If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   Obama: "Trust us. If we make it so that every car can be tracked, the government will not use it for nefarious purposes"   (cnsnews.com) divider line 185
    More: Scary, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Obama, senate commerce committee, John Holdren, Infrastructure Committee, White House Office, commercial vehicles, autonomous vehicle  
•       •       •

1564 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2013 at 1:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



185 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-20 09:36:11 AM  
I'm wondering how they will determine the number of passengers in the vehicle.  Based on seats that appear to be occupied?  What if I'm carrying a large heavy bag in the passenger seat.  Will it think that's a person?

Will they just go by weight of the car?  No officer, I'm not carrying 25 people in my car.  It's just that yo mama is so fat, she makes the car think it's carrying a football team?

Stupid thing is with the economy tanked and serious deficits, we're going to dump money into THIS?
 
2013-11-20 09:44:19 AM  
"vehicle-to-vehicle" (V2V) communications technology that constantly broadcasts via radio wave the car's location, direction, speed and, possibly, even the number of passengers it is carrying. -

Coming up: "V2V installations in new cars breaking down constantly."

The Obama administration says this is something it has "no plans" to do even if it does mandate V2V technology in all new cars.
"NHTSA has no plans to modify the current V2V system design in a way that would enable the government or private entities to track individual motor vehicles,"


Fark you, Obama. And the NSA doesn't spy on random "individuals" either.
 
2013-11-20 09:45:08 AM  
The NSA is giving illegally intercepted communications to all the other federal agencies, so I don't see why we have anything to worry about.
 
2013-11-20 09:56:33 AM  

BizarreMan: I'm wondering how they will determine the number of passengers in the vehicle.  Based on seats that appear to be occupied?  What if I'm carrying a large heavy bag in the passenger seat.  Will it think that's a person?

Will they just go by weight of the car?  No officer, I'm not carrying 25 people in my car.  It's just that yo mama is so fat, she makes the car think it's carrying a football team?

Stupid thing is with the economy tanked and serious deficits, we're going to dump money into THIS?


They probably have sensors in the seats, like how your car knows that your passenger isn't wearing a seat belt and beeps at you.
 
2013-11-20 10:00:18 AM  
By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.
 
2013-11-20 10:07:10 AM  
I will have to look at other sources for this, because CNS.  But, yeah, if something ends up required that ALLOWS that car to be tracked, then there's a pretty good chance it's going to be used to track some cars.
 
2013-11-20 10:11:38 AM  
CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like NPR.
CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like PBS.

CNSNews.com  relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore.  Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today.Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's  fasteasy and  secure.
 
2013-11-20 10:16:14 AM  
The surgeon general MAY be considering encouraging technology to have sensor put in your butt so that doctors can monitor your vital signs.  Obama admin denies having plans to take over these sensors and make you poop whenever they want.
 
2013-11-20 10:19:56 AM  
The Obama administration denies that they will mandate that you put a chip in your dog so that your dog barks every time you try to masturbate.
 
2013-11-20 10:43:40 AM  
Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils working out great for us?
 
2013-11-20 10:58:44 AM  
and the alternative was, what?
 
2013-11-20 11:01:36 AM  

cman: Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils working out great for us?


Possibly better than the greater of two evils?  I won't know for SURE until I invent my Sliders thingy.
 
2013-11-20 11:01:46 AM  

cman: Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils working out great for us?


What makes you so sure we manage elect the lesser of two evils?  I mean, if you think that's the case, than you would have to admit that Bush was less evil than Kerry.

I think it's more accurate to say that we elect evil, and neither is lesser, they are just evil in different ways.
 
2013-11-20 11:04:05 AM  

ManateeGag: and the alternative was, what?


Something that isn't based upon fear

American elections are based on the simple premise that one must vote for a D or an R or the other side will win.

We are willing to take it up the ass on things just as long as the other side doesn't win

The funny thing is is that this has put us in a position where we perpetuate the system. There is something else out there.

/Oh, before anyone throws BSRBSVR, ask your self this: which parties disregard innocent life in drone strikes? Which parties support the Patriot Act? Which Parties think it is acceptable for the government to data mine their own citizens? Which parties support big business over unions? Yeah, both of them.
 
2013-11-20 11:08:14 AM  

cman: Something that isn't based upon fear


Unfortunately, that's all we get lately.  even in NJ, all Buono ran on was "booga booga!  I'm not Christie!  He's destroying the state! he wants to be President!"

what would be nice is, I don't know, ideas.  a plan for the future.  not "I'm not him, vote for me!"
 
2013-11-20 11:08:15 AM  

James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.


Actually, the technology does exist, and it's existed for a couple decades now.   Hams know it as APRS.

Want to know where a particular ham radio operator who has APRS happens to be?  Go to FINDU.com.  For example, here is the track of K4HG's pickup truck:

 http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/track.cgi?call=K4HG-1
 
2013-11-20 11:10:05 AM  

cman: which parties disregard innocent life in drone strikes? Which parties support the Patriot Act? Which Parties think it is acceptable for the government to data mine their own citizens? Which parties support big business over unions? Yeah, both of them.


Both, with the caviat of, when side A is for it/doing it, side B is against it vehemently.
 
2013-11-20 11:10:37 AM  

dittybopper: James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.

Actually, the technology does exist, and it's existed for a couple decades now.   Hams know it as APRS.

Want to know where a particular ham radio operator who has APRS happens to be?  Go to FINDU.com.  For example, here is the track of K4HG's pickup truck:

 http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/track.cgi?call=K4HG-1


Surprisingly, I've never been interested in the locations of ham operators.  I doubt that will change.
 
2013-11-20 11:19:12 AM  

James!: Surprisingly, I've never been interested in the locations of ham operators.  I doubt that will change.


No doubt, but the point I was making was that the technology is available and it has been available for a couple decades now.

Obviously, V2V wouldn't use the same frequencies, modulation, and data format as APRS, but those are very minor details.

I've toyed with the idea of putting APRS in my car, but never really found a compelling reason to do so.  I'd rather not have my location beaconed out to the World.  I have played with it at my house, but the location of my house is a matter of public record anyway (If you know my callsign, you can look up my FCC license record), so it's not like that gives anything away.
 
2013-11-20 11:21:56 AM  

dittybopper: James!: Surprisingly, I've never been interested in the locations of ham operators.  I doubt that will change.

No doubt, but the point I was making was that the technology is available and it has been available for a couple decades now.

Obviously, V2V wouldn't use the same frequencies, modulation, and data format as APRS, but those are very minor details.

I've toyed with the idea of putting APRS in my car, but never really found a compelling reason to do so.  I'd rather not have my location beaconed out to the World.  I have played with it at my house, but the location of my house is a matter of public record anyway (If you know my callsign, you can look up my FCC license record), so it's not like that gives anything away.


CNS is handing out tinfoil with the whole "They'll know where you are" bit.  The technology is about automated cars driving themselves.
 
2013-11-20 11:25:15 AM  

ManateeGag: cman: Something that isn't based upon fear

Unfortunately, that's all we get lately.  even in NJ, all Buono ran on was "booga booga!  I'm not Christie!  He's destroying the state! he wants to be President!"

what would be nice is, I don't know, ideas.  a plan for the future.  not "I'm not him, vote for me!"


The problem with that is that it requires a non-asshole to run for office, and because candidates are largely self-selected, only the assholes who think they know better than everyone else run for office, especially for executive positions.   Then, because only the true assholes can gain the support of people they stepped on, by the time a candidate is standing for governor or president in an election, they are a complete and total asshole.
 
2013-11-20 11:30:16 AM  

James!: CNS is handing out tinfoil with the whole "They'll know where you are" bit.  The technology is about automated cars driving themselves.


But once that data is transmitted into the open air, it *WILL* be gathered by the government.  Maybe that won't be the primary purpose of it, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Of have you not been paying attention to the NSA scandals?
 
2013-11-20 11:31:14 AM  

dittybopper: ManateeGag: cman: Something that isn't based upon fear

Unfortunately, that's all we get lately.  even in NJ, all Buono ran on was "booga booga!  I'm not Christie!  He's destroying the state! he wants to be President!"

what would be nice is, I don't know, ideas.  a plan for the future.  not "I'm not him, vote for me!"

The problem with that is that it requires a non-asshole to run for office, and because candidates are largely self-selected, only the assholes who think they know better than everyone else run for office, especially for executive positions.   Then, because only the true assholes can gain the support of people they stepped on, by the time a candidate is standing for governor or president in an election, they are a complete and total asshole.


#Tyson2016

It would be cool if we could convince Neil deGrasse Tyson to run for President
 
2013-11-20 11:35:03 AM  

cman: #Tyson2016

It would be cool if we could convince Neil deGrasse Tyson to run for President


That way, Congress could ignore him specifically, instead of just in general.
 
2013-11-20 11:35:11 AM  

cman: #Tyson2016

It would be cool if we could convince Neil deGrasse Tyson to run for President


How do we know he won't be corrupted like the others by the process?
 
2013-11-20 11:37:39 AM  

dittybopper: James!: CNS is handing out tinfoil with the whole "They'll know where you are" bit.  The technology is about automated cars driving themselves.

But once that data is transmitted into the open air, it *WILL* be gathered by the government.  Maybe that won't be the primary purpose of it, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Of have you not been paying attention to the NSA scandals?


That isn't what the NSA is doing, but whatever.  In 20 or 30 years when this technology actually becomes available I'll be too busy plowing into farmers markets to care.
 
2013-11-20 11:38:02 AM  

dittybopper: cman: #Tyson2016

It would be cool if we could convince Neil deGrasse Tyson to run for President

How do we know he won't be corrupted like the others by the process?


Hes a pure ideologist. He's not a businessman nor a politician. His primary goal is the advancement of science.

Thats not to say that he couldn't become corrupt. Anyone can become corrupt. I hope that with his love of science that he would be someone who would be less corruptible.
 
