Generally speaking, there are two possibilities for what happens to a child on the way to school: something bad or nothing bad. [I'm being REALLY general here, but I think the conclusions drawn from this simple exercise apply even if you introduced more complexity by adding additional cases.]
There are two possibilities for what a police officer can do: stop the child or not stop the child.
In the "Something bad", "Stop the child" case the officer may prevent harm to the child. This is a positive outcome. In the "Something bad", "Not stop the child" case the public tees off on the police in general and the officer in particular. "Why didn't you do your job???" Negative. In the "Nothing bad", "Stop the child" case at worst the officer gets accused of interfering with the parents' right to allow their child to walk. At worst, mild negative. In the "Nothing bad", "Not stop the child" case nothing happens. Neutral.
So if the officer chooses to stop the child, at worst they get the public mildly disapproving of his or her actions. If they choose NOT to stop the child, at worst they get dragged over hot coals by the court of public opinion, sued, etc. From the officer's perspective, mild disapproval is a MUCH more attractive alternative than torches, pitchforks, and/or lawsuits and so their dominant strategy is to stop the child.
Or the tl;dr version: cover their asses in case something bad would have happened to the kid.
The corresponding statement to "We need our guns to protect us from the government. Doing so has the side benefit of protecting us against criminals who may otherwise attack us." is "We need strong encryption to protect our words from the government. Doing so has the side benefit of protecting us against criminals who may otherwise attack our electronic accounts."
Does Microsoft have an Australian branch? If so, expect to see them register or buy www.googel.com.au any day now. And as a defensive measure, they may also want to pick up www.bong.com.au -- although that one may raise some eyebrows.
It also means that some people (like myself) who would otherwise rate an Android app (I was sorely tempted to rate both The Room and The Room 2 as 5 stars) will turn away rather than dealing with Google Plus.
Their rights should be restricted in some ways. Obviously they should not be allowed to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment) while in prison for reasons of security. But to me, saying that they should lose their Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel doesn't make sense.
Direct human-markability isn't necessary IMO. Let the human make selections on a touch screen. Let the computer print out a ballot with both human readable text and a machine readable barcode (QR code perhaps; that would allow many smart phones to check a ballot.) Scan the barcodes as the ballots enter the ballot box. In the event of a recount the election officials would read the human readable text and that would be the official count.
The computer doesn't need to be anything special; a machine from Best Buy (costing a few hundred bucks) would be sufficient (overkill, really) for the display needs. A printer for a cash register probably would be sufficient to write the ballots. An iPhone or Android phone and a simple wooden box could serve for the logging system and the ballot box in a pinch.
China thanks the Home Office. With this proposed law foreign governments can access more easily the content of communications of police, intelligence agencies, and major corporations in the UK in order to commit espionage, both governmental and industrial.
That really depends. In this case the argument likely hinges on whether a reasonable person would feel threatened.
It's comin' right for us!?
If the defendant as well as eye witnesses all say they observed the drone under the tree line, then it likely means at least from the perspective of someone on the ground it looked like it was below the tree line. I'm honestly not sure what makes the tree line special, or why under kentucky law you have a right to shoot down a remote piloted aircraft over your property. I've flown very close to the ground over private property in a powered parachute. FAA regulations allow that.
So if I'm flying my own model helicopter on my property and using a camera on that helicopter to inspect the roof of my home (to identify if a storm damaged any of the shingles rather than climbing up myself, for example), never pointing the camera anywhere but towards my own property, any of my neighbors should be allowed to shoot towards my home to try to take down my helicopter that they _suspect_ is spying on them from my property, using the same rationale as Jimbo from South Park? That seems to be one of the implications of this ruling, but I'm going to have to say I disagree. If you were firing a paintball gun, _maybe_, since that's not supposed to be a lethal weapon (though nonlethal weapons can be lethal under certain circumstances.)
If you're an American (or frankly, any innocent person) anywhere in the world who isn't an active member of a foreign terrorist organization or an agent of a foreign power, the Intelligence Community DOES NOT CARE ABOUT and actually DOES NOT WANT your data.
There should be some sort of "life skills" class that incorporates part of home economics and other skills. Some of the skills covered by that class should involve computers (basic computer security, a la "don't give your password to anyone") but financial matters, basic cooking and sewing, how to write a formal letter/email, how to change a flat tire, things like that should IMO also be covered.
In fact, don't just offer one such class at or near the end of the students' education. Teach appropriate life skills at appropriate times throughout their career. "Don't give out your password", "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", and how to do laundry would be appropriate for younger kids (when I was still using a laundromat because I didn't have a washer/dryer in my home, I saw people come in confused about how to use the machines, like where to put the money!) while keeping a budget, creating a resume, and changing a tire would be appropriate for older students.
