As noted, the Constitution says otherwise. Treaties to which the US Senate agrees are the supreme 'law of the land' and must be enforced by judges (see the above citation of Article VI of the US Constitution. So, if the US/UK sign a treaty that says US corporations have to turn over data to the UK, that's enforceable by the US courts against US citizens. Think extradition treaties - they operate in the country which signed the treaty and must be followed by the US courts as 'the supreme law of the land'. You can't go into court and argue successfully that the extradition treaty doesn't apply to you. It does.

I'm pretty sure in the millions of lines of the CFR they can find something with which to charge the corporations. Won't matter what, really, just anything.

The Constitution would seem to disagree with you:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The goal is to preserve the 'open-cockpit'. IndyCar is doing what you've suggested: https://www.thedrive.com/accel...

To me, that's no longer even a nod at 'open cockpit'. But we're never going back to the days of the Lotus 24.

I don't like the halo, but based on the experience of the past 18 months, it has saved at least four lives by my count.

The lawsuits against it would be never-ending.

The card has no user fees - no late fees, no annual fees, no over limit fees.

Hacking the TV system gains you nothing. Hacking the actual robs-umpire gains you an advantage in the game.

Which will do not good and will have no effect when it comes to undoing the damage done by a hacked or miscalibrated machine. You're engaging in wishful thinking and assuming that the robo-umpires are better, with no significant data to back you up, other than a theoretical claim. And nobody has actually thought through the ramifications of what do to when the inevitable problems crop up. To deny that problems will arise is to ensure failure, Take off your rose colored glasses.

Easy enough to hack - you simply record the pitch as being where you want it to be then send the 'ball' or 'strike' word to the umpire, The recorded data is consistent with the call, but not with where the pitch really was. You make the strike zone an inch or two smaller when your team is batting and an inch or two bigger when your team is in the field. And then you reload the correct code as soon as the game is over, And that's just one hack! Somebody will figure out how to blind the robo-umpire, too, or interfere with it by jamming. Then what? What does the umpire do if there is no signal? After all, he hasn't called balls or strikes for YEARS (or perhaps ever).

LOL. Not at all. First of all, experience with other measuring devices (speed radar, breathalyzer, etc) says it's not just theoretical. Second, it would be FAR easier to rig the machine and not get caught than it would be to bribe a bunch of umpires and not get caught Third, I'm not forgiving human error, I'm saying it's part of sport and you deal with it. Again, from experience, we can be sure that machine error will result in spectacular failure Fourth, trying to solve for occasional error or variation without considering the potential negative outcomes of your solution is to whistle past the graveyard Fifth, as for human error, as Mike Ditka put it, if you're in a position where a single error by the officials coasts you the game, that's your fault, not theirs. It's part of the game (and always has been) and eliminating is will fundamentally alter the game (for the worse, IMHO).,

Oh, I do watch baseball and have for fifty years. The people pushing the robo-umps are touting the 'incredible accuracy' and I'm pointing out that the claim is bogus. If the machine can make bad calls or doesn't have the to the millimeter strike zone, then why bother? In other words, it's no better than the current umps. And if that's the case, there's no point in doing it at all. What this does take away is the quiet word from the catcher encouraging the umpire to rethink his strike zone. Or for managers to make their case. Or a host of other things which can happen with human beings. Once you turn it over to the computer, everyone assumes it's always right and there is no way to deal with the problem at all. Baseball is a disaster as it is and this will just make it worse.

Very simple - one is a fastball specialist who works the inside of the plate; the other is a curve-ball specialist who works the outside of the plate. A slight miscalibration could radically alter the calls.

It's inevitable that one of these robo-umpires will be miscalibrated resulting in an advantage for the pitcher of the winning team. Holy hell will break loose because instead of one bad call, there are now hundreds. To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer. To me, this takes the human element from the game and subsets robot overlords. No thanks.

Apple does have a well-thought-out security design. Maybe there are things wrong with it, but to say they 'just fix bugs' and don't think about overall security ignores the truth. But I suppose that's what you get when you're click-seeking. See: https://www.apple.com/business... Can we find holes in that? I'm sure. But they do have a plan. And that's the public one. I'd wager there's an even more detailed internal one.