2013-11-20 11:42:59 AM  
I refuse to cooperate with the government. My purposes are wholly my own.
 
2013-11-20 11:47:34 AM  

James!: That isn't what the NSA is doing, but whatever.


Actually, that's *PRECISELY* what the NSA is doing:  Collecting the metadata from your radio transmissions (ie., cellphone calls, texting, e-mails).
 
2013-11-20 11:50:34 AM  

Nefarious: I refuse to cooperate with the government. My purposes are wholly my own.


They will game the system so that you have no choice.  You will be cooperating without consent because it will happen automatically without your knowledge, and it will be illegal for the people who know about it to tell the general public.
 
2013-11-20 11:53:29 AM  

dittybopper: James!: That isn't what the NSA is doing, but whatever.

Actually, that's *PRECISELY* what the NSA is doing:  Collecting the metadata from your radio transmissions (ie., cellphone calls, texting, e-mails).


I'm sure if you fashion a tin foil hat for your phone you'll be just fine.
 
2013-11-20 12:03:15 PM  

dittybopper: cman: Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils working out great for us?

What makes you so sure we manage elect the lesser of two evils?  I mean, if you think that's the case, than you would have to admit that Bush was less evil than Kerry.

I think it's more accurate to say that we elect evil, and neither is lesser, they are just evil in different ways.


We all know, both sides are bad and equivalent.
 
2013-11-20 12:05:11 PM  

dittybopper: ManateeGag: cman: Something that isn't based upon fear

Unfortunately, that's all we get lately.  even in NJ, all Buono ran on was "booga booga!  I'm not Christie!  He's destroying the state! he wants to be President!"

what would be nice is, I don't know, ideas.  a plan for the future.  not "I'm not him, vote for me!"

The problem with that is that it requires a non-asshole to run for office, and because candidates are largely self-selected, only the assholes who think they know better than everyone else run for office, especially for executive positions.   Then, because only the true assholes can gain the support of people they stepped on, by the time a candidate is standing for governor or president in an election, they are a complete and total asshole.


yeah, but if we let "the people" decide who runs, we'll end up with Phil Robertson v. Kanye West for the White House.
 
2013-11-20 12:06:32 PM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: cman: Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils working out great for us?

What makes you so sure we manage elect the lesser of two evils?  I mean, if you think that's the case, than you would have to admit that Bush was less evil than Kerry.

I think it's more accurate to say that we elect evil, and neither is lesser, they are just evil in different ways.

We all know, both sides are bad and equivalent.


One side is more evil than the other. It doesn't matter because they are both still evil. The fact that we Americans can live happily and proud knowing that evil was elected is kinda farked up.
 
2013-11-20 12:11:34 PM  

James!: dittybopper: James!: That isn't what the NSA is doing, but whatever.

Actually, that's *PRECISELY* what the NSA is doing:  Collecting the metadata from your radio transmissions (ie., cellphone calls, texting, e-mails).

I'm sure if you fashion a tin foil hat for your phone you'll be just fine.


I don't own a cellphone.  But yes, wrapping it in foil will prevent it from transmitting and receiving data to the cell network, which means it can't be tracked.

It will be useless that way, however.
 
2013-11-20 12:14:44 PM  

dittybopper: James!: dittybopper: James!: That isn't what the NSA is doing, but whatever.

Actually, that's *PRECISELY* what the NSA is doing:  Collecting the metadata from your radio transmissions (ie., cellphone calls, texting, e-mails).

I'm sure if you fashion a tin foil hat for your phone you'll be just fine.

I don't own a cellphone.  But yes, wrapping it in foil will prevent it from transmitting and receiving data to the cell network, which means it can't be tracked.

It will be useless that way, however.


But the gubmint can't spy on your private conversations with their CIA antennas what are hidden in the golden arches of every McDonald franchise!!
 
2013-11-20 12:22:47 PM  
You're already being tracked 24/7 by your cell phone. This is just a back-up plan by the government in case you throw your cell phone out the window when you are trying to escape them.
 
2013-11-20 12:23:40 PM  

cman: dr_blasto: dittybopper: cman: Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils working out great for us?

What makes you so sure we manage elect the lesser of two evils?  I mean, if you think that's the case, than you would have to admit that Bush was less evil than Kerry.

I think it's more accurate to say that we elect evil, and neither is lesser, they are just evil in different ways.

We all know, both sides are bad and equivalent.

One side is more evil than the other. It doesn't matter because they are both still evil. The fact that we Americans can live happily and proud knowing that evil was elected is kinda farked up.


Americans don't vote rationally. They vote single-issue "ABORTION" "GUNS" "SAFETY NET" or they vote team politics.

That is how it is. People look at any one of those items and see absolutes: "gun laws are akin to locking us up in FEMA camps, all freedoms are lost!" "Abortion is murder. You either outlaw it or you're condoning murder." "You cut welfare, you don't care if kids starve to death on the streets."

Team politics: "stupid libtard. I like this law because it pisses you off."

Figure a way to get around that shiat, then you've solved a big part of the puzzle. I don't think it will be solved. I see too many people who, in normal day-to-day conversation, are completely rational, thoughtful and in many cases actually very bright. If Obama, Obamacare, Tea Party or the like comes up, watch out. The same smart people repeat bullshiat and lies and batshiat insane conspiracy.

It just is and we deal with it.
 
2013-11-20 01:05:32 PM  
Just setting up to track the vehicle mileage for taxing purposes.
 
2013-11-20 01:07:42 PM  
Vehicles produced with TPMS can be tracked with RFID sensors that monitor tires. That's how they figure travel times for the traffic indicators on the map aps.
 
2013-11-20 01:10:32 PM  
Hostages did it.
 
2013-11-20 01:12:57 PM  
What do y'all suppose the government is going to do with this information?

Anybody worried about this likely already has heavily fortified compound, an arsenal, and strong opinions regarding personal sovereignty.
 
2013-11-20 01:13:31 PM  
The thing that is most frightening about bureaucrats is that, for them, failure is never a reason to change procedures.

Snowden's comment about moving towards "turnkey tyranny" is the most prescient comment I've heard concerning the state of government today in a long time.  He's absolutely correct.
 
2013-11-20 01:16:04 PM  
Demolition Man was prophetic.
 
2013-11-20 01:16:26 PM  

James!: dittybopper: James!: dittybopper: James!: That isn't what the NSA is doing, but whatever.

Actually, that's *PRECISELY* what the NSA is doing:  Collecting the metadata from your radio transmissions (ie., cellphone calls, texting, e-mails).

I'm sure if you fashion a tin foil hat for your phone you'll be just fine.

I don't own a cellphone.  But yes, wrapping it in foil will prevent it from transmitting and receiving data to the cell network, which means it can't be tracked.

It will be useless that way, however.

But the gubmint can't spy on your private conversations with their CIA antennas what are hidden in the golden arches of every McDonald franchise!!


OK, so it's pretty obvious you don't really have a clue here.

First, a bit of my background:  I used to be a "ditty bopper"*, which is military slang for what the Army officially used to call a "05H Electronic Warfare Signals Intelligence Morse Interceptor".      It was my job to intercept communications, in other words.  I had a Top Secret/SCI clearance, and oddly enough, I happened to work in the very same facility that Edward Snowden worked at, though I left there almost 25 years before he stepped foot in the place.  I spend 3 years there, copying the Morse code transmissions of foreign governments.  Prior to that, I attended the United States Army Intelligence School, Fort Devens (USAISD), which is where I actually learned Morse.

I got into that business because signals intelligence had fascinated me ever since I had read "The Codebreakers" by David Kahn as a young teen.  I probably would have stayed in, but at the time, for that MOS, in order to get promoted from Specialist (my rank) to Sergeant E-5, you needed 995 promotion points out of a possible 1,000.  Which meant you had to max out your PT test, military education, civilian education, range qualification, SQT score, Common Task testing, your promotion boards, etc.  Meanwhile, the non-Morse 05K interceptors only had to get 450 promotion points, which is practically a gimme to anyone who isn't a total fark-up.  So I left when my original 4 year enlistment was up.

Once I got out, I decided that I kinda missed Morse, so I got my ham radio license, and I've been heavily involved in radio (and not just via Morse code) ever since.

In fact, I still monitor a lot.  Here are all the stations I've heard in the last 6 hours.
i40.tinypic.com

Every single "bubble" with a number in it signifies a station I've received:.

So it's not like I'm a "government has a chip in my butt" kind of conspiracy theorist here.  I was at the very pointy tip of the spear on this sort of thing, back before FISA had been reinterpreted from its original intent.

I'm basing my opinion on professional and recreational experience here.

Now, I'd be interested to hear what your qualifications are.

*Hence my nom du Fark
 
2013-11-20 01:17:12 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-20 01:18:35 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: What do y'all suppose the government is going to do with this information?

Anybody worried about this likely already has heavily fortified compound, an arsenal, and strong opinions regarding personal sovereignty.


This. If big gubmint wants to find you, they will. This will just make traffic lighter so your trip to the FEMA camp won't take as long.
 
2013-11-20 01:18:40 PM  
The invasion of privacy shiat is where Obama is off his rocker.
 
2013-11-20 01:18:53 PM  
If the technology can be used that way, it almost certainly  will be used that way, regardless of who is president.

That said...CNS?  Really?
 
2013-11-20 01:20:18 PM  
cman:

It would be cool if we could convince Neil deGrasse Tyson to run for President

He is overqualified for the job.  But I would love to see him there to restart space programs as well as fully fund research for pure science experiments.
 
2013-11-20 01:20:31 PM  
Suddenly every rightwinger who didn't care about the NSA reading library records is filled with white-hot fury.

/because they don't read
 
2013-11-20 01:20:56 PM  

dr_blasto: CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like NPR.
CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like PBS.
CNSNews.com  relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore.  Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today.Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's  fast,  easy and  secure.


mmmm Seems legit.
 
