Her industry may not exist in 20 years.
In fact, all traffic based lawsuits may vanish as people find it makes more sense to move to a no-fault insurance system when most cars are driven by computer.
One of the major reasons traffic deaths went down is we redesigned cars so that instead of being able to withstand a crash without injury to the car, they absorb the crash in a 'crush zone', meaning the car itself takes the damage instead of a person.
In addition, the value of cars has risen over that time, as we put in a lot more features on them. So damages went up
It's the difference between making things worse and making things better.
Google is entirely right to refuse to let France rule the world's internet.
But at the same time, France is entirely right about making Google listen to real people who's lives have been damaged by Google and taking reasonable steps to LIMIT the damage, even if they can never make it perfect.
In a world with cars driven by people, there will always be a car accident. Requiring the driver to stop and render minimal aid after an accident won't end accidents, but it will make the world a better place.
Similarly, Google can't put the information genie back in the bottle, but it can take steps to limit the damage. This is a great law, that help prevents the evils of Rule By Rumor, without punishing people for spreading them.
Every day in the middle east, their are armed drones carrying explosives hovering over someone's yards watching young women.
Those young women are sometimes wearing clothing their particular culture feels is appropriate to go publicly swimming int.
The fact that those drones are owned by the US government and are looking for terrorists from high altitudes does not change the fact that is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Granted there has only been ONE case of a drone armed with a pistol, in the US, flown by a civilian, does not matter.
When someone illegally enters your property, and is carrying an unknown device, it is totally reasonable for the victim of the crime to assume the unknown device is a weapon. Police do it all the time. The same applies to an unaccompanied drone.
And the existence of those control characters prove we need the character key.
What - you think that something that we DON'T already have a control character for sure get it's own key???
I was thinking he was the poor sucker with a first generation iMac where the USB wasn't even 2.0. (and where the firmware is set so that it CANNOT boot from an external USB DVD-ROM drive)
My first gen iMac boots from external CDROM on USB just fine, thank you.
Hold the Alt key at startup to get the boot device menu, plug in your cdrom if need be and press alt again to update the device list, and click on the big giant CD icon.
Both OS X and YellowDog Linux boot fine this way, and I've installed and reinstalled both more than once.
Firmware hasn't ever been manually upgraded either, so unless some patch came with OS X 10.1 or something, the firmware hasn't been upgraded beyond factory as well.
I've not tried the "C" key shortcut on it, as I didn't learn about that one until later sometime around/after I had my i7 macbook.
But even today I prefer the alt key method of selecting a boot device from the list over the "C" key that can't confirm the cd media is even bootable before skipping past it on to the HD.
Too many cdrw discs having boot sector problems with various older cdrom drives I guess.
Unless you can show that there actually was no danger to people or property, and you knew that at the time of firing. Which short of being some form of android or having very specific knowledge ahead of time, is not easy to do
How is that not easy to do?
"[Man] Kids, get in the house."
Now only one person remains in danger of a drone falling on him, zero people are in danger of the shotgun pellets coming down, and as the one main remaining is also the land owner, you clearly have the land owners permission to act as well as already accepting the risk of damage to their own property.
I started using computers regularly in the time before the "Windows" key was added to the keyboard. So, when it appeared, I refused to use it, out of pique.
I have to bring that statement into question.
If you really did use computers back in the day before Windows, you would already know that key - called Super - has existed since the 80s and was first removed on the IBM 8800 computer, which it remained missing until Microsoft requested keyboard manufacturers to put the Super key back and stick their logo on it.
Unix systems used and still use Super as an extra modifier similar to Hyper, Meta, Alt, AltGr, and Control.
The classic Macs used it as the "open apple" / command key, which was used for keyboard shortcuts leaving Control free to insert control characters as originally intended.
Sun had a dedicated key on the left-hand function keys.
LISP programmers have said they can't live without Meta.
Even emacs remaps the keycode back in for command shortcuts.
Personally when the key REappeared I was quite happy, as any cheap-o $10 keyboard would have similar functionality to any 104-key keyboard in the past, and no longer commanded higher prices to get.
"They installed a simple Chrome plugin on every Macbook [...] the least popular keys are Capslock and Right Mouse Button"
You don't say!
Right click is pretty popular on most every desktop OS out there.
What shocks me the most is they didn't report mouse buttons 3, 4, and 5 as least used.
Button 3 is pretty well used by power users, but 4/5 require an external mouse, so macbooks don't have those two buttons built in as hardware.
I'm still waiting on Windows to actually add in support for buttons 4 and 5 instead of faking it and mapping them to browser forward/back.
The most used desktop OS (Windows) still to this day doesn't support as many mouse buttons as younger OSes like OS X and Linux, it's simply amazing.
In addition the shooter had no way to know with any reasonable degree of certainty that the 'drone' was unarmed. It could have been carrying an explosive device - and not just a gun as was recently seen, but actual c4 explosive.
Finally, even if it was only containing a camera, it was still illegal violation of the shooter's rights and the shooter had the right to destroy the object.