of someones self-driving car, so that when he gets in it transports him to their office instead of his requested destination?
Of course that's going to happen. Or at the very least, it will notify the police you are ready for capture, wait for them to get behind you, and pull off to the side of the road.
I know the situation. It was laid out as something bad in the person I originally responded to. I argued that it was reasonable, not bad. Hublan then replied while adding nothing to the conversation. This is what happens when you don't read the context (what people are replying to).
You recall incorrectly. Why would a stewardess give somebody a lighter on an airplane? And what would he answer that he wanted it for, to light his shoe bomb? Is that what gave him away? You know, it's 2013 and the facts of this case are at your fingertips. No need for your poor recall, especially after you've been called out on it.
Which applied to this case would go against the uploaders, contrary to the claims of the person I responded to.
Er. That's the point.
I think you're confused. At least I am by your statement. Suppose I call you a pedophile and you sue me for defamation. Who do you think the burden of proof regarding pedophile or not should lie on, me for making the pedophile claim or you for suing for defamation?
And yet none of these things are happening.
So you're trying to give the idiots better ideas?
Instead we have a Shoe Bomber who forgets to bring matches with him
I've never heard that. He had matches and tried to light the fuse. He failed because he had a flight delay (due to security screening being suspicious) and sweated through his shoes.
I mean, a senator and high ranking official just lost their jobs because of ... wait for it ... $90,000 of questionable expenses. It was a huge deal and all over the news here. US government officials wipe their asses with that kind of money and nobody blinks.
Ted Stevens: "The prosecution charged that Stevens lied on his Senate financial disclosure forms, in effect concealing $250,000 worth of gifts and home renovations from a wealthy oilman, Bill Allen, and his oil services company, VECO.
During the trial Stevens defense lawyers argued that Stevens paid $160,000 for the home renovations and did nothing wrong."
That's a difference of $90,000.
I don't think it's so horrible. What if somebody called you a pedophile. How would you prove that you weren't a pedophile? Wouldn't it make much more sense to say what evidence the person making the claim had?
Unless you can cite some case law you're just whistling Dixie.
There's only 34 million https servers in the world!
(not sure what the sarcasm tag is, so yes, this is sarcasm)
That might be about right. How many do you think there are?
Karma going down in 3...2...1...
Stop karma whoring.
"Penn and Teller did an program about lie detectors. Firstly, why are they not being prosecuted, since they explained how to beat them?"
From the article:
In his speech in June, Customs official Schwartz acknowledged that teaching the techniques _ known in polygraph circles as "countermeasures" _ isn't always illegal and might be protected under the First Amendment in some situations.
"I'm teaching about countermeasures right now. The polygraph schools are supposed to be teaching about countermeasures," he said. "So teaching about countermeasures in and of itself certainly is not only not illegal, it's protected. You have a right to free speech in this country."
But instructors may be prosecuted if they know that the people they're teaching plan to lie about crimes during federal polygraphs, he said.
In that scenario, prosecutors may pursue charges of false statements, wire fraud, obstructing an agency proceeding and "misprision of felony," which is defined as having knowledge of serious criminal conduct and attempting to conceal it.
And then kill your model girlfriend and blame it on an imaginary intruder.
That's very interesting. I'll note the caveats "currently" and "foreseeable future", so it's possible they will. There's also been murmurings about this happening because they are sitting on so much cash.
To me, without the possibility of dividends it's a pyramid scheme. You buy the stock because the company is doing well, but unless it happens to be gobbled up by a bigger company, without dividends you buy because you expect somebody else to buy as the company grows. The whole thing is built on air, and the real profits go to exorbitant salaries.
The only reason we're talking about this guy is because he killed himself and left a public suicide note, and Yahoo censored his speech. Think of all the dead people whose writings are taught in school. They can't talk back anymore either, but their words live on and so does the conversation among the living.
The many investors that just want the stock price to go up.
But people buy stock on the premise that dividends can be handed out. Take away the premise and the stock is almost worthless.
He explicitly says that his reasons are not health related.
So he does, but he was in the early stages of dementia, and that was the overriding factor, so he contradicted himself. Not that I blame the guy, health care wasn't going to save him, and he had other reasons too.
Give everyone a basic income, and peg it to inflation.
That doesn't work well, because nobody wants to do the shit jobs if they have a guaranteed income. Yeah yeah, one day we'll have machines to do them all. Right now we don't.
Darn, I wonder if I could have given Martin Manley some hope if he would have read this!
Probably not. First is the problem of getting a political solution implemented even supposing it would work. Second, he said he didn't have any health issues, but he did. He was in early stages of dementia, and that is what bothered him the most.
Holy run-on sentences.
If you're going to kill yourself before anybody has a chance to issue a rebuttal, there's no point in free speech at all.
That's bullshit. The conversation continues for those who are alive. The lesson here is that if you're going to put up a suicide site, you need a host committed to keeping it up.
Nope, it was you who misread.