2013-11-20 01:21:50 PM  

James!: They probably have sensors in the seats, like how your car knows that your passenger isn't wearing a seat belt and beeps at you.


Yup. Because my car beeps at me every time I don't strap my backpack into the seat, so I just push it onto the floor. Thanks Obongo for making me a slob!
 
2013-11-20 01:22:09 PM  
He said it very clearly.

"If you like your vehicle anonymity, you can keep your vehicle anonymity. Period."

He said it like twenty times.
 
2013-11-20 01:25:26 PM  

Kibbler: Suddenly every rightwinger who didn't care about the NSA reading library records is filled with white-hot fury.

/because they don't read


Hey, if you read the other thread on the main page, a theif just stoled the book from the library. So now they probably don't have any to read.
 
2013-11-20 01:26:33 PM  

MabalzIzari: Just setting up to track the vehicle mileage for taxing purposes.


Yes, and that information, like the information from EZPass automated tollbooth passes will never, ever be used by the government to track people, right?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/19/report-n-j-man-discovers-e-zp as s-is-tracked-all-over-nyc/

But hey, that's innocent (if somewhat disingenuous because you aren't told about it), right?  They wouldn't ever use it to specifically track targeted individuals, right?
 
2013-11-20 01:26:56 PM  
Technology is scary. Keep old, no new.
 
2013-11-20 01:27:29 PM  

Headso: The invasion of privacy shiat is where Obama is off his rocker.


I really don't have many problems with him except on this one issue.
 
2013-11-20 01:27:48 PM  

dittybopper: James!: dittybopper: James!: dittybopper: James!: That isn't what the NSA is doing, but whatever.

Actually, that's *PRECISELY* what the NSA is doing:  Collecting the metadata from your radio transmissions (ie., cellphone calls, texting, e-mails).

I'm sure if you fashion a tin foil hat for your phone you'll be just fine.

I don't own a cellphone.  But yes, wrapping it in foil will prevent it from transmitting and receiving data to the cell network, which means it can't be tracked.

It will be useless that way, however.

But the gubmint can't spy on your private conversations with their CIA antennas what are hidden in the golden arches of every McDonald franchise!!

OK, so it's pretty obvious you don't really have a clue here.

First, a bit of my background:  I used to be a "ditty bopper"*, which is military slang for what the Army officially used to call a "05H Electronic Warfare Signals Intelligence Morse Interceptor".      It was my job to intercept communications, in other words.  I had a Top Secret/SCI clearance, and oddly enough, I happened to work in the very same facility that Edward Snowden worked at, though I left there almost 25 years before he stepped foot in the place.  I spend 3 years there, copying the Morse code transmissions of foreign governments.  Prior to that, I attended the United States Army Intelligence School, Fort Devens (USAISD), which is where I actually learned Morse.

I got into that business because signals intelligence had fascinated me ever since I had read "The Codebreakers" by David Kahn as a young teen.  I probably would have stayed in, but at the time, for that MOS, in order to get promoted from Specialist (my rank) to Sergeant E-5, you needed 995 promotion points out of a possible 1,000.  Which meant you had to max out your PT test, military education, civilian education, range qualification, SQT score, Common Task testing, your promotion boards, etc.  Meanwhile, the non-Morse 05K interceptors only had to get 450 promotion point ...


I know what your name means, it doesn't make stories like this any less paranoid rambling.
 
2013-11-20 01:29:45 PM  
That's cute that they are asking our permission to invade our privacy before they do it.  They are still going to do it.  But at least they warned us first.
 
2013-11-20 01:30:23 PM  

cman: ManateeGag: and the alternative was, what?

Something that isn't based upon fear

American elections are based on the simple premise that one must vote for a D or an R or the other side will win.

We are willing to take it up the ass on things just as long as the other side doesn't win

The funny thing is is that this has put us in a position where we perpetuate the system. There is something else out there.

/Oh, before anyone throws BSRBSVR, ask your self this: which parties disregard innocent life in drone strikes? Which parties support the Patriot Act? Which Parties think it is acceptable for the government to data mine their own citizens? Which parties support big business over unions? Yeah, both of them.


Here's the problem with that:  The way the electoral process is set up, we already know either a (D) or an (R) is going to win the big offices.  That's the problem with the "first-past-the-post" system; it always ends up being a two-party system in the end.  So, voting for someone else only ends up hurting whichever one of those you could reasonably see yourself holding your nose and voting for, while helping the one you wouldn't want to see in office in a million years.  If you want to change that, change the system; give me approval voting, and I would be perfectly fine checking "yes" for as many candidates as I find appealing, since I would no longer feel obligated to stop the greater of two evils from getting into office.

/even the politicians know this
//that's why all you see from third parties is sore losers and nutcases
 
2013-11-20 01:31:01 PM  
I was told that if I voted for McCain (or Rmoney) that the Patriot Act and domestic warrantless spying would get out of hand, we would be bailing out the big banks to the tune of 1 trillion dollars a year and we would have troops in Afghanistan forever.


I only wish the people who told me that weren't spot on in their assessment.
 
2013-11-20 01:31:14 PM  
But remember, cops are just silly for complaining about GPS tracking on their police cars...
 
2013-11-20 01:32:46 PM  

dr_blasto: CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like NPR.
CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like PBS.
CNSNews.com  relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore.  Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today.Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's  fast,  easy and  secure.


...neither are Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN...and they don't need donations, either.  What's your excuse, CNS?
 
2013-11-20 01:34:01 PM  

IlGreven: But remember, cops are just silly for complaining about GPS tracking on their police cars...


Cops should be tracked at all times while on duty, to protect the rights of civilians.

Civilians should not be tracked without a warrant, to protect those same rights.

These are not contradictions.  If you don't like it, don't be a cop.
 
2013-11-20 01:34:38 PM  
Not going to read all the posts but if you ever wanted an automated transportation system there going to have to be some kind of thing like this.
 
2013-11-20 01:35:06 PM  

cryinoutloud: Headso: The invasion of privacy shiat is where Obama is off his rocker.

I really don't have many problems with him except on this one issue.


Question:  Can you find an example of one politician, on any part of the political spectrum, that has a realistic shot at any federal office, that does not advocate the exact same surveillance policy that Barack Obama does, nor do they advocate a similar style of surveillance?
 
2013-11-20 01:35:39 PM  
My uncle has a country place no one knows about
He says it used to be a farm before the Motor Law...
 
2013-11-20 01:37:27 PM  

James!: The Obama administration denies that they will mandate that you put a chip in your dog so that your dog barks every time you try to masturbate.


Good. That will scare away Peeping Tom.

/AKA Ceiling Cat.
 
2013-11-20 01:38:45 PM  

IlGreven: But remember, cops are just silly for complaining about GPS tracking on their police cars...


Who gives a shiat about cops and their complaints?
 
2013-11-20 01:39:57 PM  

IlGreven: cryinoutloud: Headso: The invasion of privacy shiat is where Obama is off his rocker.

I really don't have many problems with him except on this one issue.

Question:  Can you find an example of one politician, on any part of the political spectrum, that has a realistic shot at any federal office, that does not advocate the exact same surveillance policy that Barack Obama does, nor do they advocate a similar style of surveillance?


How about Senator Barack Obama?
 
2013-11-20 01:43:30 PM  

dittybopper: MabalzIzari: Just setting up to track the vehicle mileage for taxing purposes.

Yes, and that information, like the information from EZPass automated tollbooth passes will never, ever be used by the government to track people, right?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/19/report-n-j-man-discovers-e-zp as s-is-tracked-all-over-nyc/

But hey, that's innocent (if somewhat disingenuous because you aren't told about it), right?  They wouldn't ever use it to specifically track targeted individuals, right?


I'd like to subscribe to your hand-typed newsletter that is hand delivered to a dead drop of my choosing.
 
2013-11-20 01:45:06 PM  

IlGreven: cryinoutloud: Headso: The invasion of privacy shiat is where Obama is off his rocker.

I really don't have many problems with him except on this one issue.

Question:  Can you find an example of one politician, on any part of the political spectrum, that has a realistic shot at any federal office, that does not advocate the exact same surveillance policy that Barack Obama does, nor do they advocate a similar style of surveillance?


If Ron Wyden could get some more name recognition, I would think he would have a shot. Same with Justin Amash possibly (full disclosure, I don't know much about him other than him being anti surveillance)
 
2013-11-20 01:45:14 PM  

James!: I know what your name means, it doesn't make stories like this any less paranoid rambling.


Paranoid ramblings like those of the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-ag en cys-wider-reach.html
 
2013-11-20 01:45:26 PM  

dennysgod: dr_blasto: CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like NPR.
CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like PBS.
CNSNews.com  relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore.  Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today.Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's  fast,  easy and  secure.

mmmm Seems legit.


He almost had me too.
 
2013-11-20 01:46:51 PM  

HeartBurnKid: IlGreven: But remember, cops are just silly for complaining about GPS tracking on their police cars...

Cops should be tracked at all times while on duty, to protect the rights of civilians.

Civilians should not be tracked without a warrant, to protect those same rights.

These are not contradictions.  If you don't like it, don't be a cop.


Lapel cameras for police.
If at any time your lapel camera is offline people should assume you are committing a crime and are up to no good.

What do they have to hide from transparency?
 
2013-11-20 01:47:10 PM  

logieal: dittybopper: MabalzIzari: Just setting up to track the vehicle mileage for taxing purposes.

Yes, and that information, like the information from EZPass automated tollbooth passes will never, ever be used by the government to track people, right?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/19/report-n-j-man-discovers-e-zp as s-is-tracked-all-over-nyc/

But hey, that's innocent (if somewhat disingenuous because you aren't told about it), right?  They wouldn't ever use it to specifically track targeted individuals, right?

I'd like to subscribe to your hand-typed newsletter that is hand delivered to a dead drop of my choosing.


