an explicit promise, and one that they only technically adhered to while continuing to sponsor terrorists, destabilize the region, research ballistic missiles, and generally be religious psychopaths in pursuit of their fucked up version of the End Times.
Just for clarity, are you referring to Iran here or the US?
I was using UK laws as an example of why I'm confused that 'she broke the law' seems to take the driver entirely off the hook for killing her. It shouldn't, even if US laws mean it does.
interpreting the video needs to take into account reaction time
That's a separate discussion entirely. Although the fact the vehicle's autonomous systems identified and made the decision to ignore the woman does rather suggest that there was indeed adequate time to take action.
See https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-g... If you fail to justify why you hit the pedestrian, whether she should have been there or not, you've an excellent chance of prosecution for driving without due care and attention. That's even if you don't qualify for a more serious offence.
In this particular instance, there's an obvious argument that any reasonable driver would have observed the obstruction and avoided it, thus suggesting that the vehicle was not being driven reasonably.
The culpability of the victim may influence subsequent sentencing but wouldn't prevent prosecution.
The UK police have been using a system of racial profiling that says "if you are black, you are probably in a gang" - however, investigation reveals that the system is mostly wrong.
It is wrong, and 'stop and search' does seem to be disproportionately applied to certain skin colours (although I've been stopped and searched - twice in five minutes). Similarly the knife crime in London is heavily skewed to certain demographics - but as https://www.theguardian.com/co... suggests, the primary driver is not race.
Me, I'm distressed that these kids don't feel they have better options. That's a gender issue, not a race one.
I think you work for Uber and don't live anywhere near there.
The lights don't help you see pedestrians very well, they look like moving shadows:
Your eyes detect movement better than anything else. Anything at all. So you've just contradicted yourself.
Pedestrians look like moving shadows
Your brain reacts to the moving shadow. Aha! Something is there. It's moving. I'll slow the fuck down and work out what.
the lights make it hard to see people, not easier, because your bias is to watch the moving lights because they're cars
Only up to the point my brain registers a moving shadow. Because that's not a car, and that means it's not as predictable as a car until and unless I know what it is. At that point my attention is very much on the shadow and not the moving lights, because I can broadly trust them to do what traffic does.
I know this because I've driven a lot at night
Then please, stop driving at night until you've found someone that can teach you to do so safely.
so I know the YouTube video they're talking about
There are at least two, and additional still photographs.
Not everyone's night vision is as good
Fortunately there were streetlights and cars have these awesome portable light sources that they carry around with them and frequently use to light up the road ahead. They tend to be rather excellent at helping drivers spot obstacles in the road ahead.
If you really can't see at night despite that plethora of aids, don't drive at night.
She did not jump out of the shadows, she did not do anything at the last possible moment, she merely fucked up and got killed by a car that should never have even hit her.
If I run over a pedestrian in those conditions, even on a 'no pedestrians or cyclists' road, I'm going to get prosecuted for dangerous driving, causing death by dangerous driving and/or driving without due care and attention.
The fact someone else broke the law doesn't negate my culpability for failing to spot and avoid them.
She sure as fuck wasn't looking at the road. Whether the distracting device was in her hand or in the dashboard isn't terribly relevant to her lack of attention.
DPOs aren't exactly new. They've been around for decades. GDPR merely mandates that for organisations undertaking specific activities or above a certain size, the role exists.
It's not onerous. It's nothing more than any sensible company would have as a matter of course anyway.
Very few. Sites that I provide personally identifiable information beyond an email address to are few and far between, and ones outside the EU even more rare.
Ones I provide an email address to aren't that common.
Shrug. Read up on GDPR and understand how to easily achieve compliance for marginal cost if you want EU revenues.
You're an engineer running a business. Find someone that knows how to run a business, if you're panicking over something as trivial as GDPR you're fucked anyway.
You don't. Well, ok, you don't in the UK, and we have Equifax, Experian and others.
In June those two are getting a lovely chunky subject access request from me, and it'll be entirely free. I'm particularly interested in hearing how they process the data they hold on me.
28. This is one of the least like areas of divergence for the UK from EU law (unless we strengthen beyond the EU minimums) for pretty much the same reason most large US companies have EU data centres.
Slashdot Mirror
Israel is at it [...] just like that time the Third Reich was attacked by Poland
Nothing to see here. Move on.
2. Iran is an Enemy country.
Sorry, I thought you wanted to get the facts clear. This isn't a fact.
First off the WMD argument was about number 10 on the list of reasons to use military force in the 2003 Iraq war.
In the UK it was number 1 on the list. Numbers 2-4 too.
Without UK support the US may have gone in anyway, but don't go understating the importance of the fucking lies Blair used to mislead parliament.
an explicit promise, and one that they only technically adhered to while continuing to sponsor terrorists, destabilize the region, research ballistic missiles, and generally be religious psychopaths in pursuit of their fucked up version of the End Times.
Just for clarity, are you referring to Iran here or the US?
I was using UK laws as an example of why I'm confused that 'she broke the law' seems to take the driver entirely off the hook for killing her. It shouldn't, even if US laws mean it does.
interpreting the video needs to take into account reaction time
That's a separate discussion entirely. Although the fact the vehicle's autonomous systems identified and made the decision to ignore the woman does rather suggest that there was indeed adequate time to take action.
