A decade or two ago (I'm not really sure when he wrote it)) Brad Templeton suggested something like this as a fix for various problems, especially trademark. My take is that the basic idea is that TLDs are already meaningless, so diversifying them into increased meaninglessness does no damage while offering some benefits. (e.g. makes monopolizing certain words harder, makes it easier to try out new registration policies, etc)
how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection?
Go to the rack and unplug the ethernet cable whose other end is in Assange's room. Change the wifi password and only tell people the new one along with the instructions "don't share your password, especially with that Assange guy."
The "state actor" was Ecuador, or else it didn't happen. That's the only government capable of doing it.
Where is the bigger, more interesting, and more newsworthy story that the entire Ecuador embassy has been cut off? I still haven't seen it.
Therefore, if the story is true, then everyone can easily infer which "stare actor" cut him off: Ecuador.
Who is responsable in the case your AI-autonomous car decides to kill some pedestrians ?
I don't know. Tell me more about what happened right before that.
Was the pedestrian running out into traffic for laughs, to see all the cars crash into each other as some other threads here suggest? Was the occupant aiming it toward crowds to impress his friend with how it suddenly swerves away from the crowd when he takes his hands off the wheel? Did it just suddenly "randomly" turn off the street into a crowd as a result of a bug?
By the time someone or something decides "hit this or hit that" you already have a huge failure. That is way more important and common than the hit-this-or-that question itself.
What stops you from shooting your rifle at a target within, but nevertheless distinct from, a crowd right now? Might there already be reasons to abstain from this behavior, in spite of the lack of technical restraints?
If you're worried to the point of stupidity/paralysis ("be prepared to be sued out of existence") then you've already chosen to never drive even a manually-operated car, because you were overwhelmed by your fears. Most people don't have that attitude going on, so they already drive cars anyway, where they face constant daily risk of injuring or even killing pedestrians.
And some of them end up occasionally doing it, to many peoples' grief. For whatever reason, society didn't give up and decide the existence of cars was just too dangerous to allow. It's over a hundred years too late for to advocate against cars. By the time your grandparents were born, this argument (that we're having today) had already been settled.
How the vehicle got to be out of control is what everyone trying to establish liability will be asking. That it killed a pedestrian or driver is merely the motivation for asking.
And it's funny, too.
Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive for a web browser to be rewriting the contents on a web page?
Speaking as someone who goes to extra trouble to add various extensions (e.g. ublock origin, privacy badger, tampermonkey, etc) to fix web pages because the browser still doesn't do enough, and who used proxies (squid-with-sleezeball, privoxy) before we had good browser extensions: no, it doesn't seem even slightly counter-intuitive. Why would it be counter-intuitive? I totally don't get it.
Shouldn't it be rendering it exactly as the developers intended it?
It should be rendering it however the user intends to see it.
Isn't this the browser equivalent of a compiler that inserts malicious code in programs that it compiles?
Yes, it is, if you look at it loosely enough. But then, it's also the browser equivalent of a program loader than removes malicious code from the programs it loads, or a linker that binds symbolic references to addresses, or a program that compresses data, or an image resizer, or good ol' awk and sed, or
Sorry you've had so many bad experiences that the first analogy that came to your mind was something unpleasant. Do you use a lot of malware? Maybe cut back on that.
You might as well say "power is evil." It's not. The problem is that your adversaries have more than you.
If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be in favor of people having the ability to do more things easier. And then you'd be saying "Maybe Conan was right. Crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women is best in life!"
I think he means this.
The problem isn't really even how much they're charging; it's that you can't shop around and use whatever data that you want to (or cheap out with openstreetmap or build your own data as your drive around, or whatever). If they had to compete, I doubt anyone would be complaining about the prices.
I think it's great if the car has GPS, because it has exterior antenna(s) which are going to be way more reliable than my Galaxy S4's crappy GPS, which I have to hold up or near a window to keep a "lock." But it should make the GPS results available to other systems. Then a device driver in the phone can say "fuck my local equipment, use this GPS computer over here..." That'd be awesome to the max.
(Or I could just get a new phone with a better antenna, but that just seems wrong somehow...)
Anyway, car computers suck because the manufacturers want 'em to be another videogame console cash cow walled-garden, which means the software is never going to be any good. It's the IBM mainframe of 1960s-1970s, the videogame consoles, the iPhone, etc all over again. Seems like every damn form factor needs its own "Personal Computer revolution" because customers are simply unable to exert enough pressure early in the life cycle.
We all need to get a lot more militant about preventing this sort of crap. It's my computer so stop telling me what I have to do with it. It ought to be punch-you-in-the-face fighting words from the get-go, whenever they even hint about getting in your way.
As long as you get what you want for a price you are willing to pay, what difference does it make if you also get something else?
Because we're being forced to pay for crap we don't want.
I think you might be missing the point of the post that you replied to: you are not being forced to pay for crap you don't want. You decided that you would prefer to pay for crap that you don't want. If you had decided you would rather not pay for crap you don't want, then you wouldn't be paying.
You shouted "YES, I ACCEPT YOUR OFFER! OMG OMG PLEASE PLEASE, TAKE MY MONEY! YES, YES, HERE'S MY MONEY!!!!" to them while telling us that you're unhappy. (People who aren't as understanding as I am, are probably getting the mistaken impression that you're a two-faced whiny lying bitch.)
I have a suggestion that might help your situation. Maybe you should stop petting the poorly-behaving dog and sweetly and lovingly saying, "oh, what a horrible bad dog, I fucking hate you," and then making smooching noises and scratching under its collar, followed by "You are the worst dog ever" and then giving it a piece of bacon.
Say no. Stop paying them. See that money coming out of your account every month? Keep that money. Don't give them money. Terminate the business relationship. (I'm not sure how else to explain this. Anyone?) The shitty bundle is how things are going to be, until you learn how to say no. If you keep saying "yes," they'll keep hearing "yes."
"Ask not what A Group of Employees can do for you. But ask what can All Employees do for A Group of Employees." -- Mike Dennison