In my state, the answer is Very Definitely Hell Yes.

It is strictly illegal for anybody (including law enforcement without a warrant) to use ANY means to view something on your property that isn't clearly visible to a common pedestrian or vehicle going past. That means, for example, that it's illegal for anybody (including police) to so much as use a stepladder to see over your back fence. It is termed "illegal surveillance" and the law was in place long before drones existed.

It's even illegal to stare in my front window from the sidewalk, or with binoculars, even if my curtains are open. Same law. You can look in as you go past, of course. But you can't "watch" for a long time.

I guess I missed the sarcasm. I'm usually pretty good at picking up on it, but I slip occasionally.

No shit, Sherlock. That isn't, and hasn't been, anything I'm arguing about.

They'd just lose 80% of their business, not all of it. Duh.

I didn't say it was. But a surprisingly large chunk of it is. I don't think you realize how important that chunk is.

But isn't is supposed to work both ways? A news article about a black man beating a white man isn't automatically racist or discriminatory, either. Nor is an article about a gay person beating up a straight person.

The problem here is that the policy is apparently all about "misogyny", which makes it inherently discriminatory. The policy should be about sexism. Misandry is sexism, too. And there has been a lot of that around, too.

I don't think I'm the one being stupid here.

How? ON what basis? Apple is not based in China, and there certainly isn't any international law that would compel Apple to do so. You argue:

So you really think China would willy-nilly force Apple out of the country, and in the process (because they would have no choice) shut down some of their own largest companies, which make Apple products?

You really don't get it. Governments can't just do any old shit they want, and damn the economy. I mean, we know Obama thinks he can, and look at the mess he's made.

Even if it's not legally extortion (I think it is), it still violates the contract users have with their ISPs. My contract doesn't allow any such thing.

For Christ's sake, let's just make them all Title II Common Carriers and have done with all this bullshit. It might not solve everything but it solves about 95% of it.

In your examples you are not actually proving a negative (that something didn't happen). You are proving that something is not possible or could not have happened.


Possible or not possible are easy by comparison. Proving a negative means, "take this thing that really could have possibly happened, and prove that it didn't happen". A shape cannot both be a triangle and a square. A pure color at a single wavelength cannot both be red and blue. You are drastically underestimating the scope of how difficult it is to prove a negative. "This couldn't have happened because it is impossible" is actually a positive claim and as such, can be proven.

Who didn't see this coming?

Before we allow AI on the road, we'll need to have some kind of regulation on how the AI works, and who has what level of liability. This is a debate that will need to happen, and laws will need to be made. For example, if an avoidable crash occurs due to a fault in the AI, I would assume that the manufacturer would have some level of liability. It doesn't make sense to put that responsibility on a human passenger who was using the car as directed. On the other hand, if the same crash is caused by tampering performed by the owner of the car, then it seems that the owner would be liable.

As far as I know, even these simple laws don't explicitly exist yet.

Normal cars also make it easier to commit terrorist acts and other crimes. So what? I mean, yes, let's consider whether we want to take special safeguards and regulations regarding AI cars, but this shouldn't be something to go crazy worrying about.

warning, mild misogyny ahead:

Was what followed really misogynistic?

If so, I need to go in for recalibration re cultural norms, since I saw nothing even faintly misogynistic...

Yes, I agree completely. I do kind of hate coming back from vacation to a huge inbox, but on the other hand, I do things like emailing someone saying, "I know you're on vacation and I don't want you to do anything now, but I know I'll forget if I don't send this now. When you get back..."

Oh, I wouldn't be surprised at all. I've worked in IT support for a couple of decades now, and I know exactly how that goes.

There are two things about that though. First, it's a bit of a fringe case. You have to consider the question, "How many people of that sort are in my target audience?" If the answer is "a lot", then you should think about writing documentation for them specifically, and find a way separate it out from other documentation for those who are more comfortable using a computer. Otherwise, people who know what they're doing are going to be frustrated searching through 100 pages of inane instructions to find actual information.

Second, people like that often also won't read the documentation. If they do, they won't understand it, or else won't feel confident that they understand it. At a certain point, you have to either provide those people with IT support personnel that they can call (your older relative has you). At the very least, you need to provide them with simple step-by-step instructions that never vary, where they don't even need to understand what they're doing. Like "In order to do [x], press the power button on your computer to turn it on (it's located in the top-right-hand corner of the box under your desk). It will flash some things on the screen for a while. Wait for it to ask for a password, and then type 'hunter2'. Wait 2 minutes. Then find the blue "E" on your screen, with "Internet Explorer" written under it. It will be the third little picture on the screen, all the way to the left..."

I've had to write instructions like that before, and some people need it to be that simple. But obviously a web application vendor can't take responsibility for that level of instruction. Even something like Dropbox, which is designed to be extremely simple, has to assume some level of competency.

Everything I've read said it's very unlikely to hit Earth in 2880. One chance in three hundred does not "likely" make.

On the other hand, 1 in 300 is pretty close to the chance of a Straight coming up without a Draw....

You're talking reason, which doesn't work in this context. They don't want to invest in infrastructure. Instead, they keep traffic slow on purpose, in order to create a fake "shortage" of bandwidth, thereby allowing them to charge more for less service.

It's typical monopolistic bullshit. And they get away with it because they're gigantic corporations that don't really compete in most of the U.S., because they have defined, doled-out territories.

Your argument makes sense in a free-market, business context. But it ain't a free market, and it ain't normal business. On the contrary, it has been government-collusion monopoly.