magnetosphere

Creative solution!

Ejaculating

I honestly don’t know. True or not, though, it’s an interesting idea!

Yeah. What the hell were the plaintiffs supposed to do? How do you get proof of something like this? Break into an exec’s office? Hack an auto manufacturer’s network?

Oh, wait a sec. Evidence that’s acquired illegally generally isn’t admissible. So even those ridiculous plans wouldn’t work. I guess the best we can do is wait until the harm is done, and then hope there’s a sloppy enough paper trail to unequivocally prove exactly who did it.

Apparently, that’s MUCH better than using some common sense.

An auto manufacturer, who has no business snooping on your texts in the first place, should not have permission to keep copies of them. Ever. It’s an absurdly obvious question. The plaintiffs shouldn’t have to prove they’ve been harmed. The auto manufacturers should have to prove that their intentions benefit all customers, AND that those benefits outweigh the risks.

And no, advertising that’s specifically targeted at my perceived needs and interests doesn’t count as a “benefit”. Sorry not sorry.

I’m going to assume this judge hasn’t been unduly influenced.

This looks like a classic case of following the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law. The law seems like it’s intended to punish harmful violations of privacy. No reasonable person can conclude that the sale of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people’s private data is entirely harmless, but that’s what this judge did.

US courts often take “reasonable” assumptions into account when making judgments or issuing sentences. Just because the plaintiffs couldn’t actually prove specific damage is no reason to assume it didn’t/won’t happen.

To me, it should only “matter” for technical reasons - to help find the root of the problem and fix it at the source. If your roof is leaking, then fix the roof. Don’t become an expert on where to place the buckets.

You’re right, though. It doesn’t matter in terms of excusing or justifying anything. It shouldn’t have been allowed to happen in the first place.

Something as simple and obvious as this makes me wonder what other hidden biases are just waiting to be discovered.

I didn’t realize a B-52 had never landed in South Korea before. I would have assumed it had already happened enough times to be completely unremarkable.

No. I never tried to say it. I just plain said it…

I’d like to point out to folks that whatever your stance on the issue may be, this statement (taken by itself) is pretty funny.

Please excuse the interruption and continue.

I don’t like it one bit.

The government sees it as a strategic need to have a strong ally in the region. That view will not change, at least not anytime soon. The Pentagon considers it a national security issue, which puts it beyond politics. Unfortunately, I have to live with that.

I misunderstood. If you’re participating in the process and doing what you believe in, that’s cool.

Reread the last sentence of the comment you’re replying to.

No candidate will ever be ideal, and apathy just makes things easier for the worst ones. Get off your ass and vote.

I think you answered your own question. You’ve only got one pro, with a qualification, and four cons.

You can’t rely on people to use downvotes as intended. Even if you put it in the site or community rules, a lot of people won’t read those rules. Of those that do, many won’t care.

If someone really doesn’t like something, they can leave a comment. If they won’t do that, what useful information are you going to get from a mere downvote?

Upvotes alone are enough.

Possible sequel to Mars Needs Moms: Memes Needs Mods

You’re completely right to feel that way. As an American, it’s mind blowing to me, too. I really don’t like the fact that “hidden fees” have become normal.

I’m glad I clicked on this. It’s cute as hell.

The “teenagers pining for anarchy” bit had me laughing. Teenagers may say they want anarchy, but they don’t want REAL anarchy. They’re just tired of adults telling them what to do. Teenagers aren’t stupid, either. They should know the difference, and I bet a lot of them do.

Considering how awful people can be, I don’t want real anarchy, either, but at least I’m not some edgelord who pretends he does. Squabblr doesn’t sound like a community I could stomach for long. Noping out probably saved your sanity.

I think you hit the biggest ones. I imagine that even the most “affordable” robots will still be very expensive, and even the most useful and adaptable ones will still be remarkably stupid. They won’t be nearly as useful as they’ll undoubtedly be advertised.

The privacy issue you mention is interesting. As we’ve seen with online services, companies will do everything they can to gather as much personal information as possible. I wouldn’t be surprised if the robot (or perhaps the server it connects to) uses OCR to read things like book titles on your shelf, item brands (like food, clothing, and electronics) or prescription drug labels. I assume that the manufacturer will require an internet connection for the robot to even operate. Expect the loose privacy requirements in the US to continue favoring companies over the public.

Some of us are used to having microphones, and even active cameras, in our home. What makes a robot unique is that it could move itself, or be moved by someone with unauthorized access, or perhaps a law enforcement agency.