Doesn't mean they can't drive themselves. If the engineer weren't in the car, it would still work and drive itself. Therefore it falls under the regulation.
And as a person who also uses the roads, requiring basic evidence that the systems actually work seems like a sound idea to me. Yes, yes, slippery slopes and all that, but as I said above - it really is already captured.
Finally, monitoring doesn't work. Humans who aren't driving a car don't have the attention or reflexes to correct. Assisted driving (where the human is expected to take over) is almost certainly going to be worse than going straight to full self-drive.
"The execution, if you'll forgive the synergy of word-choice, of the execution means everything"
I'll forgive the use of the word execution, but using "S**ergy in cold blood is a capital offence. Please join the queue for the random cocktail of chemicals that may or may not cause an agonising death.
"What the country's TPP negotiators are effectively doing here is to surrender key rights that belong to all New Zealanders, for the sake of some minor, and probably temporary, financial gains for a single industry with powerful lobbyists."
You've completely misunderstood NZ here.
This isn't "a small industry with powerful lobbyists" this is a massive industry that employs - directly or indirectly - the vast majority of the electorate.
The government is wrong, but it didn't need any lobbying. We are almost completely dependent on Agriculture and Tourism, because we haven't developed our high tech industry properly. Yes, we could make some long term gains (which I would like) by actually protecting our creative and copyright interests, but that would be political suicide for either of the major parties.
I think the story is probably legit, but once you've gotten that far, why not go full on conspiracy theorist:
The administration was prepared for the eventual leak of the telco data. They then pile on a deliberate leak of a much more extreme breach that will grab the headlines. This is eventually shown to be false, the journalists involved are discredited and the telco thing is forgotten as collateral damage.
I don't know how much confirmation the Guardian could have gotten before running with this story - after what happened to Bradley Manning, there can't be too many people willing to blow the lid on something this big. Therefore, it could all come down to something easily forged.
I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist - the twin towers were an act of terrorism, climate change is real, and the only chemicals in the chemtrails are flouride :) - but this story is either true (in which case it's a conspiracy) or it's a distraction (in which case it's a conspiracy).
The problem is that people tend to divide the world into people who understand computers and people who don't. The distinction between a games programmer and a DBA is lost on them.
For that reason, the idea of setting up a department of people like McGee from NCIS, who seems to know everything about everything. This means that when they have a problem with mortgages, the cybercrime dept can swing into action, etc.
The problem is that they have failed to understand that a) McGee is fictional. b) Computers are not separate from normal crime. Everything uses computers now. I think it's scary that they think it's acceptable to have investigators who aren't tech savvy, and to have investigative divisions without expert tech support.
They would be better off having specialist mortgage fraud investigators, some of whom are experts in the computer problems mortgage fraud investigators face dedicated to the area, than expert geeks with only a hazy understanding of the specific problems of mortgage fraud being shared across multiple departments.
The problem is that self-plagiarising leads to being a bad academic.
Lecturers at a good university aren't preparing you to be a . They're teaching you skills that will make you a good academic in your field. Any real world competence gained is a side effect.
Self plagiarising is bad for many reasons. Consider a freelance journalist who breaks a story in the NY Times. They get recognition for producing it. Great. Then they break exactly the same story - not a follow up piece, literally the same thing - 6 weeks later in the Wall Street journal (for some reason, the editors haven't been reading each other's papers). Then they do it again elsewhere...
Is this a good journalist? Well, they clearly wrote a good story originally. They did find a good market for it, something they could make a profit from repeatedly. But, like a comic who steals jokes, they aren't really adding anything new to the conversation.
Apart from the loss of reputation they should suffer for this, it's an unnecessary waste of reviewers' time, and placing strain on an already overworked peer review system.
Publishing a follow up piece is fine, but passing the same work off over and over again is just a lazy way to boost your publication count, and not something any good academic would respect.
When you discuss the functional benefits of repeating paperwork and discussing self plagiarism like we are living in the real world, instead of in a university, you are missing the point of the university.
I used to think that self-plagiarism was fine. Learning why it wasn't was an important step in becoming a good academic.
The idea of making revisions and updates makes sense, but blatant copying of previous work is academically dishonest. Real world be damned - this is the realm of the ivory tower, and here we set rules for our benefit.
Of course, conceding that we were talking about the real world, you have only your own reputation to consider, and in some, maybe even many, cases it makes sense. But we're at uni - at least try to understand the logic behind it before you criticise it.
The way funding for industry tends to work where I am from, the companies being funded are expected to match the government funds in some way (except universities, who do publish). That means that 1mill government funding costs the company 1mill for a total project funding of 2mill. This means that this research would be better described as government subsidised.
I'm not sure if that's how it works in the US, but if it is, then asking the companies to release this stuff would be asking them to give away their investment. The only way you could ask for full release is if the government funds the work completely.
Of course, you could ask to recoup seed funding out of proceeds, or whatever. I suppose you would do that out of tax on the company, eventually.
I figure you can make good arguments for either side of this.
This isn't the kind of thing that New Zealanders usually do. Normally, we'd just laugh it off. Or send a letter to the editor.
When I read your article, I couldn't believe it. When I read the original article, though, it said that they hired a New York PR guy to do it. That makes so much more sense. We recognise our limitiations in the area of being complete bastards, and hire an expert in the field.
This is just the fallacy of the excluded middle. Knowing stuff is important in team work.
These are the tools of teamwork, required by all members of the team. If you lack the ability to reference basic concepts without a dictionary, things become much less effective. I've never seen high school courses or even many university courses that go past this level.
The concern is not that there'll be nothing on TV, it's that there'll be nothing BRITISH on TV. There's a big difference there. This is more like farm subsidies in the US.
I don't really agree with farm subsidies, but I didn't say I agreed with this either.
The key point is that TV programming has a huge impact on the nature of society - kids get their role models from it, that kind of thing. If the Brits want their kids to grow up British, they need to be watching British television.
The argument is that they provide an essential service, but can't compete effectively.
This isn't the same party - there was an election, and this is actually NZ's equivalent of the republicans refusing to repeal a democrat law (I should point out that NZ republicans make US democrats look like right wing extremists).
I just looked up US fair use doctrine -
The most important thing here appears to be the effect on the work's value. Since I haven't seen (but always intended to see) little shop of horrors, I am now inclined to watch it before I look at the ending.
If anything, this increases the value, so I don't see a problem there.
In NZ, where I'm from, you're allowed to photocopy any book that is out of print. If you can't buy it, it's their fault.