Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Scary, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Obama, senate commerce committee, John Holdren, Infrastructure Committee, White House Office, commercial vehicles, autonomous vehicle  
•       •       •

1567 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2013 at 1:03 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



185 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 185 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report