They get to charge you 100% of the time for insurance and they'll only have to pay out in the small percentage of times that you have an accident after you take manual control over your vehicle. It's the politician plan: do nothing (or very little) and get paid. Sounds a bit like robbery to me.
As long as you have a non-self-driving car, you're probably going to want or be required by law to have insurance.
As long as your self-driving car has a manual override and the car company's insurance guarantee won't cover incidents when that override is engaged, you're probably going to want or be required by law to have insurance.
Eventually, will there be no need for automotive claims adjusters? Perhaps. How long will it be before "eventually" occurs? A long time IMO.
None of the articles I've read on this say that the school or the police officers involved called the bomb squad. Wouldn't the experts in identifying and defusing explosive devices be the FIRST people you call when you think you have an explosive device? But that would run the risk of the bomb squad looking at the device and saying "Guys, this is just a clock. There's no sign of any explosive material. Relax." That wouldn't let you show your authoritah a la Cartman.
Who said she used her Vodafone account to contact her source? The article says that the company searched, not that they found the information they sought.
If it takes this laser 2 seconds to drill through a tough drone body, how long would it take this laser to cause serious injuries to a human being if the drone were protected by mirrors (say mirrors camouflaged by a thin film that the laser can destroy instantly) that reflect the beam downward towards a crowd on the ground?
The man who will be responsible for the technology to keep human heads alive in jars, Ron Popeil, would like to have a word with you. And given the wide variety of products he's invented, that trademark could be very broad.
What does that say about the Republican candidates for President? Some of them have disagreed with the authorities (the executive branch) for years now.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally speaking, there are two possibilities for what happens to a child on the way to school: something bad or nothing bad. [I'm being REALLY general here, but I think the conclusions drawn from this simple exercise apply even if you introduced more complexity by adding additional cases.]
There are two possibilities for what a police officer can do: stop the child or not stop the child.
In the "Something bad", "Stop the child" case the officer may prevent harm to the child. This is a positive outcome.
In the "Something bad", "Not stop the child" case the public tees off on the police in general and the officer in particular. "Why didn't you do your job???" Negative.
In the "Nothing bad", "Stop the child" case at worst the officer gets accused of interfering with the parents' right to allow their child to walk. At worst, mild negative.
In the "Nothing bad", "Not stop the child" case nothing happens. Neutral.
So if the officer chooses to stop the child, at worst they get the public mildly disapproving of his or her actions. If they choose NOT to stop the child, at worst they get dragged over hot coals by the court of public opinion, sued, etc. From the officer's perspective, mild disapproval is a MUCH more attractive alternative than torches, pitchforks, and/or lawsuits and so their dominant strategy is to stop the child.
Or the tl;dr version: cover their asses in case something bad would have happened to the kid.
The corresponding statement to "We need our guns to protect us from the government. Doing so has the side benefit of protecting us against criminals who may otherwise attack us." is "We need strong encryption to protect our words from the government. Doing so has the side benefit of protecting us against criminals who may otherwise attack our electronic accounts."
Max Power
742 Evergreen Terrace
Springfield, [fill in a state and zip]
They apply the XKCD "backdoor" and/or arrest or bring in for questioning the recipients of that email.
What if any will this do to prevent a recurrence of the norovirus illness that sickened 141 Boston College students who ate at Chipotle?
Does Microsoft have an Australian branch? If so, expect to see them register or buy www.googel.com.au any day now. And as a defensive measure, they may also want to pick up www.bong.com.au -- although that one may raise some eyebrows.
It also means that some people (like myself) who would otherwise rate an Android app (I was sorely tempted to rate both The Room and The Room 2 as 5 stars) will turn away rather than dealing with Google Plus.
Their rights should be restricted in some ways. Obviously they should not be allowed to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment) while in prison for reasons of security. But to me, saying that they should lose their Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel doesn't make sense.
Direct human-markability isn't necessary IMO. Let the human make selections on a touch screen. Let the computer print out a ballot with both human readable text and a machine readable barcode (QR code perhaps; that would allow many smart phones to check a ballot.) Scan the barcodes as the ballots enter the ballot box. In the event of a recount the election officials would read the human readable text and that would be the official count.
The computer doesn't need to be anything special; a machine from Best Buy (costing a few hundred bucks) would be sufficient (overkill, really) for the display needs. A printer for a cash register probably would be sufficient to write the ballots. An iPhone or Android phone and a simple wooden box could serve for the logging system and the ballot box in a pinch.
China thanks the Home Office. With this proposed law foreign governments can access more easily the content of communications of police, intelligence agencies, and major corporations in the UK in order to commit espionage, both governmental and industrial.