Warm up the Scrabble set! We're gonna trade chili recipes!
 
2013-11-20 01:47:25 PM  

Headso: Question: Can you find an example of one politician, on any part of the political spectrum, that has a realistic shot at any federal office, that does not advocate the exact same surveillance policy that Barack Obama does, nor do they advocate a similar style of surveillance?

How about Senator Barack Obama?



Nice!
 
2013-11-20 01:48:20 PM  
CNS = Conservative News Substitute
 
2013-11-20 01:49:09 PM  

IlGreven: cryinoutloud: Headso: The invasion of privacy shiat is where Obama is off his rocker.

I really don't have many problems with him except on this one issue.

Question:  Can you find an example of one politician, on any part of the political spectrum, that has a realistic shot at any federal office, that does not advocate the exact same surveillance policy that Barack Obama does, nor do they advocate a similar style of surveillance?


Would you tell someone they have no realistic expectations to make money or live the American dream therefore they should just be poor and live off welfare for the rest of their life?

3rd parties are bad so vote democrat?
 
2013-11-20 01:50:32 PM  

Headso: IlGreven: cryinoutloud: Headso: The invasion of privacy shiat is where Obama is off his rocker.

I really don't have many problems with him except on this one issue.

Question:  Can you find an example of one politician, on any part of the political spectrum, that has a realistic shot at any federal office, that does not advocate the exact same surveillance policy that Barack Obama does, nor do they advocate a similar style of surveillance?

How about Senator Barack Obama?


Thread over


someone get the lights.
 
2013-11-20 01:51:05 PM  

Sandvich is loose cannon: Not going to read all the posts but if you ever wanted an automated transportation system there going to have to be some kind of thing like this.


That's just it, a lot of people don't want it. They honestly believe that their slow and error-prone meat-judgement capabilities are better than a computer capable of calculating all of the physics involved in the process several thousand times a second.

It's EFI and drive-by-wire all over again. People fought those advancements too even though there was no reasonable argument against either and both have since greatly improved emissions performance, power output and reliability.

Apparently, some people believe that because no technology is perfect right out of the gate we shouldn't try to create any new technology at all.
 
2013-11-20 01:51:05 PM  

BizarreMan: I'm wondering how they will determine the number of passengers in the vehicle.  Based on seats that appear to be occupied?  What if I'm carrying a large heavy bag in the passenger seat.  Will it think that's a person?

Will they just go by weight of the car?  No officer, I'm not carrying 25 people in my car.  It's just that yo mama is so fat, she makes the car think it's carrying a football team?

Stupid thing is with the economy tanked and serious deficits, we're going to dump money into THIS?


Ever notice the seat belt light comes on when your passenger isn't wearing one but not when there is no passenger...
 
2013-11-20 01:52:51 PM  

dittybopper: James!: I know what your name means, it doesn't make stories like this any less paranoid rambling.

Paranoid ramblings like those of the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-ag en cys-wider-reach.html


That article has nothing to do with the government using technology that doesn't exist to monitor your trips to arbys.
 
2013-11-20 01:53:35 PM  

EWreckedSean: BizarreMan: I'm wondering how they will determine the number of passengers in the vehicle.  Based on seats that appear to be occupied?  What if I'm carrying a large heavy bag in the passenger seat.  Will it think that's a person?

Will they just go by weight of the car?  No officer, I'm not carrying 25 people in my car.  It's just that yo mama is so fat, she makes the car think it's carrying a football team?

Stupid thing is with the economy tanked and serious deficits, we're going to dump money into THIS?

Ever notice the seat belt light comes on when your passenger isn't wearing one but not when there is no passenger...


airbags also won't deploy if there is nobody in the seat.
 
2013-11-20 01:55:12 PM  

BizarreMan: I'm wondering how they will determine the number of passengers in the vehicle.  Based on seats that appear to be occupied?  What if I'm carrying a large heavy bag in the passenger seat.  Will it think that's a person?

Will they just go by weight of the car?  No officer, I'm not carrying 25 people in my car.  It's just that yo mama is so fat, she makes the car think it's carrying a football team?

Stupid thing is with the economy tanked and serious deficits, we're going to dump money into THIS?


I seriously think this is made up. V2V communication is intended for cars to communicate with each other for eventually autodrive and currently so you can know traffic situations. The number of people in your car is not important, and not part of any "standard" I've read. I can imagine it may be used to enforce HOV lanes though if it actually becomes part of the standard, which it isn't from my understanding.
 
2013-11-20 01:56:19 PM  
I knew those fifteen linear amplifiers in my car would come in handy some day.
 
2013-11-20 01:56:19 PM  
Go ahead and vote third party. It won't do a bit of good, and your candidate will absolutely lose, but you're free to make that decision.

And yes, a slightly lesser evil is still preferable to a slightly greater evil.
 
2013-11-20 01:58:15 PM  
How about fark you?
does fark you work for you?
 
2013-11-20 01:58:32 PM  

skozlaw: Sandvich is loose cannon: Not going to read all the posts but if you ever wanted an automated transportation system there going to have to be some kind of thing like this.

That's just it, a lot of people don't want it. They honestly believe that their slow and error-prone meat-judgement capabilities are better than a computer capable of calculating all of the physics involved in the process several thousand times a second.

It's EFI and drive-by-wire all over again. People fought those advancements too even though there was no reasonable argument against either and both have since greatly improved emissions performance, power output and reliability.

Apparently, some people believe that because no technology is perfect right out of the gate we shouldn't try to create any new technology at all.


Its not that....it's because the Government WILL misuse the technology.
 
2013-11-20 01:58:55 PM  
If the invention of stop lights came about in today's society it would be spun as the way government is not allowing people to travel freely and breaking their constitutional right of travel!

And by forcing people to STOP, you will just get carried away to prison! Sitting ducks, no way i'll ever stop at a stop light
 
2013-11-20 01:59:19 PM  
over the past few years ive become more and more interested in only owning an early 70's pickup. kind of like the Battlestar Gallactica of automobiles.. i want an engine, manual controls for said engine, and not much freakin else. I want to be able to crawl right into the engine bay and take out the alternator, or change the plugs, no computer controlled bullshiat.
 
2013-11-20 02:02:21 PM  
Trust has to be earned, Mr. President.

You earn it by telling us the truth when we ask you and your administration questions and not using executive privilege, claims of national security and outright lies to deflect them.

/I'm constantly amazed at how the Obama administration forgets that government is supposed to be for the people, of the people, by the people and not a secretive, shadowy organization that isn't accountable to the public. The president was a constitutional law professor, for cripe's sake. He's shown the same amount of aptitude for constitutional law in practice that the Bush administration did.
 
2013-11-20 02:02:25 PM  

James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.


So, its a "shovel ready" project then?  YOU WON'T GET ME OBAMA!!!  I'm only driving old cars from now on.
 
2013-11-20 02:03:31 PM  
breakingbrown.com
 
2013-11-20 02:04:13 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [breakingbrown.com image 850x567]


lol
 
2013-11-20 02:06:36 PM  

I_C_Weener: James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.

So, its a "shovel ready" project then?  YOU WON'T GET ME OBAMA!!!  I'm only driving old cars from now on.


Oh my god! ARE THEY PUTTING SENSORS IN OUR SHOVELS!!?
 
2013-11-20 02:06:58 PM  

Evil High Priest: Go ahead and vote third party. It won't do a bit of good, and your candidate will absolutely lose, but you're free to make that decision.

And yes, a slightly lesser evil is still preferable to a slightly greater evil.


Psssh. So says the Evil High Priest. Of course you'd advocate for evil, it's not like you're the Benevolent High Priest.
 
2013-11-20 02:08:14 PM  
Come on Obama Defense Squad, let's hear it.
 
2013-11-20 02:08:26 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [breakingbrown.com image 850x567]


Holy shiat, that's funny.
 
2013-11-20 02:08:55 PM  

secularsage: Trust has to be earned, Mr. President.

You earn it by telling us the truth when we ask you and your administration questions and not using executive privilege, claims of national security and outright lies to deflect them.

/I'm constantly amazed at how the Obama administration forgets that government is supposed to be for the people, of the people, by the people and not a secretive, shadowy organization that isn't accountable to the public. The president was a constitutional law professor, for cripe's sake. He's shown the same amount of aptitude for constitutional law in practice that the Bush administration did.


So, since you didn't actually bother to level any particular accusation in the midst of all that, maybe you'd like to take a moment to explain exactly what you're talking about?
 
2013-11-20 02:09:30 PM  
I really don't want a car that drives itself. Ever. Not that I'm a Luddite or anything, but what's the point? We already have these things called "buses" and "trains" that can do pretty much the same thing without the expensive technology to make a self-driving car. Are we going to automate all 6 billion miles of pavement in the US (or whatever the figure is)? Who's paying for that? And why, exactly, do we need it when traffic injuries and fatalities are going down despite miles driven and traffic density going up each year?

Fortunately, they're going to try it in California and Nevada, the system's going to fark up, people are going to die in a spectacular way (think passenger train derailment), and that'll be the end of that. The litigation for SNAFUs like that will be too expensive to fully implement the dream of all the cars rushing along at 80 MPH bumper-to-bumper with drivers asleep behind the wheel and computers doing all the work. People are going to have to die for the "safety" folks to wake up and realize that we don't need to make better cars, we need to make better drivers. Right now all you need is a face they can take a picture of and you get a license.

Hell, I really wanted this particular new car last year, but the "adaptive" cruise control would automatically apply the brakes if there was something in front of me. Sometimes it would mistake a tree or some other stationary object for another car and rapidly apply the brakes, which was terrifying to everyone involved. Sometimes it would fail to notice another car entirely (a Mazda Miata apparently has no radar cross-section) and you'd have to get on the brakes yourself. I didn't buy the car because of this one ridiculous feature that couldn't be removed or opted-out. The technology IS NOT perfect, and probably can't be perfected given the vagaries of the roads we have.

