Just where will that be experienced in the real world? All I see is a mile or more of blocked lanes for two guys sitting on the tailgate of a pickup...
Or are they testing how the computers can deal with something that just doesn't compute?
My first real job saw me grow through the company over 14 years. Since then I've done a 2 year contracting position and a 3 year stint at a 3rd company. I will personally always keep an open ear in case that "perfect" job comes along, but I go into any new position with the intention of being there long term (ideally the rest of my career). My average at given position is about 2.75 years which seems to appeal to prospective employers as they see a lot of resumes with 6-12 month jobs and they get concerned about their ROI.
I'm now looking at a new position in a different company where the SVP has been there for 21 years and the Lead that I'd be working with has been there 15 years. As a prospective employee I find that a bonus as it suggests that A) the company is worth being at long term and B) it's probably not a meat grinder.
Your argument that "Closed source bugs are found in never years" is the definition of "quickly" most everyone would call strange.
I made no such argument and I made no argument for closed source. My argument was/is purely against the myth of OSS being better/safer than closed source just by the virtue that it can be looked at. That isn't true both because smart people miss bugs (especially they they occur due to separate parts of a large project interacting with each other) all the time and it makes the assumption that people are actively looking at it for flaws.
What is true is that the end user has the ability to review it themselves, fix it if they find problems, and support/modify it beyond what the developer(s) does as they see fit. OSS is a good thing and it has many advantages over closed options, but people trying to spread the "belief" that OSS is somehow safer is no better than those that used to talk about how Macs were more secure than any other platform.
If you've been following OpenSSL Heartbleed coverage, you know that the project has only had one full-time developer working on it. Since Heartbleed (a recent discovery, you'll recall) they've discovered more holes to close such as this one. I'd call less than two months since more eyes started staring at OpenSSL "quickly."
Are you seriously arguing that this one developer is the only person that ever looked at the code? That goes counter to your original implied assertion that because it's OSS then "many skilled eyes DO converge on the code". You can't have it both ways, either there are lots of people looking at the code or there aren't.
How many people actually looked at the code is irrelevant though. Your original assertion was that OSS is somehow magically safer/better because "many skilled eyes" look at it. The reality, however, is that in complex projects there will always be bugs that even the most skilled will miss unless they know exactly what they are looking for. The source being open or closed makes no difference in that regard.
open source has one strength, it's that when many skilled eyes DO converge on the code it can be tested and fixed far more quickly
Did you even read the summary? They believe that this flaw has existed since 1998. You have a very strange definition of "quickly" if 16 years falls into that category.
I'm all for OSS, but people like you that continue to trot out this tripe aren't helping it. The benefit isn't that there all these mythical "skilled eyes" looking at the code, it's that you can look at the code.
Last time I looked, the Fed is Constitutionally required to regulate trade between the states. This isnt going to be a matter of states rights and wont be their decision.
There is no such requirement. They are just granted the power to do so.
Furthermore this is about trade/sales within the state. None of these laws prevent you from buying a Tesla in another state and then taking it back to and registering it in your home state. This is about how the cars can be sold within a given state. So yes it does have a State's rights aspect and is in the State's rights to pass such laws as they see fit until such a time as it is contested and ruled on by the state's supreme court and/or SCOTUS.
They filter/firewall residential DHCP service to keep you from running servers (http, https, ftp etc) but they don't tell you this directly.
The only port I've found blocked is SMTP. I ran servers on 22, 80, and 443 plus others for a long time before I just got tired of my logs filling up with people trying to break in. I still run the servers but just moved them all to different ports to cut down the noise.
Also, they have pretty crappy traffic management so even though I pay for 25/25Mbps connection, I can pretty much count on only getting that when speed checking on their servers. Any real traffic can never approach that, even in aggregate.
No problems there either. I frequently actually get higher rates than I'm actually paying for and have been seeing that on all the various plans I've had over the years. I'll see sustained rates (30+ seconds) about 2-5Mb higher than my "limit", but I'll see spikes (2-5s) 10-15Mb over.
I have a lot of complaints about Verizon and FiOS, but the Internet portion of the service has always been top notch for me and is the only reason they keep getting my money (no one else that serves my neighborhood can compete with the speeds/price Verizon offers).
I'll be the contrarian here and state the belief that this ruling isn't so good.
The major issue, of course, is that there is massive abuse to the system, but if you look at what the system is supposed to do I think this ruling turns things more decidedly in the favor of large companies.
