genericuser

I agree that democracy depends on transparency, I don't know where you got the idea I thought otherwise. I just stated that sometimes, and I mean sometimes as in not all the time, it is in the best interest of the public to not have all the information.

Alright say there is a pretty decent leader who has a personal trait which would make them unelectable to the public, but really shouldn't in any reasonable situation effect their ability to lead and make decisions. Is it in the public's best interest to know about that trait prior to the election?

Would you mind if I create a strawman of an edge case to test your devotion to the use of the word 'never'?

That is a fairly absolute word, and I tend to doubt you actually mean never.

While I will acknowledge that it is possible parties won't place ads to try and persuade people to support their point of view, I personally would find it amazing considering how many ads are run on TV around any election or vote by special interest groups.

Also regardless of me being a hypocrite you were reading into it. Just because I do something something stupid doesn't mean you should.

While it doesn't make my hypocrisy better, the only assumptions I stated as anything other than personal opinion is that there will be ads by interested parties, and that most people are stupid. In the second post I made I expressed my view of the outcome, I clearly stated it as personal opinion. Your message however tried to state my personal opinion, and did so incorrectly.

And how do they automatically detect the criminal wrongdoing being committed by that car or its occupants? That is the part I don't get. Yes if they decide to look for John Smith, License plate 1AMJ0HN, then they can probably automatically find his car in that footage, and they can watch that footage to see what he was up to. But watching that footage and figuring out if he did anything they can prosecute him for is not a simple task for any computer algorithm I can think of, and would require time to do manually. And with out doing it in an automated manner they can't possibly do this for 'everyone' which means they have to have reason to already suspect the people they do choose.

I see absolutely no way that bringing up the existence of license plate scanners created a situation where there was no slippery slope.

Also the recorded video collection grows to be a ridiculously large amount of data over time, even detecting all video of John Smith's car across the United States will become an expensive task to complete computationally. And for everyone? Well even more expensive.

Add on the concept that camera's will not be covering all of the United States at times, and if you are just using make, model, and color of cars to track people between license plate readers shell games where similar cars rearrange them selves in tunnels or garages will become extremely effective at defeating surveillance if license plate readers are not basically everywhere.

So in spite of you deciding to bring up license plate readers, and explain how they can be used to assist in tracking with airborne surveillance I still fail to see the relevance of how they ensure that 'everyone' will be monitored.

I agree with you, but I do not agree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion here which I would summarize as "If you don't have information about something, that something is bad"

I realize I phrased this in what is probably an offensive way to many, and I apologize I didn't want to spend 20 minutes rewording it so I could figure out how to insult as few people as possible.

I agree it is better to have transparency but honestly, because not all actors (businesses, special interest groups, other countries) are guaranteed to act transparently, sometimes it is actually in the American public's best interest for some level of obfuscation. Is this one of those instances? Hell if I know. Transparency from only one party in an arrangement between many parties has costs as well as benefits is my point, costs which should be considered.

No, and you are really reading a shitload into what I wrote. I didn't actually state my position at all, just state events that will happen. The logical outcome of which I believe would be my position which is the following.

My position was that if the details are made public it won't matter if the trade deal is going to be a good deal or a bad deal for the American public currently. That is due to the fact that American bussiness interests will buy the view points of easily controlled people, twist them to the interests of their view points as they do in many (all?) elections and votes, and the deal will be changed to be categorically worse for the American People in general while being better for specific business interests. I do not think it will be destroyed, just made shittier.

When is an option labeled 'Hilarious twist option' ever a good option to actually do when pursuing serious issues in real life? I never suggested the president was above the law, I made a joke, and I thought I labeled it as such. Apparently not enough though, so here I go the post was a joke, an attempt at humor. I am aware it was probably not very funny, but everyone is so serious that I thought a little on topic humor might lighten things up.

Another thing to consider is as soon as the details are public, we will be assaulted by ad campaigns by various interest groups which this negatively effects telling us why it will ruin our lives. While the general Hacker News population may be too smart to be swayed from reason by these ads, ads like this exist because they work.

A portion of the public will be swayed by the plight of the American Pipe Layers Union or whoever is potentially going to lose a little bit of business as the ads, like others of their kind, will provide them with a partial picture of the deal and telling them why this is horrible, without providing enough context for them to come to a different conclusion.