Even if you hate driving, at least be competent at it. It's really not that hard.
 
2013-11-20 02:10:18 PM  

JerkStore: We already have these things called "buses" and "trains" that can do pretty much the same thing without the expensive technology to make a self-driving car.


Know how I know you don't ride the bus or train? Because you just equated them to driving a car.
 
2013-11-20 02:11:07 PM  
Big Brother is not just some stupid show where they lock up a bunch of annoying people and we watch them being annoying.

1984
 
2013-11-20 02:12:05 PM  

JerkStore: I really don't want a car that drives itself. Ever. Not that I'm a Luddite or anything, but what's the point? We already have these things called "buses" and "trains" that can do pretty much the same thing without the expensive technology to make a self-driving car. Are we going to automate all 6 billion miles of pavement in the US (or whatever the figure is)? Who's paying for that? And why, exactly, do we need it when traffic injuries and fatalities are going down despite miles driven and traffic density going up each year?

Fortunately, they're going to try it in California and Nevada, the system's going to fark up, people are going to die in a spectacular way (think passenger train derailment), and that'll be the end of that. The litigation for SNAFUs like that will be too expensive to fully implement the dream of all the cars rushing along at 80 MPH bumper-to-bumper with drivers asleep behind the wheel and computers doing all the work. People are going to have to die for the "safety" folks to wake up and realize that we don't need to make better cars, we need to make better drivers. Right now all you need is a face they can take a picture of and you get a license.

Hell, I really wanted this particular new car last year, but the "adaptive" cruise control would automatically apply the brakes if there was something in front of me. Sometimes it would mistake a tree or some other stationary object for another car and rapidly apply the brakes, which was terrifying to everyone involved. Sometimes it would fail to notice another car entirely (a Mazda Miata apparently has no radar cross-section) and you'd have to get on the brakes yourself. I didn't buy the car because of this one ridiculous feature that couldn't be removed or opted-out. The technology IS NOT perfect, and probably can't be perfected given the vagaries of the roads we have.

Even if you hate driving, at least be competent at it. It's really not that hard.


This is not about self driving cars.
It's about finding new ways to tax you for driving.

Drive over x miles?
Pay a extra tax.

Driving over the holiday?
There's a tax on that.

Driving on a cross country jaunt?
Oh you better believe that's a taxin'
 
2013-11-20 02:14:21 PM  

ferretman: Its not that....it's because the Government WILL misuse the technology.


We'd better hope they never get nuclear weapons then...
 
2013-11-20 02:17:58 PM  

James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.


But how can I go into a frothing fury of paranoid rage if you put it that way?
 
2013-11-20 02:18:19 PM  

James!: I_C_Weener: James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.

So, its a "shovel ready" project then?  YOU WON'T GET ME OBAMA!!!  I'm only driving old cars from now on.

Oh my god! ARE THEY PUTTING SENSORS IN OUR SHOVELS!!?


bbsimg.ngfiles.com
The world needs ditch-digger-watchers, too.
 
2013-11-20 02:20:46 PM  

un4gvn666: JerkStore: We already have these things called "buses" and "trains" that can do pretty much the same thing without the expensive technology to make a self-driving car.

Know how I know you don't ride the bus or train? Because you just equated them to driving a car.


No, I equated the ultimate vision of the self-driving car, which is hundreds of cars lined up bumper-to-bumper and cruising along in computer-controlled perfection, to riding a train or bus. I like the involvement of driving, I have an SCCA competition license and my primary hobby is driving cars. However, I also get that there are people who don't enjoy it and don't want to do it who would welcome the possibility of a self-driving car.

The point is, either ALL the cars have to be automated or none of them can be. If all the cars around my 1929 Cadillac are automated, how the hell do I drive anywhere? How do the automated cars know my analog car is even there or what my intentions are? How do I change lanes when all the auto-drive cars are whisking along with only a foot or two between their bumpers? The right of the people who simply don't want to drive isn't more valid than anyone else's, and if you really hate driving or think that your time would be better used doing something else, there are ALREADY alternatives for you that don't involve computers spying on everyone's driving habits, tracking our locations, spending billions of tax dollars to make it work, and turning over yet more control to some computer system.

So no, I don't ride the bus or train. If you hate driving, however, perhaps you should try them out instead of wishing for your car to magically drive itself.
 
2013-11-20 02:20:50 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser:


My god... conservative humor that's actually pretty funny.

Has the world gone topsy turvy?
 
2013-11-20 02:22:08 PM  

James!: dittybopper: James!: I know what your name means, it doesn't make stories like this any less paranoid rambling.

Paranoid ramblings like those of the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-ag en cys-wider-reach.html

That article has nothing to do with the government using technology that doesn't exist to monitor your trips to arbys.


Actually, they can already do that if you are carrying a cell phone.  That's how the Boston Marathon bombers were caught:  When the person they carjacked managed to escape, he had left his cell phone in the car, and the police got the location records of his phone in real time from the cell provider:   http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-details
 
2013-11-20 02:22:24 PM  

Snarfangel: James!: I_C_Weener: James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.

So, its a "shovel ready" project then?  YOU WON'T GET ME OBAMA!!!  I'm only driving old cars from now on.

Oh my god! ARE THEY PUTTING SENSORS IN OUR SHOVELS!!?

[bbsimg.ngfiles.com image 400x300]
The world needs ditch-digger-watchers, too.


Pretty soon the government will know when you dig, how deep and how many hookers you bury.  Whatever happened to a little thing called "Freedom"?
 
2013-11-20 02:24:45 PM  

James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.


This is coming eventually, though with any luck we'll have a Republican president by then, so that conservatives will be ok with it. At least until a DEMONcRAT takes office.
 
2013-11-20 02:24:49 PM  

dittybopper: James!: dittybopper: James!: I know what your name means, it doesn't make stories like this any less paranoid rambling.

Paranoid ramblings like those of the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-ag en cys-wider-reach.html

That article has nothing to do with the government using technology that doesn't exist to monitor your trips to arbys.

Actually, they can already do that if you are carrying a cell phone.  That's how the Boston Marathon bombers were caught:  When the person they carjacked managed to escape, he had left his cell phone in the car, and the police got the location records of his phone in real time from the cell provider:   http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-details


Wrap some tinfoil around your car and enjoy your big beef and cheddar.
 
2013-11-20 02:26:47 PM  
I never realized how much Fark had an overlap with the Infowars crowd.
 
2013-11-20 02:26:47 PM  

JerkStore: I like the involvement of driving, I have an SCCA competition license and my primary hobby is driving cars. However, I also get that there are people who don't enjoy it and don't want to do it who would welcome the possibility of a self-driving car.


I enjoy driving too. I just don't like having to go out on the road with other drivers and risk getting killed. I live in Florida. I don't know where you live, but going out on the road in this state means you're putting your life on the line every time.

Also, I can't roll a joint or watch a movie if I have to operate the steering wheel, so hell yes, I want a self-driving car.

JerkStore: How do the automated cars know my analog car is even there or what my intentions are? How do I change lanes when all the auto-drive cars are whisking along with only a foot or two between their bumpers?


Self-drive lanes similar to modern Express lanes. You're welcome.

JerkStore: If you hate driving, however, perhaps you should try them out instead of wishing for your car to magically drive itself.

You're not helping your argument by equating people who don't wanna spend 2 hours on a bus or train just to make a 30 minute trip to people who "hate driving".
 
2013-11-20 02:27:35 PM  

Fart_Machine: I never realized how much Fark had an overlap with the Infowars crowd.


Don't you understand? Possible technological advances have already stolen our freedom!
 
2013-11-20 02:30:43 PM  

JerkStore: If all the cars around my 1929 Cadillac are automated, how the hell do I drive anywhere?


Slowly, With the left turn signal on the whole way.
 
2013-11-20 02:33:35 PM  
As the victim of a recent hit-and-[attempted-]run car accident, I'm okay with this.

/I got his plates and called 911
//He pulled over because there was too much traffic for him to evade me, probably figured I'd gotten his plates already
///His Mustang couldn't get away from my stock Scion xB, lol
 
2013-11-20 02:33:55 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: What do y'all suppose the government is going to do with this information?

Anybody worried about this likely already has heavily fortified compound, an arsenal, and strong opinions regarding personal sovereignty.


Mileage based tax?

Speeding tickets in the mail anywhere at anytime?

Warrantless surveillance?

Plenty of opportunities to "generate revenue" and "promote safety - FOR THE KIDS!"
 
2013-11-20 02:34:24 PM  

James!: Fart_Machine: I never realized how much Fark had an overlap with the Infowars crowd.

Don't you understand? Possible technological advances have already stolen our freedom!


Yeah!  And don't you even CARE about YOUR RIGHT to PIRACY?
 
2013-11-20 02:34:36 PM  

James!: dittybopper: James!: I know what your name means, it doesn't make stories like this any less paranoid rambling.

Paranoid ramblings like those of the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-ag en cys-wider-reach.html

That article has nothing to do with the government using technology that doesn't exist to monitor your trips to arbys.


Ignore him, he's a moron.
 
2013-11-20 02:35:28 PM  
riiiiiiiiiiiiiight

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-11-20 02:36:08 PM  

joness0154: Uranus Is Huge!: What do y'all suppose the government is going to do with this information?

Anybody worried about this likely already has heavily fortified compound, an arsenal, and strong opinions regarding personal sovereignty.

Mileage based tax?

Speeding tickets in the mail anywhere at anytime?

Warrantless surveillance?

Plenty of opportunities to "generate revenue" and "promote safety - FOR THE KIDS!"


Wouldn't all those initiatives start at the municipal or state level?

And therefore, wouldn't the responsibility for them happening fall on local politicians that you elect?
 
2013-11-20 02:36:34 PM  

Fart_Machine: I never realized how much Fark had an overlap with the Infowars crowd.