The idea of the patent system was that anyone could patent their grand idea and then have legal backing to protect it in court from someone that uses the idea without consent. The filing fees were also designed to be low to keep the barrier of entry low enough that "the little guy" could get the same protection as the big corporations.
Prior to this ruling (ignoring the shake downs by trolls) an individual or small company had a chance of winning a patent case against much larger entities (motions and legal wrangling aside) as the process of discovery forces the defendant to show their cards and prove they aren't infringing with no upfront cost to the plaintiff.
With this ruling, if you come up with the next great search algorithm (software patent absurdity aside) and Bing/Google/Yahoo steals it you now have to foot the bill for the discovery. Without the court order you also aren't going to get very far in that process as they aren't exactly going to welcome you into their office, sit you down at a console, and give you access to their code.
So what this ruling does, in my opinion, is give the larger companies the right to violate patents from smaller entities with near impunity. It also (as someone suggested further down regarding OSS projects) gives rise to a whole new possible "reverse-patent" trolling business scheme.
Basically this ruling, I think, has made things worse.
If informative page or site decides to screw you over, you're the one boned. Not the site.
Very little information on the web that the average person would access (e.g. not something really obscure) is only going to be found on one site. There are other places to get the same information. More specifically, most of the worst offenders of javascript and ad garbage are just blogs regurgitating information from more reputable sites. So you as the user are not getting boned at all by moving on to better places.
If enough people get fed up with a sites practices (formatting, 1 paragraph per page click throughs, javascript crap, ads, etc..) then either the site will resolve the problems that keep people away or they will disappear into the cruft of the internet like so many crappy sites before them.
The real problem is that "we" want everything on the internet to be free to "us", but it costs someone time and resources to put it there. The paywall model failed a long time ago for average sites (yes there are still some around, but not nearly like it was in the late 90s) and ads are what sprung up to try to fill the revenue void. The site owners have every bit as much of a right to want to recover their costs (and hopefully make a bit of a profit) for their work as anyone else does for the work they do. How long do you think the company you work for would keep going if none of it's customers paid for it's product/services?
Ooo! Outsiders worked so well before! Snow-den! Snow-den! What fun.
If youi're taking a snipe at contractors vs govt personnel here on this one, there really isn't much a difference in the loyalty or trustworthiness of the two.
If you're working on something security related, you have to sign the same forms saying you're liable to the same laws and penalties if you divulge secrets, etc.
It isn't like the govt. worker is held to any standards higher than the contractor is, if working on the same system/data.
And a secret clearance background check isn't any more thorough for a govt employee than it is for a contractor, they pretty much use the same exact methods and entities for them.
All true, but at least we'd be paying the Fed employee less to screw us over. I did a stint as a DoD contractor and was paid a little more than twice what a Fed doing the same work (in the same group) was getting paid. And I was getting about a quarter of what was going to my contracting company for the position. Hell, given that math I'd be more worried about disgruntled Feds than contractors
In principle I agree with everything you said except that. If you are doing a burnout that means power is already going to the wheels and therefore the clutch is already engaged.
What you are thinking of there is what launch control systems help with (engaging the transmission at the optimal time for the best off the line start) and all of the cars I'm familiar with that have such an option also use transmission and drive line components that can handle torque values much greater than the engine (from the factory) can provide. I expect constant use, however, would shorten the lifespan of wear components (clutch, transmission fluid, etc..) considerably though.
I don't think that's really true, at least not in the near term.
Years ago I had something simple made out of steel at a local machine shop and it cost be a bloody fortune for something simple. That's the kind of stuff this will be replacing for the near term. The one off relatively simple things is where something like this printer comes into play and (good) machine shops don't live off of that type of work. What you are talking about is the higher volume and higher skill machining and that will not be replaced anytime soon by a ~$1500 machine. Hell it already hasn't been replaced by the $300,000 machines. Just look at the RepRap itself. We've had that for a few years now and I remember some of the same claims about plastic items, but people still buy all kinds of plastic crap because it can be made quicker, cheaper, and better by the places that specialize in it.
Besides all that, are your ready to trust a DIY printer to build you the barrel of a gun, a new head for your engine, or any other item that has to deal with high stress loads? If so, please stay away from me when you use them
Over time the technology will improve (assuming IP law doesn't get in the way) and of course there will come a time when there is a shift away from manual labor (as is the case with all technology), but my point is that even those machinists that are starting their apprenticeships now don't need to give it up and go learn CAD as there is going to be plenty of work for them for quite some time yet.
