To be honest, I figured that it
Drug dogs just don't have enough lobbyists paying every nephew and 3rd cousin twice removed each justice has to get a "typical" ruling.
What makes that newsworthy?
The only real solution for people who value their online identity is to never establish one at all. And even then someone might establish one in your name if they get access to the right records database. All anyone can really do is try to find a solution that is convenient and not stupidly insecure while ensuring they know how to minimize the damage if/when their information is compromised in some way (watch bank and credit card statements, check credit report frequently, etc..).
Then I buy them online from a retailer that charges at least 30% less (usually Amazon) and doesn't grill me for a half hour when I have to return something their employees broke tossing boxes around.
Not having your contract renewed is akin to being given a gold watch and cake.
For example, take the first half of a chorus from one song and a the last half of a verse from another by a different artist of a different genre and combine them and you have a multiple word pass phrase that's easy to remember . Even if the attacker knows to use song lyrics, with so many songs out there and ways to vary how you use their lyrics, it'd still be very difficult to break by machine.
So, the guy he punched will likely end up on some doomed BBC 2 reality show, The BBC loses a 28 year old brand and a show that brought in over $50 million/year while Clarkson (and potentially May and Hammond) get to find someone willing to pay for the talents honed at the BBC without (apparently) being subject to the no-compete clause and the anger of Top Gear fans that quitting would have subjected them to.
And prosecution? It's England, not the U.S. It was a simple assault by a drunk old man at a pub with with the victim saying publicly that he sustained only minor injury. If Britain imposed prison time for that they'd have more people in jail than the US does every time the World Cup came round. At most he'll get a £500 fine and have to get some counseling.
Being offended gives them a power over others that they could never have if their brand of self righteous hate wasn't as accepted now as racist hate was in the past. That sort of person is absolutely giddy when someone like Jeremy Clarkson get ordered to the back of the bus.
But inevitably, he doesn't go quietly and meekly to the back, he gets off the bus and drives beside it in a Veyron, revving the engine to redline and laughing at the people offended by the noise.
This is just another of the measures Arkansas is trying to entice more tech companies to move to Arkansas. It's a dirt cheap place to do business and a dirt cheap place to live (I bought a new, high end 3200 square foot home in 2010 for under $300k) with plenty of undeveloped areas to grow out. They've been working to build out tech infrastructure in Little Rock and between Bentonville (Walmart HQ) to Fort Smith (a manufacturing and shipping hub) for most of the past decade. Now, they're trying to develop the workforce to further support it. And, as you mentioned, Arkansas would absolutely love to attract businesses who sell coding crap or do any other kind of tech stuff. They've been grooming the state for such businesses for years. Get the people selling coding crap here and the people who make coding crap will follow.
That may be true. However, self driving cars are an entirely different matter. While they are really cool, do you really want to be in one hurling down the highway at 85MPH (I'm in Utah) and trusting that the automated systems are going to know the difference between a coyote or a tumbleweed?
Today? No. In 20 years? Almost certainly as by then they should be perfected enough that they'll be a lot safer than sharing the road with vehicles operated manually by a 19 year old who thinks they're such a fantastic driver that they can safely fly down the highway at 120MPH. When I was a tow truck driver just out of HS I watched the CHP spray what was left of such drivers off the road at least once a week.
If a child and a dog run out into the street at the same time from opposite sides, do you trust the car to make the right decision as to which it will run over?
I'd expect we'll have systems that identify any warm blooded creature entering the roadway and instantly apply braking and take evasive maneuvers that human reaction times couldn't possibly compete with and that they'd be more reliable and consistent than human drivers have ever been and they'll be able to communicate what they're seeing and doing with other vehicles nearby so they can measures to ensure they react appropriately as well.
How would you like to be legally responsible for your self driving car if it runs over a child?
You probably wouldn't be liable in such a case. The car maker would be. Just as they are now if a flaw in the car causes an accident. But with an automated car there'd be no way for the car manufacturer to claim it was the driver's fault so it'd take a lot less litigation to assign such liability.
What about black ice?
Machines are already better at identifying black ice than humans via the use of things like thermal imaging and reflective laser analysis. And if you see a patch of black ice, there's no guarantee the guy behind you will see it. But if automated cars became the norm, once one car (or a satellite or drone) sees a patch of black ice, every other car in the area can be notified to avoid it and they could even automatically dispatch an automated service vehicle to remove it.
What if a person is in the road and the car has a choice of running over the person or crashing and possibly killing you.
Why wouldn't the car see the person and stop while sending a signal to all the cars behind it to do the same and avoid a pile up? A car will never be too busy changing the radio station or messing with their phone or driving drunk or fatigued or subject to panic so, even when someone does foolishly run out in the road, the number of times where the option will be "Run over the person or crash into something" will be far rarer than it is today with human drivers.
Do you trust the car to make the right decision?
My car can already parallel park a lot better than I can. And there's already systems for planes that allow them to safely fly and land in conditions it'd be nearly impossible for a human to safely do so. And humans aren't known for making good decisions, especially when they're required to make them quickly. So yeah, once the technology matures to the same point as automated parallel parking, automated cruise control and Automatic braking have, I'd trust it to drive.
>As much as I like software (and writing it), there are IMHO too many judgement calls for a computer and in many situations too many for a lot of (supposedly sane) people.
As much as I like humans, and as much fun it is creating more of them, there are IMHO too many physical and mental limitations for even a supposedly sane human to do as quickly and accurately and make judgements based upon the available data as a well programmed machine can.
The only way I can see self driving cars really working is to have special roads to carry them.
I agree. Animals, weather and normal road hazards aren't much of a problem. But automated vehicles will never be good enough to reliably handle all the stupid and unpredictable things humans do while driving. It'll likely take a major societal shift where individually owned vehicles become a thing of the past and all the vehicles on the road are publicly owned and automated before automated vehicles are really viable. But it'll almost certainly happen one day and I doubt that day is more than 3 or 4 decades away at the most.