That really depends. In this case the argument likely hinges on whether a reasonable person would feel threatened.
It's comin' right for us!?
If the defendant as well as eye witnesses all say they observed the drone under the tree line, then it likely means at least from the perspective of someone on the ground it looked like it was below the tree line. I'm honestly not sure what makes the tree line special, or why under kentucky law you have a right to shoot down a remote piloted aircraft over your property. I've flown very close to the ground over private property in a powered parachute. FAA regulations allow that.
So if I'm flying my own model helicopter on my property and using a camera on that helicopter to inspect the roof of my home (to identify if a storm damaged any of the shingles rather than climbing up myself, for example), never pointing the camera anywhere but towards my own property, any of my neighbors should be allowed to shoot towards my home to try to take down my helicopter that they _suspect_ is spying on them from my property, using the same rationale as Jimbo from South Park? That seems to be one of the implications of this ruling, but I'm going to have to say I disagree. If you were firing a paintball gun, _maybe_, since that's not supposed to be a lethal weapon (though nonlethal weapons can be lethal under certain circumstances.)
Ah yes, I saw this before in Sneakers.
"We need you to help us fix X as per your severance clause."
"In order to help you fix X, I would need access to server/database Y. Will you grant that access?"
"No."
"Then there's nothing I can do to help you."
"We'll sue."
"You'll lose. I told you what I would need to help you, you refused to provide it. Requiring me to fix X without access to Y would be unreasonable."
Or having the Microsoft servers distributing the app ads compromised and used to show ads for Viagra, porn, the next generation of MMF/419 spam, etc.
Sounds like a feature ISPs can provide for just an extra $9.99 a month:
[X] Disable ads in Windows
[X] Disable tracking in Windows
I think you forgot a piece of your prediction.
If you're an American (or frankly, any innocent person) anywhere in the world who isn't an active member of a foreign terrorist organization or an agent of a foreign power, the Intelligence Community DOES NOT CARE ABOUT and actually DOES NOT WANT your data.
Really? I'm a bit surprised that NSA employees are allowed to enter into relationships and/or marriages with active members of foreign terrorist organizations or agents of a foreign power. [The article says that one incident has occurred per year -- a more accurate statement would probably be that one incident has _been detected_ each year.] And with what foreign terrorist organization or foreign power was Albert Einstein associated?
There should be some sort of "life skills" class that incorporates part of home economics and other skills. Some of the skills covered by that class should involve computers (basic computer security, a la "don't give your password to anyone") but financial matters, basic cooking and sewing, how to write a formal letter/email, how to change a flat tire, things like that should IMO also be covered.
In fact, don't just offer one such class at or near the end of the students' education. Teach appropriate life skills at appropriate times throughout their career. "Don't give out your password", "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", and how to do laundry would be appropriate for younger kids (when I was still using a laundromat because I didn't have a washer/dryer in my home, I saw people come in confused about how to use the machines, like where to put the money!) while keeping a budget, creating a resume, and changing a tire would be appropriate for older students.
They get to charge you 100% of the time for insurance and they'll only have to pay out in the small percentage of times that you have an accident after you take manual control over your vehicle. It's the politician plan: do nothing (or very little) and get paid. Sounds a bit like robbery to me.
As long as you have a non-self-driving car, you're probably going to want or be required by law to have insurance.
As long as your self-driving car has a manual override and the car company's insurance guarantee won't cover incidents when that override is engaged, you're probably going to want or be required by law to have insurance.
Eventually, will there be no need for automotive claims adjusters? Perhaps. How long will it be before "eventually" occurs? A long time IMO.
None of the articles I've read on this say that the school or the police officers involved called the bomb squad. Wouldn't the experts in identifying and defusing explosive devices be the FIRST people you call when you think you have an explosive device? But that would run the risk of the bomb squad looking at the device and saying "Guys, this is just a clock. There's no sign of any explosive material. Relax." That wouldn't let you show your authoritah a la Cartman.
Who said she used her Vodafone account to contact her source? The article says that the company searched, not that they found the information they sought.
If it takes this laser 2 seconds to drill through a tough drone body, how long would it take this laser to cause serious injuries to a human being if the drone were protected by mirrors (say mirrors camouflaged by a thin film that the laser can destroy instantly) that reflect the beam downward towards a crowd on the ground?
The man who will be responsible for the technology to keep human heads alive in jars, Ron Popeil, would like to have a word with you. And given the wide variety of products he's invented, that trademark could be very broad.
What does that say about the Republican candidates for President? Some of them have disagreed with the authorities (the executive branch) for years now.
Any computing task will eventually complete eventually.
Are you sure about that? Church and Turing weren't.