Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 604

The “Internet of Things” (by the way, what a hogwash name) has a whole bunch of security holes. It’s nothing insurmountable, in my opinion, but given the obsession the public has with hacking, that may be a stumbling block in the adoption of self driving cars.

ray_afraid said:

I don’t keep anything important in my phone.

Passwords, contacts, bank accounts, pictures… none of this is in your phone?

Sometimes I like to drive nowhere in particular. If I’m on vacation, I may just be looking around with no particular destination. I may stop someplace on a whim. People don’t always drive with fixed start and end points. If I’m on a highway and suddenly decide to stop at a rest area I can change lanes in fairly short order. I don’t know how a self driving car would work with how people drive.

I think establishing legal culpability would be fairly straightforward. But existing strict liability laws could be problematic for manufacturers.

I think voluntary adoption is the best way to go. Insurance rates should heavily favor self driving cars anyway. And a sort of herd immunity will result as many accidents result from the actions of more than one car.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

Amid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation, two of the people said.

First, he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership. The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.

yhwx said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

Amid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation, two of the people said.

First, he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership. The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.

Oh that wacky wayback machine:

http://therightscoop.com/nobody-at-the-white-house-is-talking-about-firing-mueller-marc-short/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/18/jumping-gun-holder-liberal-activists-gear-up-for-mueller-firing-with-elaborate-protest-plans.html

So when they said “You crazy conspiracy-minded liberals, nobody’s even thinking of firing Mueller”, they just left off some words at the end. “…anymore.” would work well to make it not a lie anymore, but “…this week.” would probably make it actually truthful.

Oh, and this whole article now rings pretty much false as crap:

http://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-congress-mueller-trump-russia-2017-11

Graham, who co-sponsored one of the bills aimed at protecting Mueller’s independence, said after the indictments that he did not “feel an urgent need to pass that law until you show me a reason Mr. Mueller is in jeopardy.”

Wonder if they’ll reconsider that determination now. No, I didn’t think so either. After all, they talked him down once. What are the chances Trump will try to do a crazy self-incriminating thing against the advise of his staff more than once? Oh.

Stupid Watergate.

yhwx said:

ray_afraid said:

I don’t keep anything important in my phone.

Passwords, contacts, bank accounts, pictures… none of this is in your phone?

A few contacts, but there’s not much anyone could do with em.
I guess they could hit my guy up for smokes or call my mom.

TV’s Frink said:

ray_afraid said:

yhwx said:

ray_afraid said:

I don’t keep anything important in my phone.

Passwords, contacts, bank accounts, pictures… none of this is in your phone?

A few contacts, but there’s not much anyone could do with em.
I guess they could hit my guy up for smokes or call my mom.

I’m on it.

Well played, good sir!

ray_afraid said:

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Does the average person trust a machine to do the driving? How hacker proof are these driverless cars? Ordinary cars with wireless connections have already been hacked into.

Warbler said:

I guess it depends when the technology will be reliable enough.

Were both exchanging posts on devices that are wide open to hacking and yet we still bought them.

Someone hacking my cell phone isn’t nearly as scary as someone hacking my car.

I wasn’t meaning to compare the two, I was saying that people will buy driverless cars in 20?? even if they are not at all safe from hacking. In the same we buy phones and PCs that are not safe from hacking now because we can’t live without in 2018, or they just make life easier.

Many people today seem quite happy to install 1984-style omnipresent surveillance units in their homes and pay for it too, just so they can order a pint of milk without getting off the sofa.

“What? I can buy a car that will drive me home from the pub when I’m sh*tfaced and I won’t get arrested? No more orange juice. Sign me up. It’s only 99% safe you say? Still sign me up.”

Human nature.

Double Post.

Sometimes no one to trust is better than anyone to trust.

TM2YC said:

“What? I can buy a car that will drive me home from the pub when I’m sh*tfaced and I won’t get arrested? No more orange juice. Sign me up. It’s only 99% safe you say? Still sign me up.”

Human nature.

99% safe is still better than most human drivers, though. In the end, that is what matters. The odd hacker attack every now and then might be something that people are willing to accept in exchange for an overall reduction of accidents, drunk drivers and traffic jams.

Frank your Majesty said:

TM2YC said:

“What? I can buy a car that will drive me home from the pub when I’m sh*tfaced and I won’t get arrested? No more orange juice. Sign me up. It’s only 99% safe you say? Still sign me up.”

Human nature.

99% safe is still better than most human drivers, though.

I wasn’t making a comparison between the dangers of the two.

I’m saying vulnerability to hacking isn’t going to really factor into people being unwilling to adopt driver-less-cars (which was the original point I was replying to) because it doesn’t seem to really factor into most people buying any other device/product.

I think we agree on their relative safety.

yhwx said:

Sometimes no one to trust is better than anyone to trust.

This is my life philosophy.

A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.

Wait til you get to the part where you discover what very important position he held.

TV’s Frink said:

Oh hey religious hypocrisy isn’t limited to the right!

Although I’d argue it’s more prevalent on the right, or at least more obvious given how much more obvious people are about their faith in general on the right.

I thought there was a different hypocrisy on display in that story.