Your car is trying to tell you that you're about to roll it.

You do realize that most cars sold in the last couple of decades have computers that can override your inputs and monkey around with your brakes whenever you're trying to speed up or slow down the vehicle?

Statistically, cops have far fewer accidents that they caused. Should they be cited? Sure. Will they? Never, as the fraternity of enforcers exempts themselves, and given human behavior, you're not going to easily change that, even with cop-cams. I understand your fears, I doubt that you'll be able to change the behavior of public safety officers. Good luck.

It's disingenuous to assert that Google doesn't know about the data that is collects, sells it (the http_referrer coin collection), and that the advertiser whose link you clicked doesn't know you, perhaps by name (referring to the fact that the IPv4 address space has largely known destinations to the street address and user-characteristics).

Upsetting is that claims of unidentifiable use are in fact, one of the most hilarious lies in computing, as all of this information in a click-thru is so handily re-assembled. There is no privacy here, in the very tiniest. Google's business model is to know--==> you. They don't have this right.

Slashdot knows who I am. My IP is known. They can be linked. One can become somewhat anonymous on the Internet, but only by trying really, really hard to accomplish this, and it's transient at best-- as accumulated information becomes your dossier.

The implications of dossiers are for a different forum, but in this circumstance, this thread, this post, it's my criticism of the pretension within the post, viz: "And with your permission and all of that, you are interacting with the things going on in the room" means that your devices will be forced to respond to its ambient environment, and what you do, even say, maybe your sexual responses, all of these will become exposed, modesty and your intentions to hide these things, vanquished by environmental probes.

Erratic isn't a useful measure. Voluntarily removing your focus from driving, e.g. taking a call, removing your eyes from the road for more than a second every 20sec, there'll be something that could be a viable measure that puts people's eyes back on the road, and not the latest tweet or instagram pic.

I can stop your heart with 2microvolts if it's attached to a 9mm slug.

To keep the oscillator going, a nanoamp is one measure, but voltage pushes that current through the coil to make it move. Voltage, difference in potential, is unlikely to come from ambient sources, so the there's still a little bit of a kick left in the battery, not the surrounding area.

I drive about 150mi per week on highways, not freeways, and watch as dozens and dozens of people text. They're easy to spot.

Were we to apply the emphasis towards keeping your eyes on the road, rather than improving brakes-- which were probably ok as they DON'T DO FORENSICS on such accidents, better money would be spent.

How do you get people to stop fooling with their devices? Enable motion detection, which keeps the cam on in the phone. Might not work for many, but I'd like to see texting and driving fined in the same way as DUIs. Same problem: irresponsibility.

Which exonerates Google..... no.

Google of course, has NO idea that you clicked. Nope, never, nada. /sarcasm.

the friggin 7 year old netbook I have playing music can boot from USB.

so really - are they seriously saying that this was not available before? like what the fuck?

tell that to the people in prison in China for writing something on Weibo...

well, just as it happens china chose the certain line to be such which makes it hard for overseas businesses to operate in China.

It makes things like payments and everything like that harder for them.

besides though, it's an arms race. I'm sure there will very shortly be vpn software that wraps the stuff in something else to fool the protocol detection. and then they'll try to block that. and then they'll do something else.

Google sells the ad.

You click the ad.

Google gets the click, and gets paid.

Advertiser gets the http_referrer, but in doing so, also gets the user IP address. Every IP address in IPv4 space is a known destination.

What was your question, again?

Fuck that, I've been trying to install FreeBSD on my Commodore 64. Crapping Commodore 1541 disk drive keeps mangling my installation CD.

And each click gets them an IP address, and a history and an object. Who do you think you're kidding? Click-thrus are insanely read by each of the advertisers, and in turn, as no agreement exists at this phase, does WHAT THEY WANT with the data.

Advertisers see 100% of the clicks. 100%. Not nothing, 100%. Why? C'mon. You think we're stupid??

That's pretty much how I remember it. There would be all those awkward asides referring to events in the films, as if anybody who hadn't seen the movies would actually be reading the book. I found it fairly distracting.