Incorrect. It does matter what my preferences are, and I do have a right to privacy. The camera footage should and will be redacted.
In the end, life has to have a balance. There's not much point in fully automated everything if nobody has a job and is able to purchase the fruits of that automation. So either the products of industry will become so cheap as to be effectively free and the poor just have to go pick up the things they want, or there will have to be value that people can generate in exchange for the items they desire.
Doesn't matter what you or I do or what is or isn't safe driving. Fact is red light cameras reduced the safety of the over all driving experience.
It's in public space, but not always a good idea to release publicly. For example, if a cop happens to be the first person on the scene of an accident I was involved in, I would prefer if that video is not released, unless it's necessary to a court case. If it were a medical first responder it'd actually be illegal for them to release film of me in that situation, under HIPAA. Cops are exempt from HIPAA, but that doesn't make it a good idea for them to completely ignore privacy of 3rd parties.
The scale may be different but one man with a backhoe still displaces 100 men with shovels. Now it may be one man with a factory of robots displaces 1000 assembly line workers. Or one man watching a console of automated farm machines displaces 100 tractor drivers. In the past it was one man with a cotton gin could replace 100 slaves. or one caveman with a wheel and cart could carry back three knocked out mates to his cave.
(*) except for the last example, man is used in the non gender specific man-kind form.
Just like any technical achievement with a creative destruction aftermath.
The rich will get richer, and the poor will get richer too, they'll just continue to complain that their poor choices aren't responsible for their state.
Actually yes they did, due to the extra threat of photos people are more likely to slam on the brakes at the last second when it would be safer to continue through the intersection.
If it were Exxon vs. the attorney general of Alabama, I'd be hoping for a way they could both lose...
The North Korean news agency mentioned (KCNA) has the statement on their website. It seems to be a weird webapp that doesn't allow direct linking, but you can find it if you click on "English" at the top, then scroll down a bit to "DPRK Foreign Ministry Rejects U.S. Accusation against Pyongyang over Cyber Attack". Or just look here:
Pyongyang, December 20 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK gave the following answer to a question put by KCNA Saturday as regards the U.S. accusation against the DPRK over a cyber attack on a movie company in the U.S.:
Obama, Kerry and other high-ranking authorities of the U.S. cried out for sort of counter-measure Friday, claiming that the results of the investigation into the cyber-attack on the Sony Pictures Entertainment proved that the DPRK was behind it. They, without presenting any specific evidence, are asserting they can not open it to public as it is "sensitive information."
Clear evidence is needed to charge a sovereign state with a crime. Reference to the past cyber-attacks quite irrelevant with the DPRK and a string of presumptive assertions such as "similarity" and "repetition" can convince no one.
The U.S. act of daring charge the DPRK with a crime based on absurd "investigation results" reveals its inveterate bitterness toward the DPRK. This is proven, as in the recent cyber-attack, by the recent urge made by a man called a "human rights special envoy" of the U.S. State Department to movie-makers that they should harass the north Korean government and keep alive scenes hurting the dignity of the its supreme leadership. The U.S. ruling quarters are working hard to divert the criticism of its administration to the DPRK as the plan of putting on show the anti-DPRK film on Christmas Day canceled due to the controversial cyber-attack, causing an uproar in the U.S.
We will never pardon those undesirable elements keen on hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK. In case we retaliate against them, we will target with legitimacy those responsible for the anti-DPRK acts and their bases, not engaging in terrorist attack aimed at the innocent audience in cinemas. The army of the DPRK has the will and ability to do so.
The U.S. State Secretary is going to justify the production of the movie hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of a sovereign state while trumpeting about the freedom of expression. He should know that there is punishment of libel in enforcement of international law.
We propose the U.S. side conducting a joint investigation into the case, given that Washington is slandering Pyongyang by spreading unfounded rumor. We have a way to prove that we have nothing to do with the case without resorting to torture as what the CIA does.
The U.S. should bear in mind that it will face serious consequences in case it rejects our proposal for joint investigation and presses for what it called countermeasure while finding fault with the DPRK.
There is not, but there will be free speech.
The Federal numbers are an average for cars that cost $500,000 to $25,000 my 2007 civic will lose less than $3.00 for the 3000 miles added to it, it's already at the bottom of the curve and even adding 10,000 miles will not change it's "resale value" that has no real meaning as I dont intend to sell it.
And "major repairs" don't come from miles, they come from abuse and lack of proper maintenance.
Now my Ferrari F40, that would have a much higher depreciation for those miles.
Almost stone-throwing distance from Redmond, too.
Looks like pretty clear-cut persecution to me...
> and about a secret Google group where the supposedly "independent journalists" were given marching orders and told what to push, what to ignore, and whom to attack. When the news came out? THIRTEEN gaming sites issued THE EXACT SAME STORY about how they didn't need gamers and that gamers were "dead".
A discussion group for journalists in a particular field... shocking, oh wait, all journalists in all fields have had those for decades, long before the internet they had forums like that via other means.
Journalists have been building relationships across publications and collaborating in this manner for-ever, it actually makes journalism STRONGER.
The only plausible explanation for you thinking this one is a scandal is:
1) You're an idiot who didn't know that this has been standard practise since Ben Franklin published a newspaper
2) You know that but are hoping WE don't, and want to deceive us.
Aaww you actually think calling somebody an SJW is an insult.
Being an SJW is pretty much the plot of every good action movie or series ever made. The A-Team were SJW's, MacGuyver was an SJW... dude, being an SJW is the ultimate real-man thing to do !