LOL

you mean the everything will either tax or spy on you and your technology is lame fark.com? The whole trust me I know what I'm talking about look at this chart from rightwingnews and endless links to american thinker but somehow I can't' fi'gure out where the a'postrope' goes in my stupid sentences fark.com?
 
2013-11-20 02:37:06 PM  

cryinoutloud: "vehicle-to-vehicle" (V2V) communications technology that constantly broadcasts via radio wave the car's location, direction, speed and, possibly, even the number of passengers it is carrying. -

Coming up: "V2V installations in new cars breaking down constantly."

The Obama administration says this is something it has "no plans" to do even if it does mandate V2V technology in all new cars.
"NHTSA has no plans to modify the current V2V system design in a way that would enable the government or private entities to track individual motor vehicles,"

Fark you, Obama. And the NSA doesn't spy on random "individuals" either.


Jesus christ stop and think for a minute.   V2V is a necessary step in the widespread use of of Self-driving cars such as the ones Google is making.  Cas, which will, by the way do absolute farking miracles for the congestion plaguing most major cities.  Computer controlled cars can be driven much closer totogether since the can react much faster than humans can to changing conditions on the road meaning you can fir roughly three cars into the space occupied by one now, and drive them all at highway speed
 
2013-11-20 02:39:49 PM  

JerkStore: un4gvn666: JerkStore: We already have these things called "buses" and "trains" that can do pretty much the same thing without the expensive technology to make a self-driving car.

Know how I know you don't ride the bus or train? Because you just equated them to driving a car.

No, I equated the ultimate vision of the self-driving car, which is hundreds of cars lined up bumper-to-bumper and cruising along in computer-controlled perfection, to riding a train or bus. I like the involvement of driving, I have an SCCA competition license and my primary hobby is driving cars. However, I also get that there are people who don't enjoy it and don't want to do it who would welcome the possibility of a self-driving car.

The point is, either ALL the cars have to be automated or none of them can be. If all the cars around my 1929 Cadillac are automated, how the hell do I drive anywhere? How do the automated cars know my analog car is even there or what my intentions are? How do I change lanes when all the auto-drive cars are whisking along with only a foot or two between their bumpers? The right of the people who simply don't want to drive isn't more valid than anyone else's, and if you really hate driving or think that your time would be better used doing something else, there are ALREADY alternatives for you that don't involve computers spying on everyone's driving habits, tracking our locations, spending billions of tax dollars to make it work, and turning over yet more control to some computer system.

So no, I don't ride the bus or train. If you hate driving, however, perhaps you should try them out instead of wishing for your car to magically drive itself.


This post is really stupid. Even for fark.

"It basically boils down to - complicated things can't be done because I don't understand it. Also, it wouldn't be beneficial because I say so."

Just stop posting dude.
 
2013-11-20 02:40:48 PM  

Fart_Machine: I never realized how much Fark had an overlap with the Infowars crowd.


Fark also overlaps with the Stasi types....go figure.
 
2013-11-20 02:42:45 PM  

lacrossestar83: James!: Fart_Machine: I never realized how much Fark had an overlap with the Infowars crowd.

Don't you understand? Possible technological advances have already stolen our freedom!

Yeah!  And don't you even CARE about YOUR RIGHT to PIRACY?


All information belongs to everyone! Except mine.  Stay the fark away from mine.
 
2013-11-20 02:43:22 PM  

Giltric: Fart_Machine: I never realized how much Fark had an overlap with the Infowars crowd.

Fark also overlaps with the Stasi types....go figure.


Depending upon the subject, the venn diagram for those types is a circle.
 
2013-11-20 02:44:59 PM  

dr_blasto: Giltric: Fart_Machine: I never realized how much Fark had an overlap with the Infowars crowd.

Fark also overlaps with the Stasi types....go figure.

Depending upon the subject, the venn diagram for those types is a circle.


there is the "what party is in power" variable.
 
2013-11-20 02:48:16 PM  

Giltric: Fart_Machine: I never realized how much Fark had an overlap with the Infowars crowd.

Fark also overlaps with the Stasi types....go figure.


I thought Fark overlapped with the Brony types.
 
2013-11-20 02:48:24 PM  

JerkStore: The point is, either ALL the cars have to be automated or none of them can be. If all the cars around my 1929 Cadillac are automated, how the hell do I drive anywhere? How do the automated cars know my analog car is even there or what my intentions are? How do I change lanes when all the auto-drive cars are whisking along with only a foot or two between their bumpers? The right of the people who simply don't want to drive isn't more valid than anyone else's, and if you really hate driving or think that your time would be better used doing something else, there are ALREADY alternatives for you that don't involve computers spying on everyone's driving habits, tracking our locations, spending billions of tax dollars to make it work, and turning over yet more control to some computer system.


Not to mention the fact there would also be some people who'd try to repair / upgrade the automation on their own car and get it wrong.
 
2013-11-20 02:49:33 PM  

Evil High Priest: Go ahead and vote third party. It won't do a bit of good, and your candidate will absolutely lose, but you're free to make that decision.

And yes, a slightly lesser evil is still preferable to a slightly greater evil.


I did and I have absolutely no regrets about not voting for one of the two "choices".  Neither of them represented my views so neither of them got my vote.  I felt that voting for someone I didn't actually support was not a productive use of my vote.   That simple.

If you want to vote for someone who doesn't actually represent your views just because you feel they aren't as bad as the other "choice", you're free to make that decision.
 
2013-11-20 02:56:19 PM  

GanjSmokr: Evil High Priest: Go ahead and vote third party. It won't do a bit of good, and your candidate will absolutely lose, but you're free to make that decision.

And yes, a slightly lesser evil is still preferable to a slightly greater evil.

I did and I have absolutely no regrets about not voting for one of the two "choices".  Neither of them represented my views so neither of them got my vote.  I felt that voting for someone I didn't actually support was not a productive use of my vote.   That simple.

If you want to vote for someone who doesn't actually represent your views just because you feel they aren't as bad as the other "choice", you're free to make that decision.


So you'd rather split the vote from someone viable because they don't support everything you do, and in the process increase the chances of someone who supports NONE of the things you support? I don't see the point of that.

/props on the username
 
2013-11-20 02:56:46 PM  

justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!: I know what your name means, it doesn't make stories like this any less paranoid rambling.

Paranoid ramblings like those of the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-ag en cys-wider-reach.html

That article has nothing to do with the government using technology that doesn't exist to monitor your trips to arbys.

Ignore him, he's a moron.


Yes, because the NSA isn't actually pulling all of the metadata from your phone calls, e-mails, and texts and it isn't building a huge facility in Utah to store and analyze all that data.

That's just a figment of my imagination.

And V2V is going to use magical frequencies and modulation techniques that will only be able to be used for its intended purpose and it won't be physically possible for the government to intercept that information and store it.  It's just going to be impossible.  Just like it is impossible for EZPass to be used for purposes other than collecting tolls.
 
Bf+
2013-11-20 02:58:26 PM  
"Obama"?
 
2013-11-20 02:58:34 PM  

JerkStore: un4gvn666: JerkStore: We already have these things called "buses" and "trains" that can do pretty much the same thing without the expensive technology to make a self-driving car.

Know how I know you don't ride the bus or train? Because you just equated them to driving a car.

No, I equated the ultimate vision of the self-driving car, which is hundreds of cars lined up bumper-to-bumper and cruising along in computer-controlled perfection, to riding a train or bus. I like the involvement of driving, I have an SCCA competition license and my primary hobby is driving cars. However, I also get that there are people who don't enjoy it and don't want to do it who would welcome the possibility of a self-driving car.

The point is, either ALL the cars have to be automated or none of them can be. If all the cars around my 1929 Cadillac are automated, how the hell do I drive anywhere? How do the automated cars know my analog car is even there or what my intentions are? How do I change lanes when all the auto-drive cars are whisking along with only a foot or two between their bumpers? The right of the people who simply don't want to drive isn't more valid than anyone else's, and if you really hate driving or think that your time would be better used doing something else, there are ALREADY alternatives for you that don't involve computers spying on everyone's driving habits, tracking our locations, spending billions of tax dollars to make it work, and turning over yet more control to some computer system.

So no, I don't ride the bus or train. If you hate driving, however, perhaps you should try them out instead of wishing for your car to magically drive itself.


Buses and trains travel a fixed route on a fixed schedule. Want to go somewhere? Wait for the scheduled bus or train that takes you the closest to where you want to go, then figure out how to travel the rest of the distance. With a self-driving car you would leave when you wanted to and go directly to your destination. With no stops to pick up and let off other people. It's much quicker and more convenient.
 
2013-11-20 03:09:25 PM  

un4gvn666: GanjSmokr: Evil High Priest: Go ahead and vote third party. It won't do a bit of good, and your candidate will absolutely lose, but you're free to make that decision.

And yes, a slightly lesser evil is still preferable to a slightly greater evil.

I did and I have absolutely no regrets about not voting for one of the two "choices".  Neither of them represented my views so neither of them got my vote.  I felt that voting for someone I didn't actually support was not a productive use of my vote.   That simple.

If you want to vote for someone who doesn't actually represent your views just because you feel they aren't as bad as the other "choice", you're free to make that decision.

So you'd rather split the vote from someone viable because they don't support everything you do, and in the process increase the chances of someone who supports NONE of the things you support? I don't see the point of that.

/props on the username


Yes.  I'd rather vote with my conscience, morals, values, etc than hold my nose and vote for one of the two "choices" that I found least reprehensible.  I took that stupid little online test to find out who my views matched most with.  Obama and Romney were both around 50% and someone whose name is spelled with all caps around here was ~90% for me.

Some may say that I wasted my vote.  I say I did the exact opposite.

