Yeah, it took me a while to understand this behavior. However, it seems you can make a face mask to protect against CV-19 using toilet paper. Please do your research, I found too many links. In the situation you don't have a proper mask, a plastic mask, with holes, to keep toilet paper on your face may safe your life these days.
Come back to the ground. It is easier if you take some steps to evolve. Find a job in a bar, spa, shop, cleaning, or so. Those jobs do not require a CV or ref letter. Then, you may get enough money to pay a room or basement. Once you are self sufficient, work hard to get further in you plan.
While I find your answer very helpful. Now I first search with Qliqz and DDG coding related stuff! It is almost impossible nowadays to find an accurate technical result out of so many adds with Google.
I do use DDG a lot, but I still have to resort to GG almost 50% of my search when I don't get meaningful results. So I think there is still a lot of work to do before someone can really fully migrate to DDG. My 50c.
I support your statement 100%. Lets analyze a simple problem. What happen if you throw a mannequin in front of a truck? If it stop then there is a very easy way to pirate them. Human are always needed in very complex decision making circumstances.
Pirating trucks with humans in them is not much more difficult. Humans also tend to stop when you put obstacles in front of them and I doubt they would defend their cargo if a gun is waved in front of them. The reason that highway robbery is not common today is not because it's difficult to do.
The autonomous truck will trigger an alert when it's forced to make an emergency stop, and continually record its surroundings and broadcast its position. A watchdog process will note that the vehicle has failed to reach the next waypoint in the expected amount of time.
Sure, and that could happen now, but if I had to stereotype drivers(which is how criminals frequently operate), truckers would be the last kind of person I would want to mess with. Surely a huge percentage of truckers, especially overnight truckers, are packing heat.
Like it or not these things are done at the will of the people of the country; they could vote to change it, or vote in people who would change it but they won't. It's horrible and unacceptable to you, and to me, but not to your (technically, our, but I can't vote in the UK due to residency requirements) fellow countrymen.
Humans fear devastating but statistically unlikely things disproportionately to their chance of happening, and will do basically anything to avoid them. Terrorism is such an example, and surveillance is a consequence.
Thing is, if the people of the UK decide it's an unacceptable tradeoff they will vote to change it, and it will change. Just look at, lord have mercy, Brexit. It's in everyone's hands. That's not true of a billionaire's discretionary fund.
Exactly my point. I just was been sarcastic (sorry). We believe they will do the best for us. But all this things happen all the time under the table. What I meant is that we don't like this things happening but we wont probably do much to change it.
My 5c here. Maybe they just don't have much to do, so they need to justify their salaries, and they need to have some presence in the WWW to let us know that they are out there.
Hmmm. I'm not so sure. The EU parliament is usually pretty savvy on civil rights and freedom issues like this. I'm genuinely surprised that this law passed.
However, it's hard to fathom the EU parliament sometimes because it's such a broad and diverse bunch of people and interests forced into such a small political space.
If someone asked me to play devils advocate for this decision, I'd probably appeal to people's fear of foreign disinformation campaigns and the impact they're having on western democracies. I could probably cobble together a semi-compelling argument about how Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, have inadvertently handed the enemies of the west the most powerful propaganda tool in all of human history, and those enemies are using it to great effect. Or how marketing companies have convinced millions of parents worldwide to not vaccinate their children through the internet. Or how organisations like Monsanto astroturf the web and misquote or misrepresent scientific reports or news articles to make it seem like Greenpeace promote and advocate using DDT.
I'd then go on to argue that information can and must be free to share, but nefarious misinformation should not be free from punishment nor protected by law. And so, the age of anonymous and unaccountable publishing platforms must come to an end. If they don't want to be held accountable for the content they publish, then that's fine. But that just means we restrict the type of content they're allowed to publish. After all, we have advertising standards that the press and broadcasters adhere to. We have rules around when and how "traditional" media can report on politics. So the Youtubes, Twitters, Reddits, and Facebooks of the world can either fall in line with those rules, or carry on as they are but simply refrain from anything that could be perceived as advertising or political reporting... which is pretty much everything except dick picks I think.
Now, I'm pretending to defend this law. Don't assume I believe any of what I just said. I actually think this law abhorrent. And while I do have concerns about the unrestrained power and influence of the web, I don't think this law is the answer to my concerns. But if I put my mind to selling this law to people who don't know as much about the web as I do, I think this kind of argument would be effective. On some people at least. And MEP's aren't technical people. They're political people. And I think it would be pretty easy to scare them into backing this law whilst appealing to their sense of justice, fairness, and honesty.
> I'd then go on to argue that information can and must be free to share, but nefarious misinformation should not be free from punishment nor protected by law.
I'd argue that 80% of statements made by political actors are about spreading misinformation (or fake news), misinterpreted (misreading latest wikileaks reports) or deliberate lies to drive a point home (immigrants are driving the UK economy down!). For example when the US reps states "we found nuclear guns in Iraq" is it a valid statement or nefarious misinformation. Does prior experience by an actor amount for anything? Who gets to decide?
Here "another way to read this: to theorize about these hypothetical scenarios and how to escape", then open business for rich people that will always feel fear from the poor people. Even if it is just poor people. Then you will make money!!!
