Enforcement is independent of legislation. But you'll upload it to youtube anyway.
Enforcement is independent of legislation. But you'll upload it to youtube anyway.
Maybe where you live, but not where I live. Very rarely is anyone looking through my window. And I've news for you: it's been illegal to point a telescope into someone's window for quite some time.
Umm, might want to look at what the women want. I guess it takes a man to say: get a dog.
But hey. If a woman can't keep a man, then there's no betting that she'll be able to keep a dog either.
Oh yeah, how could I forget: also she has 90 seconds. How silly of me. Even with 90 seconds, she needs help. I can't think of a place in my life where 90 seconds wouldn't already be enough for me to get away. But I've got 90 seconds, a dog, friends, a community, a cell phone, money, and a strong woman by my side.
So now we're talking about women without any ability to keep money, nor to keep a man, nor to keep a dog. And they want it to be inconspicuous because they also don't want strangers to save them. So, no money, no man, no dog, no friends, and no community, and no phone.
Yeah. Now that's a woman worth saving.
Make the prize two million. You've got nothing to lose. You've already eliminated every solution that's worked for men for thousands of years. They're called friends. Strangers turned into friends, friends you brought with you, canine friends. Every one of them is totally and completely free-as-in-beer, or shall we say free-as-in-friends.
Takes a women to want to buy a friend, I guess. A $40 friend.
How much does a boyfriend cost? You know, per year. $40 seems like a lot. Since when do women need to spend any money on anything?
I think you mean women without genitals. Because women with genitals want for nothing.
That's not the discussion. If your legitimate purpose -- e.g. checking out your own roof to see if shingles need replacing -- has you accidentally recording your neighbour's roof, and his bathroom window, what's your neighbour to do? He can't approach you to tell you not to upload it to youtube -- because he doesn't know that it's you. That makes it surveillance without head-nod consent (which is a real thing in casual photography).
You're creating a world where anyone can take your photograph, at any time, without your approval, without your knowledge, and without your even being able to know who's done so.
Now let's look at the other side. The benefits. It's photography. There are rarely any actual benefits beyond straight-up employment dollars. It's entertainment. Sometimes it's research, but that's not what anyone's discussing here.
And, of course, all of this requires someone to complain that you've done it. Doing it won't get you into any trouble. Like your car's licence plate cover concealing part of your state's slogan. It's illegal. It's not enforced unless your name is capone. So you've got to be flying your drone, with the camera, recording your roof shingles, and someone needs to notice, and complain, to authorities, who then also need to care, and come find you, be able to find you, and then give you a warning.
I vote yes. Yes I should get a warning if I photograph someone else's property with my drone.
We've done exactly that. We've made it illegal to have cameras operating without an operator present to whom one could speak. That's the drone in the air problem -- you can't approach the operator.
Ah, free money. Be sure you give me some too.
So women aren't interested in programming without being "convinced". Fine by me. Let's work on male teachers in elementary schools, female janitors, women in american ninja warrior, male housekeepers, female chefs, and, oh, I don't know, construction workers, painters, general contractors, babysitters, brick-layers, landscapers, fire fighters, lumberjacks, and film directors.
You know, I've been certain that these things would be illegal somehow. Of course it's illegal surveillance. It's not like taking photographs with your camera. It's like mounting your camera to a lamp post and leaving it there.
As for the stupidest whine I've ever heard: "but it's a whole industry of employees" -- you jumped the gun in a very-fast moving industry that didn't read the existing laws. You're now upset that an established law that you could have read years ago exists? Congrats. Learn to research before you invest.
Get it off my lawn, and out of my window. You don't get to record my private property remotely. I totally agree.
From which government are you hiding that you needed to post that anonymously?
I'd prefer thousands of understood deaths, with someone accountable for them, then dozens of unexplainable deaths and no one accountable for them.
I feel, in my own mind, that I can better my odds when I drive. I can drive better, I can drive a better car, I can drive better times and I can drive better roads. I'm not interested in jumping into a self-driving car, and just hoping for the best.
It's the completely wrong direction. Not only will it not produce the desired results -- see self driving cars that use dozens of super-human powers like radar, and still can't follow an unmarked road, even though every horse, squirrel, and house-fly can with ease -- but it will also degrade comfortable lifestyles by making more work for more people for more time for less money for less satisfaction for less pride.
I used that data back then. I don't use that data any longer. My heuristics were absolutely created out of my experience with the data, certainly. However, my usage of those heuristics continue long after the data is forgotten.
That's the very point. The data is assimilated -- aggregated, summarized, and discarded.
well, yes, the word intelligence means to choose based on comprehension. But this is choosing from data. Having data is very much the opposite of intelligence.
Figuring out how to drive across the city by reading a map, is all that this is doing.
I'm intelligent. I can navigate my way across a city without a map -- even without a compass. I can hike across a wooded area without a trail too. It's getting from here to there without knowing what's in-between; that's intelligence.
This is data.
Case in point: toss it into a time-machine, and bring it back to 1901. Is it usable? Can you use it today in the uncharted jungles of Africa? Or does it depend of billions of dollars of infrastructure to collect all of that data being analyzed?
I think (therefore I am) many have forgotten that intelligent beings are independent of the environment surrounding them -- that's precisely what makes such a being intelligent: rising above the circumstance. Operating within the circumstance ain't intelligence -- no matter how big and complicated you make that circumstance.
Here's another perspective. What's the goal of being intelligent? It is to make things easier the second time. To learn from one circumstance, and to apply it to future encounters of somehow-similar circumstances. That means subsequent scenarios should be faster, require less effort, less memory, less analysis. The more I drive my car, on any streets, the less attentive I need to be on new streets, with new cars, in new weather conditions, with new laws, and new obstacles.
So...does this thing use less memory over time? Fewer resources? Less electricity? Or does it need to be fed, more and more and more and more every day. The former is life. The latter is fire.
"As long as they are better at driving and safety than humans, it is a progress, in my opinion."
I'm not convinced. Right now, when people die in car crashes, and I can blame a human driver for something, then it's totally understandable. When humans die by the hands of other humans, and especially through the errors of other humans, that's just a reality that I can comprehend and accept.
But when a self-driving car is ultimately responsible for killing a human, that's a different thing entirely. That's a lot closer to just humans-get-killed-at-random scenario. That's not something that I can accept.
It's actually even worse than that. It's like a neighbourhood pet dog kills a neighbour. If your typically-well-behaved-and-friendly boxer suddenly kills your neighbour's teenager one day, what happens? Look, your dog killed one neighbour over the course of thirty years of you owning dogs. Most wild animals are far more dangerous than that. But I think we all know what happens. I think your dog is dead pretty quickly -- even if that teenager provoked your dog; even if it was a lot; even if your dog was defending its own life.
I accept, today, that millions of humans driving millions of cars on millions of roads, kills thousands of people every year. I'm not happy about it, but I accept it as a part of humans being free to not be perfect. But I don't think that I'd be accepting of millions of self-driving cars on millions of roads, killing dozens of people every year.
The IBM 2250 is impressive ... if you compare it with a system selling for a tenth its price. -- D. Cohen