/thanks
 
2013-11-20 03:16:40 PM  
fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-11-20 03:21:56 PM  
 
2013-11-20 03:24:04 PM  

Magorn: Jesus christ stop and think for a minute.   V2V is a necessary step in the widespread use of of Self-driving cars such as the ones Google is making.  Cas, which will, by the way do absolute farking miracles for the congestion plaguing most major cities.  Computer controlled cars can be driven much closer totogether since the can react much faster than humans can to changing conditions on the road meaning you can fir roughly three cars into the space occupied by one now, and drive them all at highway speed


So long as it's an option, and not mandatory, I've got zero problems with that.

If it becomes mandatory for every new vehicle, though, then I've got a problem with it.
 
2013-11-20 03:27:26 PM  

Magorn: Cas, which will, by the way do absolute farking miracles for the congestion plaguing most major cities.


Meh.  Just wait a bit:  The Baby Boomers will stop commuting, and the Millenials don't drive cars like the previous generations, so in the next 10 to 20 years the problem is going to solve itself.
 
2013-11-20 03:35:41 PM  

dittybopper: Magorn: Jesus christ stop and think for a minute.   V2V is a necessary step in the widespread use of of Self-driving cars such as the ones Google is making.  Cas, which will, by the way do absolute farking miracles for the congestion plaguing most major cities.  Computer controlled cars can be driven much closer totogether since the can react much faster than humans can to changing conditions on the road meaning you can fir roughly three cars into the space occupied by one now, and drive them all at highway speed

So long as it's an option, and not mandatory, I've got zero problems with that.

If it becomes mandatory for every new vehicle, though, then I've got a problem with it.


Yeah, but you have a flaming freakout breakdown over arugula and mustard, and if Obama came out saying you shouldn't smash your balls with a hammer, in 5 minutes flat you'd have a red paste in your underwear where your balls used to be. And a big fat retard smile on your face.
 
2013-11-20 03:36:02 PM  

dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

the government


Have to say I assumed "moron" was directed at Jimmy.  He's a moderator who -- in 2013 PSE (post-Snowden era) -- says move along, move along ya paranoid Fark.  Am I posting on the wrong site here?  Or is this his way of trying to pump up the thread, like how you get the green with headlines that misstate or overstate what is linked?
 
2013-11-20 03:42:39 PM  
I'd like someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids to please explain to me just what nefarious purposes such things would be used for. We're not talking about lojacking people themselves here...
 
2013-11-20 03:44:25 PM  

dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!: I know what your name means, it doesn't make stories like this any less paranoid rambling.

Paranoid ramblings like those of the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-ag en cys-wider-reach.html

That article has nothing to do with the government using technology that doesn't exist to monitor your trips to arbys.

Ignore him, he's a moron.

Yes, because the NSA isn't actually pulling all of the metadata from your phone calls, e-mails, and texts and it isn't building a huge facility in Utah to store and analyze all that data.

That's just a figment of my imagination.

And V2V is going to use magical frequencies and modulation techniques that will only be able to be used for its intended purpose and it won't be physically possible for the government to intercept that information and store it.  It's just going to be impossible.  Just like it is impossible for EZPass to be used for purposes other than collecting tolls.


Why are you posting on the Internet? They already know WHERE YOU ARE. Get off the grid!
 
2013-11-20 03:46:46 PM  
But will it be a crime to disable it?
 
2013-11-20 03:53:42 PM  
It isn't like the NSA has used their spying to prosecute drug and copyright-infringement cases. Oh wait...
 
2013-11-20 03:57:49 PM  
This country has become the very thing we once abhorred.
 
2013-11-20 03:59:25 PM  

ShardingGreat: This country has become the very thing we once abhorred.


Beets?
 
2013-11-20 04:01:07 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

the government

Have to say I assumed "moron" was directed at Jimmy.  He's a moderator who -- in 2013 PSE (post-Snowden era) -- says move along, move along ya paranoid Fark.  Am I posting on the wrong site here?  Or is this his way of trying to pump up the thread, like how you get the green with headlines that misstate or overstate what is linked?


Did you read the article? It's about the government deciding if they want to get involved with vehicle to vehicle communications technology.

Then come a bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.
 
2013-11-20 04:01:58 PM  

Snarfangel: ShardingGreat: This country has become the very thing we once abhorred.

Beets?


I abhorred Brussels sprouts when I was a kid.  I like them now.
 
2013-11-20 04:07:28 PM  

James!: Then come a bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.


Hey, I can call Obama if I lose track of where I parked in the lot.  What's the problem here?
 
2013-11-20 04:09:24 PM  

Fart_Machine: James!: Then come a bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

Hey, I can call Obama if I lose track of where I parked in the lot.  What's the problem here?


Wouldn't it just suck terribly if the authorities could switch this on and track your car down in case of a carjacking.
 
2013-11-20 04:12:17 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Fart_Machine: James!: Then come a bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

Hey, I can call Obama if I lose track of where I parked in the lot.  What's the problem here?

Wouldn't it just suck terribly if the authorities could switch this on and track your car down in case of a carjacking.


People pay for that already.  shiat, Gieco will give you a discount if you plug in a monitor for your car.
 
2013-11-20 04:13:19 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.


So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.
 
2013-11-20 04:14:45 PM  

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

the government

Have to say I assumed "moron" was directed at Jimmy.  He's a moderator who -- in 2013 PSE (post-Snowden era) -- says move along, move along ya paranoid Fark.  Am I posting on the wrong site here?  Or is this his way of trying to pump up the thread, like how you get the green with headlines that misstate or overstate what is linked?

Did you read the article? It's about the government deciding if they want to get involved with vehicle to vehicle communications technology.

Then come a bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.


Yeah... I'm sure the info would never be used unethically.  You're right.  We must have a mental illness to ever think about the US Government ever doing anything untoward.
 
2013-11-20 04:15:43 PM  

Relatively Obscure: I will have to look at other sources for this, because CNS.  But, yeah, if something ends up required that ALLOWS that car to be tracked, then there's a pretty good chance it's going to be used to track some cars.


Nobody working for the government could ever user their position for evil.

Relax, Citizen
 
2013-11-20 04:17:59 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.


Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.
 
2013-11-20 04:19:03 PM  

dittybopper: Magorn: Jesus christ stop and think for a minute.   V2V is a necessary step in the widespread use of of Self-driving cars such as the ones Google is making.  Cas, which will, by the way do absolute farking miracles for the congestion plaguing most major cities.  Computer controlled cars can be driven much closer totogether since the can react much faster than humans can to changing conditions on the road meaning you can fir roughly three cars into the space occupied by one now, and drive them all at highway speed

So long as it's an option, and not mandatory, I've got zero problems with that.

If it becomes mandatory for every new vehicle, though, then I've got a problem with it.


My guess is it will probably start with special lanes just for Self driven vehicles or exemptions that let them use the HOV lanes  and the adoption problem will take care of itself.   Va made the Main route into washing ton DC (Rt. 66) HOV-2 only many years ago.   As a result, first we saw the rise of hitchiking as a viable commuting option come into being (We call it "slugging" around here but that's essentially what it is, you line up at certain known sports and cars needing extra passengers to use the HOV lanes stop and pick you up)  .  The n a few years back, Hybrid vehicles were also allowed to use the HOV lanes (they get special plates)   and suddenly every third car I saw on the No. Va roads was a Prius
 
2013-11-20 04:20:14 PM  

James!: Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.


You know how I know you don't know much about technology?
 
2013-11-20 04:21:24 PM  

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.

Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.


Right Now, Google has already built a self driving car which they've demonstrated for federal and state lawmakers.   What's keeping them off the road is sorting out the legal question of who bears the liability if a self driven vehicle causes an accident (I'm guessing most states switching to  "no-fault" insurance to resolve the issue is just around the corner)
 
2013-11-20 04:34:08 PM  

Magorn: James!: 4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.

Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.

Right Now, Google has already built a self driving car which they've demonstrated for federal and state lawmakers.   What's keeping them off the road is sorting out the legal question of who bears the liability if a self driven vehicle causes an accident (I'm guessing most states switching to  "no-fault" insurance to resolve the issue is just around the corner)


Right now they have prototypes.  Getting one car to drive a route is far easier than getting thousands to safely navigate thousands of routes.
 
2013-11-20 04:36:06 PM  
Magorn:   guessing most states switching to "no-fault" insurance to resolve the issue is just around the corner

Grok wonder how friends will make big piles of rocks if no-fault
 
2013-11-20 04:36:57 PM  

James!: Magorn: James!: 4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.

Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.

Right Now, Google has already built a self driving car which they've demonstrated for federal and state lawmakers.   What's keeping them off the road is sorting out the legal question of who bears the liability if a self driven vehicle causes an accident (I'm guessing most states switching to  "no-fault" insurance to resolve the issue is just around the corner)

Right now they have prototypes.  Getting one car to drive a route is far easier than getting thousands to safely navigate thousands of routes.



So it's ok to allow government overreach because they lack the real-world capability of actually making it work...  Sort of like the ACA, right?
 
2013-11-20 04:42:04 PM  

skylabdown: James!: Magorn: James!: 4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:  someone's who is minimally brain-damaged from smoking meth and/or synthetic cannabinoids

You may need to lower your standards, be mindful in what forum you are speaking.

James!: 4tehsnowflakes: dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!:

 bunch of paranoids complaining that Obama is going to know where their car is parked.

So it's the hyperbole one, got it.  Auto-pilot for road vehicles is important tech that is being developed, and there is an obvious role for regulatory agencies.  The paranoids are just pointing out that there are privacy issues and that tech of this kind is (and has been) easily exploited for surveillance, so attention should be paid.

Sure, 20 years from now when the technology is anywhere near viable. You see people her already rejecting the whole thing because the gubmint might do stuff.

Right Now, Google has already built a self driving car which they've demonstrated for federal and state lawmakers.   What's keeping them off the road is sorting out the legal question of who bears the liability if a self driven vehicle causes an accident (I'm guessing most states switching to  "no-fault" insurance to resolve the issue is just around the corner)

Right now they have prototypes.  Getting one car to drive a route is far easier than getting thousands to safely navigate thousands of routes.