Some portion of the public outcry when something like this becomes public will be due these special interest groups effectively buying the opinions of the public by telling them what to think in the same manner they usually do.

Hilarious twist option Obama gives WikiLeaks and everyone else the trade deal details, and claims the 100k. He could then just put it back into the government where 100k will not even be noticed, donate to some charity in some sort of PR stunt, or whatever as I am sure there are both better and more entertaining options.

You completely ignored my question to you. I asked how you got to the topic of license plate readers, I know how they work and an explanation of how they work does nothing to answer the question of how you transitioned to that topic.

How did we go from the FBI flying aircraft with video cameras to license plate scanners which scan 'everyone'?

I ask because there is no mention of license plate scanners in any of the parent comments to this, or the article.

Also while I assume by everyone you mean everyone who passes through the field of view of the scanner, and not actually everyone; phrasing things in false absolutes like that does not further your point.

Getting from the admitted targeted surveillance with to 'everyone is being watched' seems like a bit of a slippery slope argument to me.

I think, as you point out, that the overwhelming quantity of Data that would be produced by such an approach prevents this by creating a cost/benefit equilibrium for the FBI on the number of people they monitor with any regularity to build their cases.

I saw an awful lot of of articles similar to these search results a while back, and found it a tad annoying. Then again I guess I must of fallen in with a bad crowd if this is the type of stuff I was exposed to. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...

That all agrees with how I understand the situation as a fellow external non-expert. I just got really frustrated a while back by all the 'Apple invented USB-C' and even the 'Apple basically invented USB-C' headlines. So wanted to applaud someone for choosing the phrasing 'much of the work' which I believe to be a correct statement, and if incorrect only errors slightly on the side of too much credit.

I just want to thank you for qualifying your description of Apple's contribution to USB-C in a correct manner, as opposed to perpetuating the myth that Apple invented USB-C. It's initial conception having come out of the USB 3.1 development by AMD, HP, Intel, and Microsoft. It is refreshing to see someone not spreading the revisionist history that has been popular on this subject.

I have been seeing Thunderbolt as an option on motherboards when I do builds for at least the last three years. But I am generally looking at motherboards in the $200 price range, as the lower end ones are usually lacking connectors and features in ways that are much more important to me than Thunderbolt.

Manufacturers I believe don't usually include it because most PC buyers would not use that feature as a purchasing criteria.

And how they run the interview may influence whether people accept an offer should they make one. While the power is definitely heavily weighted in the interviewer's favor, it is important for them to remember they are trying to find someone they want to work with, and who will want to work with them.

Why not do the parts suited best for paper and a whiteboard on that and the parts suited best for a computer on that. You know give the person both sets of tools and see how they make use of their tools, like they actually will when employed...

"it really helps understanding how the developer thinks when he's trying to solve a problem."

How does it do this over watching them code on computer? Could you please provide examples of how this helps more than say them bringing in their own laptop (being provided with one for use if they don't have one) and you hooking it up to another display and watching what they write as they write it in the same room with them?

When white board coding is required, I really feel it is better suited to allow a fair bit of psuedo code to be used in it. This article basically says they will take into account the lack of things like InteliSense, but their example is of what would be a pretty minor syntactical error.

I mean I guess I fail to understand why if you show that you know the algorithms you are trying to implement, and the data structures needed to do so, what does it matter if you rely heavily on auto complete to give you the correct method calls off of those objects when programming?

I realize a programmer using auto-complete which knows the method signatures well enough to not use auto-complete, will have a slight speed advantage while developing over someone who actually needs auto-complete. But there have to be better ways to test for development speed if that is truly your concern.

Similarly I realize the interviewer would like to see how you respond when you can't remember or don't know something, do you get frazzled and frustrated or do you ask questions. However there are definitely far situations you can create to to watch for these type of reactions than simply expecting someone to know the syntax of a language well enough to write it on a white board.

Honestly what am I missing?

This presumes aquiring large quantities of money is a required motivation for developing new technology for one to be qualified as 'in their right mind'. To me this comes off like saying 'No one in their right mind should be a teacher and give knoweledge to others that they could use to get rich'.