See https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-g...
If you fail to justify why you hit the pedestrian, whether she should have been there or not, you've an excellent chance of prosecution for driving without due care and attention. That's even if you don't qualify for a more serious offence.
In this particular instance, there's an obvious argument that any reasonable driver would have observed the obstruction and avoided it, thus suggesting that the vehicle was not being driven reasonably.
The culpability of the victim may influence subsequent sentencing but wouldn't prevent prosecution.
You may wish to revisit and revise your arithmetic.
a heavy-set Caucasian man [..] driving a late model beige Toyota Corolla
Must be an immigrant, that aint happening to the natives.
The UK police have been using a system of racial profiling that says "if you are black, you are probably in a gang" - however, investigation reveals that the system is mostly wrong.
It is wrong, and 'stop and search' does seem to be disproportionately applied to certain skin colours (although I've been stopped and searched - twice in five minutes). Similarly the knife crime in London is heavily skewed to certain demographics - but as https://www.theguardian.com/co... suggests, the primary driver is not race.
Me, I'm distressed that these kids don't feel they have better options. That's a gender issue, not a race one.
You do realise that 'black' is merely a label for a range of skin colours, races and (at a global level) cultures?
Me, I'd happily live in Morocco. It's fucking awesome.
It's as though Jim Crow served to protect whites from an inherent trait that our ancestors recognized.
Ah, sorry. My bad, I didn't realise I was replying to an idiotic fuckwit.
as a local resident
I think you work for Uber and don't live anywhere near there.
The lights don't help you see pedestrians very well, they look like moving shadows:
Your eyes detect movement better than anything else. Anything at all. So you've just contradicted yourself.
Pedestrians look like moving shadows
Your brain reacts to the moving shadow. Aha! Something is there. It's moving. I'll slow the fuck down and work out what.
the lights make it hard to see people, not easier, because your bias is to watch the moving lights because they're cars
Only up to the point my brain registers a moving shadow. Because that's not a car, and that means it's not as predictable as a car until and unless I know what it is. At that point my attention is very much on the shadow and not the moving lights, because I can broadly trust them to do what traffic does.
I know this because I've driven a lot at night
Then please, stop driving at night until you've found someone that can teach you to do so safely.
so I know the YouTube video they're talking about
There are at least two, and additional still photographs.
Not everyone's night vision is as good
Fortunately there were streetlights and cars have these awesome portable light sources that they carry around with them and frequently use to light up the road ahead. They tend to be rather excellent at helping drivers spot obstacles in the road ahead.
If you really can't see at night despite that plethora of aids, don't drive at night.
She did not jump out of the shadows, she did not do anything at the last possible moment, she merely fucked up and got killed by a car that should never have even hit her.
Obstructions that is OK to run over doesn't happen.
I slowed to almost a halt this morning (at 2am) to avoid two rabbits in the carriageway.
Had there been cars behind me, I'd have flattened the stupid things.
I also recklessly drive callously through plastic bags being blown across the road by the wind. I'm a right bastard.
I find that curious.
If I run over a pedestrian in those conditions, even on a 'no pedestrians or cyclists' road, I'm going to get prosecuted for dangerous driving, causing death by dangerous driving and/or driving without due care and attention.
The fact someone else broke the law doesn't negate my culpability for failing to spot and avoid them.
Worse, the techies on /. are joking about it.
I'd hope so. It'll be a sad fucking day for humanity if we lose our sense of humour.
That particular spot was well lit.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...
She sure as fuck wasn't looking at the road. Whether the distracting device was in her hand or in the dashboard isn't terribly relevant to her lack of attention.
If the site does not process relevant data, then yes, go for it.
Otherwise, no.
that means the NSA + GCHQ will definitely collect all my metadata
They already do.
Do the NSA + GCHQ have to comply with the GDPR?
The NSA, yes, but I doubt they're going to.
GCHQ, no.
If you're that fucking small, just don't do business in the EU.
Also don't complain when an EU based business outcompetes you outside of the EU.
They're the same fucking size as you and they're complying. You don't think 2 man gambling startups get to target American customers do you?
DPOs aren't exactly new. They've been around for decades. GDPR merely mandates that for organisations undertaking specific activities or above a certain size, the role exists.
It's not onerous. It's nothing more than any sensible company would have as a matter of course anyway.
Very few. Sites that I provide personally identifiable information beyond an email address to are few and far between, and ones outside the EU even more rare.
Ones I provide an email address to aren't that common.
Shrug. Read up on GDPR and understand how to easily achieve compliance for marginal cost if you want EU revenues.
You're an engineer running a business. Find someone that knows how to run a business, if you're panicking over something as trivial as GDPR you're fucked anyway.
Why do I have to pay to have my credit monitored?
You don't. Well, ok, you don't in the UK, and we have Equifax, Experian and others.
In June those two are getting a lovely chunky subject access request from me, and it'll be entirely free. I'm particularly interested in hearing how they process the data they hold on me.
28. This is one of the least like areas of divergence for the UK from EU law (unless we strengthen beyond the EU minimums) for pretty much the same reason most large US companies have EU data centres.
Yeah, if only GPDR recognised "Legal obligation" as a lawful basis for processing.
Oh. Hang on.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organis...