Unless the button magically disables itself on DOT roads, you're not going to see it in a production car.
The GT-R (at least the original, I haven't continued to follow it) limited itself unless the GPS told it you were at a known race track and if I recall correctly one of the recent Mustangs required an extra or special key to enable it's full abilities. So it is possible to limit it's functionality in some way (read: limit their liability when you do something stupid).
The driver was a pro. Come back when you've raced something more than your rusty old 70s Datsun.
You realize that there are many classes of cars in pro racing? You realize that each class (and even cars within a class) have different needs of the driver? Yes the basic concepts and principles hold true throughout, but how the vehicles handle those principles can be vastly different. Unless the guy was a Prototype driver his pro experience has little practical application to the CGT.
Also, as a "pro" he should have had the respect for the vehicle to not drive it like that in that environment (hell he should have known better than to drive any car like that in that environment).
That being said, the Carrera GT was manufactured in 2004, when car electronics where simply not that good.
That's not true. We have a 2001 996 C4 (~1/4 of the price of the CGT) with PSM (Porsche's stability system) and it is exceptionally good at what it is supposed to do. The problem with such systems is that they are always counter operative to driving aggressively. It's argued by the purists in the Porsche community, but PSM changed the 911 for the better as a daily driver as the cars with it are far less likely to swap ends on you. On the track, however, it has to be turned off to get the most from the car (unfortunately in the AWD models you can never fully turn it off).
So in 2004 the CGT could have had a very capable system, but they chose not to add it because it wasn't appropriate to the purpose of the car. The car is fully controllable and perfectly safe. You just have to understand what you are driving and pay absolute attention to it. It's not like we are talking about a Honda that needs to be "safe" in the hands of the least common denominator. We are talking about a $400k+ (new) purpose built car sold in very small numbers.
This case was simply a matter of someone that did not understand/respect the car doing something stupid (doubly so since he is supposedly a race driver already).
Actually no that is not why ABS is there. As you said, you can't cheat physics and removing the brakes (no matter how much of a fractional amount of time) is not going to make you stop faster.
The point of ABS is to prevent skidding which gives you better control during the braking maneuver. Once your wheels break traction and start skidding, nothing you do with your steering wheel is going to change a damn thing. The idea of ABS it to keep you from skidding so that you are still able to control the car (e.g. swerve to avoid the object that caused you to brake suddenly).
All you need to incentivize spending money wisely is privatization; if you waste money you suffer consequences (get fired),
I'm not saying the other guy is right, but you've never held a real corporate job have you? Waste is rampant in all major companies and the executives responsible for it don't get fired (they may leave for "family reasons", but they take their bonuses and parachutes with them).
The problem with Michael's argument is that just because a company is in the red doesn't automatically stop waste. In fact in some cases it makes it worse as all the little fiefdoms within continue to fight for their piece regardless of how it impacts the rest of the company or if they really need it.
Countries like France and Germany have larger economies than the UK so could trivially be doing the same kind of blanket spying GCHQ has been doing but they don't.
International spying is not a trivial thing that is solved purely by money. China, Russia, the UK, and the USA are the only major players because they are the ones that have been doing it for a long time (China is the upstart, but there are multiple reasons for their quick up take beyond just money) and continue to focus on it.
I would agree that some of those countries focus their resources in other places which indeed impacts the technical ability (both toys and ability to use them effectively) of their agencies, but if they suddenly redirected resources it wouldn't change things in the near term.
So yes I genuinely believe there are countries who don't do what the NSA and GCHQ does, not because they can't,
I'm sorry, but you are childishly naive about human nature if you truly believe that. For it's security a nation needs to know as much as possible about both it's friends and foes. That is an undeniable fact. The question becomes one of balance with the other things that is expected of the government. A central similarity between the main players is that they have allowed (willingly or not) their governments to go to extreme ends for "safety".
I would also point out that a few months ago the average American would have (equally naively) argued that the US doesn't go to the levels that has now been made clear. Just because a spy agency hasn't been caught doing such things doesn't mean that they aren't doing it and to trust that they aren't is sticking your head in the sand.
Pretending "they're just jealous that they can't do this" which is what you're basically implying just gives them an excuse that is not valid and that they do not deserve.
