You keep telling yourself that. Even if a lawyer vetts it, that doesn't necessarily make it binding. Perhaps their lawyer advised them to sign it anyway, knowing that that particular clause was, in fact, not enforceable. Perhaps the lawyer didn't advise them anything of the sort because, at the time, it didn't matter to anyone. You don't know what you're talking about with respect to what they did or didn't understand in the contract.

I'll say it again, just because a contract is agreed to by both parties doesn't mean it's enforceable. Plenty of "legal" contracts get thrown out every day as non-binding or non-enforceable.

I can read. Just because you sign something you think is legal doesn't necessarily make it legal. There are hundreds of examples. Hell there was a recent slashdot article about people agreeing to give up their first born child in an EULA. Obviously that's not legally enforceable. If you think it is, you should do a lot more reading about the law.

The fact that it happened didn't make it legal. Just another form of thief, actually.

So is the pause button.

That's irrelevant if the terms weren't legally binding. The question is whether or not the same type of terms apply to farm equipment as they do to personal vehicles.

That doesn't refute guruevi's points at all, even if the guy had been combat experienced, which he wasn't. Military training might prolong someone's resistance to siege tactics (such as blocking food/water/comms) but it doesn't eliminate them. Waiting him out was the right option if, in fact, he was no longer able to continue harming people from that position. If he still had a tactical advantage to pursue more targets, putting him down in whatever way they could makes sense. I haven't seen any evidence or statements that is the case though.

I suspect there's a bit of both things going on here. Some amount of concern that the shooter could "escape" from the position and resume shooting and some amount of "he killed one of ours, put him down".

Have you ever driven a car longer than 5 minutes? There is no way touch sensors in the steering wheel would be a beneficial addition. People switch hand position all the time. I'd dare say there isn't anyone who drives a car with a hand on the wheel at all times. Having the system disengage all the time would be ridiculous. I suppose you could put a timer along with the sensor, though. Still wouldn't stop anything. A person could easily rest a hand on the wheel and never once look at what's actually happening around them.

The right solution is to make it clear that this "autopilot" isn't anything more than an assisted cruise control, like every other manufacturer does, and people wouldn't think it was more capable than it is. Or simply let the dumbasses be dumbasses. It hasn't impacted car sales by any other manufacturer. Hell, there are some 30,000+ fatal accidents every year in the US with "regular" cars. Some are certainly manufacturer defects, but most are human error. Why should Tesla be held to a different standard than all other manufacturers?

I think you've got that backwards. Aside from a few (relative) technophiles most people don't know/understand or care that they are being tracked. They care about things being easy and cheap.

Fair enough. I've never payed any attention to advertisements on facebook other than to see how ridiculously bad their "targeting" is for me so I wasn't aware they had coupons of any kind. I've still never known anyone who went to an actual store to buy things. Everyone I've ever known buys online when they see ads online.

Based on what? I have not met (and yes, I'm aware that my anecdote is not evidence) a single person who's ever seen an ad on facebook (or any other website) and then gone to a brick and mortar store to buy the item. I have seen lots of people buy the item from their computer, phone, tablet, whatever. My point is that people who pay attention to the ads at all are far more likely (in my experience) to buy online rather than "go shopping".

It's laughable that any advertiser on a website thinks those ads are driving sales in brick and mortar shops. They might be driving some internet sales but I don't think most people view advertisement online as a real motivator to shop anywhere but online. I suspect Facebook will drop this soon when they realize there are no good returns on the data.

I've never once "approved" an endorsement and they show up on my profile all the time. I get endorsements from a lot of people who don't know anything about what I do. I have two actual endorsements from people I've worked with, written in their own words and posted on my profile. All the generic "security" "clearance" "integration" bullshit pre-fab endorsements are useless. I refuse to endorse anyone else either, unless I've actually worked with them and then (if I ever do it) I'll write something myself that actually shows what that person's skills are and how I know it.

Google contacted me for an position based upon my LinkedIn profile. Several of my friends who have their own companies use it pretty much exclusively when looking for new candidates.

I'd say there's at least a little validity to what bengoerz has said. I don't know how accurate the numbers are but it's quite clear that LinkedIn has growth potential in the area of recruiting.

Encyclopedia entries for politicians didn't used to happen during their tenure. Don't conflate the two situations. If encyclopedia entries of our parent's generation could have been made in a more timely manner the same situation would have occurred. Or people would have been sued for defamation, libel, or some other nonsense.