They are of course free to lock out other OS options. The place this gets really questionable is if Microsoft made a deal with them to place that lock. If so you suddenly are opening up some bigger questions about Microsoft abusing it's power to hurt competition. They kind of got in trouble for this exact kind of thing a few years ago........
Under this logic all speech coming from either Hillary or Trump should instantly be blocked. For that matter they should both just be locked up.
I can't think of anything that could cause more radicalization than the steady stream of stupidity that flows from those two. Some of the bombers are probably just happy knowing that by blowing themselves up they wont have to listen to any more news clips about those two bozos.
I have been thinking for the last several years that the internet is due for a major change. The mass spying going on around the world made me think that. Then also seeing how countries love turning off the internet to try and deal with revolts only makes that feeling stronger.
People need a communication platform that is out of the reach of governments.
"Of course i can't wait for the feds to identify who is doing this and charge them accordingly."
That makes two really big assumptions. 1) That the feds don't already know who is doing it and 2) that is isn't the feds themselves doing it.
I would say that NSA is pretty high on the list of possible suspects. The others on the list like China and Russia... Well, we are not very likely to call them on it. Even if we do call them on it, it is not like we really have the power to stop them.
That would be why I was saying there should be some options for someone to get their car back. Those options should be at least slightly painful, but nowhere near impossible. Such as having to go and swear in court you will not loan the car to the offender in the future. Then if car is taken a second time...
Much as I disagree with the idea of police just taking peoples property. This is one of the areas I have actually thought it would be fitting. Drunk drivers put everyone at risk.
Taking the cars used will cause a few cases like this where you take a car someone loaned out, but I actually think that is a good thing. You want people to think long and hard about loaning a car to someone if there is any risk at all that they will drive drunk.
I think a good fix for this might be allowing the cars owner to go to court to get the car back. In doing so they can pay for it, or testify they didn't know how it would be used. In the second case the fees of releasing the car get passed on to the drunk driver.
Perhaps your right..... But that is all the more reason why these things need oversight. Charging someone extra because your network sucks and is dropping packets left and right is a whole new level of corruption.
That is charging them extra for poor service, and we all know that Comcast would look at that and choose to make everyone's service worse instead of trying to fix it. They are not worried about network quality, they are only worried about income quantity.
Using my VPN though means I get to stream video in HD for that 26 gigs before I am then throttled. All this without paying an extra $25 a month.
From what I have seen it also looks like the throttling is only done if your on a busy tower. So even after that 26 gigs you likely will still have good speeds a lot of the time. This certainly beats the I think 6 gigs I currently share with 3 other people.
Being arrested for resisting arrest is one of the things I really can't understand. This seems to keep happening and I don't get how it hasn't been fixed.
Any officer bringing someone into a station where the only charge they have is "They resisted arrest" should be fired on the spot. If they were being arrested for something else and then resisted, then fine. If you can't think of a real reason why they were being arrested though....
"The brilliance of the car over the horse is the car doesn't have have a mind of it's own...now we want to give it a mind of it's own? WTF?"
I really wonder where your getting that from. I guess maybe someone thought that somewhere. Cars at first were just novelties for the rich. As they became more common people realized especially in a city a car is more practical. You don't have to feed it all the time, just get gas for when you use it. Cars also are faster than horses, they don't need to rest either. So really don't think the lack of a brain was the main reason for adoption of cars over horses.
I will never get this. Your argument is that we shouldn't make robots and other things to be more efficient because that would take some guys job. So instead we should just keep on paying people to do simple mindless jobs not because of any other reason than just to pay them?
As we move forward jobs don't really just vanish. They change and people need to change with them. As factories get more efficient their is more of everything for everyone. Sure, you no longer have an assembly line of 1000 people building a car, instead you have robots and 10 people. Now though you suddenly have more cars that are more affordable.
I really don't think kneecapping technology is the solution to take care of our lower classes. Assuming these people are too stupid to do anything other than jobs easily replaced by a robot is just insulting. Yes, they will have to learn new skills but so what? Teach them and lift them up, don't baby them with pointless jobs. That just drags down the entire economy for no reason.
I think your missing the point that this is just a stepping stone. Currently yes, I do think the person in the driver seat is legally considered the driver.
This is done because no city/state in their right mind would let a fleet of totally autonomous cars loose on their streets picking up and carrying passengers. The liability for that at this stage is just too large.
This doesn't mean that the car isn't driving itself. It means that we have a human sitting in the car as a safety measure. This is being done as a trail. If they go a year or two where the humans never touch the controls and their have been zero accidents.... Then suddenly the humans will likely be removed.
I think what you saying is bit extreme. I have for a long time though suggested our roadways could easily have slight modifications to help self driving cars.
You could easily add things like bar or QR codes to help the computers but would simply be ignored by human drivers. I strongly suspect as time goes on we will see this happen to.
By slowly adding things to assist computer driven cars we could help make the cars less reliant on things like GPS. It would also add redundancy to systems and that is never a bad thing. If your car can read the special "road sign" and know where it is on a map then it makes it much harder to crash it by fooling just the GPS. We are at the very early stages, but I think in time we will see our roads change drastically as these cars become more common.
Having worked in IT for 25 years I am kind of shocked you don't see the jobs these cars are creating. After all, we are talking about very complex computer systems driving cars. In your time working IT, how many computers have you seen run for years with zero help from IT?
I really think a bunch of the athletes should very publicly protest during the games.
If I was at that level I think I would keep my mouth shut till after the event I was in. Then if I won I would toss their metal back at them and very publicly tell them where to shove it. At that point what does it matter? They can take the metal and say your disqualified, but the world will still know your the best.