or I really just wanted to say "all he can smell is cow shit".

Because this is not a nation of laws at all.

In a nation of laws, would it be acceptable for spies to have secret talks with the so called "Justice" department and get the green light to torture people, in spite of the various laws against it? Would a nation of laws allow agreements like that? "Don't worry, we wont prosecute, you are working for us"

A nation of laws might, change those laws, and legalize its spies using torture. Then it would be on the up and up. However, this country isn't that, and well.... turns out not just on that one issue.

This just is not, and really never was, a nation of laws.

Dan: Yeah, exactly. And once youâ(TM)ve created something, itâ(TM)s going to sit in your library, so you can just call up from your phone again and say, yeah I just want another one of those go, go, go. It is natively connected all the time. So, if you donâ(TM)t have an Internet connection in your shop, if you are up and about , you are going to either have to find a mobile spot or this wonâ(TM)t work

Keep your overpriced junk.

I don't even know what more to say. I don't want a device that requires somebody else's service to work. I don't want to invest in a future brick, and not just a future brick, but one I can't even use to design my own things and decide whether or not its 100% private?

No, I pay you for the device, then you get copies of all my designs? Everything I work on? AND if you decide you don't care any more, or have enough designs copied, you can just switch it all off and everyone is shit out of luck?

Anyone who pays good money for this, I hope they understand the real limitations and risks before they buy their future brick.

Clearly you have never been there, all he can smell is cow shit. There aint no money out that way and what money there is, can drive itself around just fine.

Who would call uber for anything when NOTHING is within a 30-45 minute one way drive? Nobody who would need it could ever afford an uber ride, and the uber driver would would have a 30 min ride himself to get anywhere.

Please I have taken the cabs in my areas a couple of times, I hever never once been impressed by the quality of cars, and only occasionally drivers.

Never tried uber, if they pass inspection they can't be much worst.

Uber finally did something that has convinced me not to ever use their service. I know it has an opt out but, I have no interest in any service that wants to track me and use me to advertise to my friends.

If I want to give them some word of mouth to my friends, I will do that when I choose, thanks.

I don't give a shit about skirting regulation or attacking the comfortable regulated complancency of the taxi cab industry. This however, this disgusts me.

When it comes to drones we have a hell of a lot more to fear from the ones coming out of Pennsylvania ave than the ones flying over it.

That doesn't sound like any of my several jury duties. However, mine all went like this. We come in, sit down, a judge comes in, explains to us how the whole purpose of a jury pool is to scare people into settling cases.

Then a couple of hours later, they return, announce that all of the cases today have settled, and send everyone home.

They sure to imprison a lot of people and call up a lot of jurors for the number of cases that actually ever see a jury; which is sad, I don't think this type of system makes for a very good meat grinder.

So, its not just a device, but a device that needs an external service to operate?

As impressive as what it does is, that is a huge turn off for me. Admittedly I look at it from a hobbiest perspective where I prefer my open source 3d printer because I can understand all its parts and tinker with it, even if I don't generally choose to do so, I can.

I don't like the idea of a device that might cease to work because the cloud service it depends on no longer functions. If he is worried about how open source companies have disappointed customers by overpromising, then I don't see this as setting up for success in that arena.

That is unless the "cloud computing" part is a component any customer with one could spin up himself in a generic cloud providers environment....ok then, but, I would have trouble justifying buying a device with externally held "secret sauce".

Please do, I can't think of any better way to explain it to people in a context they will understand intuitively.

Very much so. Just because their business model requires people to make bad decisions, doesn't mean they have a right to enforce bad decisions.

The web browsing they want is like, if you walked into a reseraunt to meet a group of 10 people, 1 of whom you know, and are told in this circle, we greet eachother with unprotected anal sex....at which point, everyone at the table stands up to "greet you".

He did? Funny I don't see it that way at all.

What I see is him pledging to implement a technical loophole. How is making someone else do the collection and storage (with far less security than their own current collection) really any real change? Do you honestly think the people who were complaining about this are just policy wonks who want the letter of the law followed but who don't actually care about the real privacy implications?

This is not progress, its window dressing.

Oh he is good. So the collection is a problem, so lets end the collection by outsouricing it. Problem solved.

As long as we maintain our ability to search through the records, we don't need to "collect them". CLearly the public only ever policy wonks about technicalities, nobody actually wants or needs privacy right?

Not just CS, a bigger problem is more lack of understanding about networking and more operational details.

You see it especially well in educated people in other fields in their interactions. A particular friend of mine is a chemist. He is aware enough to recognize a web browser with noscript, but his answer to that is to go to a site and based on (when discussing it after) "this site is reputable" hit "allow all temporarily" without any awareness of the actual issues involved like whether affiliate sites can be considered "reputable".... case in point, the site in question referenced doubleclick.

I of course used this as an opportunity to describe using a web browser in the most common way using my favorite analogy ever... "Imagine if we replaced hand shakes with unprotected anal sex. You get a party invite, and you go. You know youre friend is reputable but, does that mean you want to 'greet' all of his friends too? That is what web browsing is like by default, the website is a crowded diner table, and 'greetings' are going around the table"

I would actually consider this reasonable for a self parking feature. I have no issue with a flawed system that is the best you can make. Its early versions ffs, this is decent.

What is not reasonable is realizing its a problem, developing a fix, and then selling a fix for a safety flaw as a bonus feature. Even more so, if its just a software upgrade it should be a recall and fix, if it requires additional hardware or replacement, it should be offfered to existing owners at a reasonable price.

The release I understand. However, leaving it that way and continuing to sell models with a known flaw, that is a different issue really.

You may get the same thing when you buy a Windows CD, but at least one of the first things it does is download the free updates. You will never go to a store and have to choose between Windows 10 and Windows 10 with security updates and then be stuck with what you chose when you get home.