Someone and others have one little snapshot each. You would have to combine what they each know to still only reveal a little bit about you. This is hardly comparable to digital surveillance.
Yes, I wasn't making a direct analogy to digital surveillance at all. Just noting that there are always tradeoffs, even in the most basic situations.
Your point about digital surveillance is exactly right. You are giving up a lot more information, which is why we need to know what the full tradeoffs are and have more control. My point about the leaving your house example is to point to an extreme example -- where you give up very little private info, but get tremendous benefit.
So perhaps I was not clear, but I wasn't saying that surfing the internet is like leaving your house to go to the shop. I was just saying that every situation has tradeoffs when it comes to privacy vs. benefit. But other than that, I think we agree.
What if "Abe List" had made similar comments about someone other than Woods...perhaps a teen with depression...that eventually committed suicide as a result of being slandered in public...Would his actions have been okay then? Should the teen's family be entitled to legal recourse?
No one said that Abe was a saint. In fact, lots of people said he was obnoxious. We, in fact, described him as a troll. But what he did was still perfectly legal.
We've discussed multiple times before that if someone commits suicide, you should never blame people who were mean to them. This only gives more power to suicide and creates a way for people who are killing themselves to "get back" at people who were mean by killing themselves. It encourages more suicide and it's wrong. No one knows why any individual actually commits suicide. So bad example.
Internet fights often devolve into name calling. That alone is not libel (also, look up what slander is, because tweets can never be slander). This is basic First Amendment stuff.
Why is it that it is considered "hate" in only one direction?
No one did. Everyone admits that what Abe did was obnoxious. But it's one thing to be an obnoxious troll on the internet, and another to sue the person for $10 million, try to unmask them, and then celebrate their death. If you can't tell the difference, you've got issues.
I doubt Woods sought out some unknown person to start a fight with.
That's the whole point. Abe was an unknown person, with a tweet that almost no one saw, and Woods threw a hissy fit.
If you're just hanging out down in the comments and missed the updates, go check 'em out. Woods deleted his tweets and then mocked the lawyer for mentioning that the client had died. And, even worse, his lawyers have said he's going to push forward on the lawsuit to reveal the name of the dead man.
Since Netflix blocking was the majority of the problem, that's a little thin.
No, it wasn't, actually.
The Netflix issue was interconnection, which is further upstream. The net neutrality issue is last mile. Yes, they have some linkage, mainly in that the deliberate clogging of interconnection was *because* of ISPs trying to avoid net neutrality through sneaky bullshit ways, but even today's net neutrality rules don't actually stop ISPs from clogging interconnection points like they did.
The reason the interconnection clogging went away soon after the net neutrality rules were put in place was because the ISPs realized that the FCC meant business, and it was going to create new interconnection rules next if they didn't shape up. So they did.
So, yeah, again, the report is actually correct not to use the Netflix example.
I predict that the biggest stumbling block to getting autonomous cars on the road will be the price. Based on nothing more than my own intuition, I can easily see the first wave of autonomous cars costing well over $100,000.
The cars need a lot more security features before I would risk my life getting into 1.
Yet you're fine getting into a car driven by a human who has many more problems and is much more likely to put your life at risk? At this point, self-driving cars have driven millions of miles with a much lower accident rate than human drivers. In fact, most of the accidents have been caused by other human drivers. The only accident that Google has announced was its own cars' fault was a minor brush with a bus, the kind that happens many times a day with human drivers.
So I'm always a bit confused by these claims. Do self-driving cars need to get better? Sure. But they're incredibly good today. Almost certainly better and safer than human drivers. So what's the fear?
Re: Newly Released WikiLeaks . . . Hillary Clinton Claims Blacks are "Professional-Never-Do-Wells"
Now another Hillary Clinton email dumped by WikiLeaks . . . In a newly released email Hillary claims blacks are "professional-never-do-wells". She makes a blatantly racist statements about blacks. She says "everyone else is successful" but blacks "fail irrespective of our circumstances!!!"
Except, of course, that's not even close to true. I note you don't link to the email in question. It's here:
Note that it is not sent to or from Hillary. It's sent by an anonymous emailer *TO* a whole bunch of people -- mainly reporters for Politico and Huffington Post. One of the recipients is Clinton campaign manager John Podesta.
The full email is crazy rantings.
In other words, this is a spam message. It is not Hillary saying it. It's a spam from a nutter who believes stuff off the internet, spamming a bunch of reporters and Podesta conspiracy theories.
It really does not help your cause to not even do basic due diligence.
Driver assist will become popular but totally autonomous? Not likely in our lifetime.
If you've paid any attention to how rapidly innovation has happened in this area over the past decade, you'd realize how ridiculous that sounds. We're practically at fully autonomous vehicles today and there will be more and more on the road basically every day. I'd bet that within 10 years, greater than 20% of the vehicles on the road will be autonomous (and I consider that a conservative guess). That's well within our lifetimes.
can someone actually say why it is that judges are allowed to sit hearing cases they know absolutely nothing about? you wouldn't give a gardener the job of repairing someone's eye, so why give copyright cases to those who, apparently, know less than nothing about the subject and it's multitude of meanings?
Eh, there's value in having judges approach things fresh (though they do need to understand the relevant case law). The problem with specialized judges is that things tend to go in the other direction. Just look at CAFC (for the most part), which is the appeals court that handles all patent cases for the reasons you stated above. Now they "know" about patents, but because of that, they spend nearly 3 decades massively expanding patent law to ridiculous lengths, because they spent all their time hearing from patent lawyers about how awesome patents are.
What most people fail to realize is that they're not voting for Trump because of the policies he's promoting, it's because they're sick of all of the PC bullshit that is destroying the western world and that they don't want to see the US become the rape capital of the world like Sweden has become
Not to mention, they don't want their taxes going towards paying for for racist social justice courses that promote anti-white rhetoric by college professors
You're living in a fantasy world of ignorance. Please, I beg of you, educate yourself.