So it's ok to allow government overreach because they lack the real-world capability of actually making it work...  Sort of like the ACA, right?


I'm not not going to lose any sleep about hypothetical overreach involving technologies that don't exist yet.
 
2013-11-20 04:47:43 PM  
Hmmm, the coolness of having my car drive itself vs a record of my every movement. That's a toughie. Maybe the answer is to put a dummy inside the car and have it drive from your house to random locations so that no trip can be definitely ascribed to you.
 
2013-11-20 04:48:12 PM  

James!: skylabdown: James!: Magorn: James!: 4tehsnowflakes: Crotchrocket Slim:

So it's ok to allow government overreach because they lack the real-world capability of actually making it work...  Sort of like the ACA, right?


Siri, generate invoice for $39 to skylabdown for: new keyboard
 
2013-11-20 05:05:23 PM  

James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.


But let's all freak out and panic and accuse the government of violating our rights now anyway!!!
 
2013-11-20 05:06:55 PM  
I just assume the government can already track our cars whenever they damn well please without telling us.

why do stories like this surprise people?
 
2013-11-20 05:07:10 PM  

Gyrfalcon: James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.

But let's all freak out and panic and accuse the government of violating our rights now anyway!!!


And anyone who doesn't is a fascist.  That's what I've learned today.
 
2013-11-20 05:59:03 PM  

Gyrfalcon: James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.

But let's all freak out and panic and accuse the government of violating our rights now anyway!!!


Wouldn't it be nice to have the discussion, make some decisions, and have a policy in place before something bites us in the ass instead of trying to scramble around and fix it afterward? Maybe just once?
 
2013-11-20 06:02:15 PM  

BizarreMan: I'm wondering how they will determine the number of passengers in the vehicle.  Based on seats that appear to be occupied?  What if I'm carrying a large heavy bag in the passenger seat.  Will it think that's a person?


You know how when you sit in a seat and the car goes "bong-bong-bong-bong!" because your seatbelt isn't fastened? That.
 
2013-11-20 06:25:38 PM  

dittybopper: OK, so it's pretty obvious you don't really have a clue here.

First, a bit of my background:


i159.photobucket.com
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-20 06:57:22 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Zeb Hesselgresser:
My god... conservative humor that's actually pretty funny.
Has the world gone topsy turvy?


Heh, what I thought. I actually laughed.
 
2013-11-20 08:36:09 PM  

jjorsett: Gyrfalcon: James!: By the end of the year they MAYdecide to IFthey will advance  RESEARCH into technology to enable V2V communication between vehicles.

No mandate, the technology doesn't even exist yet.

But let's all freak out and panic and accuse the government of violating our rights now anyway!!!

Wouldn't it be nice to have the discussion, make some decisions, and have a policy in place before something bites us in the ass instead of trying to scramble around and fix it afterward? Maybe just once?


Sure, but can we have a discussion, make decisions, and implement a policy based on rational thinking and not on paranoid freakouts? That research could go in a lot of other directions, some of which we may need, so panicking about how it MIGHT be misused and shutting it down based on that fear would be a really bad idea.

For instance, if we had freaked out about how satellite technology MIGHT have been misused, we'd never have developed any of it, and would likely now be under Soviet rule, having let them go ahead with their tech (however half-assed that was) while we pondered how best to proceed without potentially violating anyone's rights or having tech that could be misused in any way. Sometimes, you need to parallel your policies and your plans.
 
2013-11-20 09:47:31 PM  

dittybopper: justtray: James!: dittybopper: James!: I know what your name means, it doesn't make stories like this any less paranoid rambling.

Paranoid ramblings like those of the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-ag en cys-wider-reach.html

That article has nothing to do with the government using technology that doesn't exist to monitor your trips to arbys.

Ignore him, he's a moron.

Yes, because the NSA isn't actually pulling all of the metadata from your phone calls, e-mails, and texts and it isn't building a huge facility in Utah to store and analyze all that data.

That's just a figment of my imagination.

And V2V is going to use magical frequencies and modulation techniques that will only be able to be used for its intended purpose and it won't be physically possible for the government to intercept that information and store it.  It's just going to be impossible.  Just like it is impossible for EZPass to be used for purposes other than collecting tolls.


You might remember, but I tend to agree with you on most of this "Keep out of my business" attitude.

That said, I've been rethinking it more lately.  Soon, the issue will be that we're drowning in data, that the easiest way to flag someone is conspicuous absence from the big participation network we live in today.  So I say... let em bite of as much as they want, it only makes regular folks more and more anonymous and obscure.

A guy with a police planted GPS on his car driving back and forth from city to city can be used to find drug dealers and gang connection patterns.

A million people, driving from home to the city to work to home to the beach to god knows where, is just noise.
 
2013-11-20 10:12:19 PM  

BeesNuts: A million people, driving from home to the city to work to home to the beach to god knows where, is just noise.



The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20 13 0805

And this is based on the databases and domestic blanket spying the government has done on 340+ million Americans.

How hard can it be to filter out the noise out of those 1 million drivers so you can focus on the 100k or so who might be up to no good based on data already collected?
 
2013-11-20 11:22:10 PM  
By the time you hear about it, they've already been doing it.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/19/report-n-j-man-discovers-e-zpa s s-is-tracked-all-over-nyc/
 
2013-11-21 12:14:34 AM  
Noise ain't what it used to be what with them big processor thingamajigs they got nowadays
 
2013-11-21 01:26:16 AM  

Vectron: Oh yeah. They are always so quick on the case!
And criminals won't know how to disable tracking.


Yeah, LoJack is a miserable failure.
 
2013-11-21 01:52:54 AM  

dr_blasto: cman: dr_blasto: dittybopper: cman: Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils working out great for us?

What makes you so sure we manage elect the lesser of two evils?  I mean, if you think that's the case, than you would have to admit that Bush was less evil than Kerry.

I think it's more accurate to say that we elect evil, and neither is lesser, they are just evil in different ways.

We all know, both sides are bad and equivalent.

One side is more evil than the other. It doesn't matter because they are both still evil. The fact that we Americans can live happily and proud knowing that evil was elected is kinda farked up.

Americans don't vote rationally. They vote single-issue "ABORTION" "GUNS" "SAFETY NET" or they vote team politics.

That is how it is. People look at any one of those items and see absolutes: "gun laws are akin to locking us up in FEMA camps, all freedoms are lost!" "Abortion is murder. You either outlaw it or you're condoning murder." "You cut welfare, you don't care if kids starve to death on the streets."

Team politics: "stupid libtard. I like this law because it pisses you off."

Figure a way to get around that shiat, then you've solved a big part of the puzzle. I don't think it will be solved. I see too many people who, in normal day-to-day conversation, are completely rational, thoughtful and in many cases actually very bright. If Obama, Obamacare, Tea Party or the like comes up, watch out. The same smart people repeat bullshiat and lies and batshiat insane conspiracy.

It just is and we deal with it.


In a first-past-the-post system such as we have for most federal elections, voting for the lesser of two evils is mathematically optimal - that is, your highest probability of a favorable outcome is to vote either for the candidate most likely to win or the candidate second most likely to win, even if the third-most-likely candidate is overwhelmingly superior. The top two candidates have to be almost precisely identical for that to break down. (I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this which this comment box is too small to contain.)

Fixing that system requires voting-system reform - IRV, approval voting, or really almost any alternative that allows you to express "I want candidate A to win, but if A has no chance, I'd rather B than C" at the ballot box. And since both major parties benefit from the FPTP duopoly, that pretty much requires the first move take the form of citizen initiatives. (Those typically have the problem of being beholden to big money, of course, but at least there's a chance.)
 
2013-11-21 07:22:58 AM  
Even before he got elected, I found his stances on Civil Liberties alarming. President Obama simply cannot be the "trust me" President and not just because I think white people inherently distrust black men.

We've had too many years of the government, or any corporation who thinks they're entitled, invading our privacy. And for all the ways we're told it's for our own good, none of it ever is.

President Obama has confirmed my worse fears about his thoughts on privacy. He really doesn't believe we're entitled to privacy. His view seems to be only by being a "good citizen" do you deserve any of the benefits he determines you should get. In his view, at most you deserve is to be left alone, but in his world, just like with Bush, everyone is a suspect, everyone is a criminal.

It's pathetic and it's creepy. And extra weird coming from someone who I thought would be better than the Bush/Rove/Cheney cabal. I find his views on privacy and liberty appalling. No wonder he scares the shiat out of white people. He definitely scares the crap of me. I've never been a fan girl, but I did vote for him twice. He narrowly beat out McCain with me and Romney was a no-go from jump.

He has been no better or worse than any of the others. I expected more. I am very disappointed. Kinda like this lady:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/20/cnbc_town_hall_que st ioner_to_obama_im_exhausted_of_defending_you.html
 
2013-11-21 10:46:05 AM  

Giltric: BeesNuts: A million people, driving from home to the city to work to home to the beach to god knows where, is just noise.


The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20 13 0805

And this is based on the databases and domestic blanket spying the government has done on 340+ million Americans.

How hard can it be to filter out the noise out of those 1 million drivers so you can focus on the 100k or so who might be up to no good based on data already collected?


Increasingly difficult the more noise there is.  And we're talking about adding an entirely new datastream to their already complex algorithms.

It's about the noise floor, as well as the noise level in the data.  This kind of shiat, blanket collection of cell phone and email metadata in a country that makes more and more phone calls and sends more and more emails and texts year after year, blanket collection of millions upon millions of hours worth of vehicle position data... it *dramatically* raises the noise floor.

And when the noise floor for the data you want gets too high, you start chasing other signals altogether, like taking a closer look at the 25 thousand people who don't own cell phones instead of the 250 million who do.
 
Displayed 185 of 185 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report