Believe it or not some people enjoy the competition, the challenge of solving an interesting problem you had not previously considered, and over all advancing the technology of the world they live in far more than gaining absurd amounts of monetary wealth.

Well just off the top of my head bin-pickers probably need to have millimeter accuracy when grabbing something so as to get close enough to suction it and not stab through it. Cars on the other hand are not functioning at that level of precision when traveling 70 mph, they are probably not even using that level of precision when parking, and they do not park at 70 mph.

The 24/7 access 365 days a year wasn't mentioned in the article you linked that you said you got 'all this' from. So would you please provide that source. I see them saying it needed to be open during the winter, and in previous reports I read in one of the other links in this thread that he had tried to close it all winter but has more recently had it open some days during the winter.

Also I fail to see how the decline of the areas use would have anything to do with its availability, this isn't a use it or lose it situation. Can you explain how reduced usage of the beach should effect its availability at all?

There are a lot of unsupported statements going on for both sides if I take the ones that they seem to agree on I get something of a narrative like this.

He bought the property.

He kept the beach open similar to the previous owners.

Tried to charge $X amount for parking.

People complained, and the court told him he could only charge $2.

He said well fuck you guys I'll just close the beach.

He won a case to close the beach.

He lost a 2nd case forcing him to open the beach.

He lost a 3rd beach forcing him to open the beach.

He started opening the beach sometimes. Is it more or less than the previous owners? Well this seems to be where the core disagreement is with no real support or evidence provided to the public for either side.

I think he comes off sounding like a dick, especially at the end of that article that quotes him repeatedly which you linked, where he tries to re-frame the issue as one of conservation. You apparently see him as an entitled land owner, we clearly disagree. However if you would like to continue this, which there is no need to as I believe we have reached an impasse I would ask that any numbers you use are ones I can verify. Thank you.

In that it told him he could ONLY charge $2 for parking vs the presumably free (EDIT: incorrect assumption on my part, as previous owners also charged a fee, but I can't find any indication that he was being limited to a lower fee than they charged) parking on the road people had been getting with previous owners....

Effectively the court was allowing him to recoup some of his cost with parking, just not at the rate he wanted.

Edit: Oh your original post referred to one up several more levels, when I wrote this response I thought it referred to the post I replied to, but noticed no significant modifications.

Yes but any of that 500-600k cost which was actually required of him could have easily been known by him at time of purchasing the property. Saying you don't want to pay the required upkeep on something because it only benefits others and not you personally after you get it is pretty assholish.

Well that or whatever they were in gets blown up and you never actually see them die. But explosions have remained a popular death to this day, so they don't really date 80s movies.

Land while probably an inevitable hot topic, is not actually what would classify as a problem for a project that if sees full scale deployment will most surely have government backing thanks to eminent domain. Yes, the project will still be expensive, but any land owner that tries to be a hold out in selling isn't going to prevent the project.

It seemed to use 6.000000000000000444089209850...??? TiB when I tried values.

Did not know such a thing existed, thanks. However as a minor clarification on what you said, after reading over a few descriptions by various providers it is clear however that the insurance itself would have to be purchased by the event organizer and reimbursed through the current payments, as the event insurance cost itself is not covered by event insurance. At least not in any of the lists of nonrefundable reimbursements I am looking at, so it would represent a small amount of money risked by event organizer.

So as long as an event organizer has bought event insurance already, and proves that to Paypal, then yes they should release the money.

If the event 'has' to operate in this manner, how will the event organizer provide refunds should something happen and they have to cancel their event?

I ask because planning an event in my 2nd hand experience of weddings and such usually involves more than a few non-refundable expenses, which seem like they would prevent them from being able to provide a refund to everyone in the event of a cancellation.

I mean it just seems like Paypal's established practice, of tying up event money unless it is proven that the money isn't actually needed and will remain available in case of a charge back, is a pretty reasonable one. I mean I have been written bad checks by roommates for rent before, it is pretty damn hard to get money from people who don't have it so despite taking legal action I still haven't seen any of the money, I feel like Paypal is potentially preventing many instances of this.

Edit: Thinking back on it many of the small events I have attended ask for a $X donation from people, who in return will receive a ticket. This seems like it would get around the issue in the same way Kickstarters which don't deliver avoid the issue.