I'm not pretending anything. The whole point of spying is to get as much data as you can about the target. That's it. Nothing more. The problem comes into when there is little or no oversight to control how far that goes. In the US the oversight (such that it is) isn't ruled by some moral compass (and I doubt it is in most other places either). Such oversight is done through politics so each decision comes down to either "how can I benefit" or "how will this hurt me" in regards to the political career. There is no room for purity in successful politics or spying.
The main difference is that this is happening on Brazilian soil.
Actually I think the main difference is technical superiority. If the <insert country upset about the NSA that also has their own spying programs> had the same capabilities as the US, does anyone in the real world really believe that they wouldn't be doing the same damn thing? In espionage you don't say "well we could tap the phones of the leader of the target country/organization, but that wouldn't be nice so we'll just tap the low level people instead". The whole point of what any of these agencies do is to get as deep into their target as possible.
I'm not excusing some of the things the NSA has done. I'm just pointing out that there is no large scale government out there that doesn't have a spying program and those spying programs are equally as greedy as those in the US (even if they aren't as capable).
When you get clocked doing 20 over and you tell the cop that your speedometer is broken let me know if their words aren't "Tell it to a judge."
By saying that to the cop you are showing that you are aware of the situation which makes you at fault since you are showing prior knowledge. That's different than getting your speedo calibrated after the ticket and finding it under reporting. Unless they can find evidence to the contrary the reasonable assumption of the later case is that you had no way to know it was broken.
You also still end up with a ticket and a mark on your driving record, because again you assumed responsibility for anything wrong with the car by driving it.
I'm in VA and had a period in my younger days where I saw far too much of the inside of my local traffic courts. As such I can say that if you came to court with certified documentation that your speedometer was under reporting most judges would let you off (especially if you also brought receipts showing it was corrected). In a few cases the judge would do the math based on your calibration report and reduce the ticket to what you "thought" you were doing. I never saw such a case where the judge stuck them with the original ticket.
Change gthe oil in my car, add radiator fluid, fix a tire. I also know how to unclog a drain.
There was a day when those things were difficult and specialized but the tools have been made easier to use and more common over time. The same will happen with programming (and has been happening since the first program was written).
So if coding is so routine, then everyone should know how to do.
PS: A lot of effort has been made to allow the masses to code. COBOL, VB/VBA come to mind. If it is so mechanical why the effort?
There is a difference between framing a wall in an otherwise finished house and framing the house itself. There is a difference between changing your oil and rebuilding your engine. Just because some tasks in a job really are (or should be) simple enough that anyone with a clue and the inclination can do it doesn't mean that there isn't still room for the specialists and more experienced non-specialists to do the heavy lifting.
That doesn't mean that everyone can or should code, but that doesn't mean people should fear writing a little bit of it when they find a need just like they shouldn't fear patching a hole in their drywall.
The only reason the equivalent of changing your oil isn't routine in coding is that people believe it's some mystical thing that they can't do. When it's really simple for them to "paint the walls" without having to "build the whole house" they'll do it (even if the rest of us professionals have an aneurysm over the drips and splatters). They just need the simple tools and understanding which starts with education.
Verizon started rolling out FIOS in Massachusetts and did deploy it to a number of communities but then just stopped.
It's worse than that in some places. Verizon laid the lines literally to my parents property line but decided not to go any farther even though the rest of the houses beyond that point all had signed the agreement that brought FiOS into the sub-division. So this is a case where you have half a sub-division with access to FiOS and half without.
Interestingly Verizon claimed that it was due to people not signing up in the numbers that the agreement promised, but that was at least partially due to the majority of the houses what wanted it were beyond the point where they packed it in. My dad even offered to foot the bill to have them do the last 25' to his house but they weren't interested.
except for real state secrets, where it could be longer).
And just how much of what the NSA does do you think isn't categorized as "state secrets"? Who is going to judge what really is a state secret? The same ones that approved the things we're already complaining about?
All such a law would do is make clueless people feel better, give incumbents a "see what I did for your benefit" talking point, and generate more work and cost for government offices to comply with it (even the ones that still aren't being honest).
I'm not saying that I wouldn't want such a thing to exist, i'm just pointing out the reality that it won't have the desired effect and will in fact just result in a lot of waste.
Slashdot Mirror
and busy construction crews
Just where will that be experienced in the real world? All I see is a mile or more of blocked lanes for two guys sitting on the tailgate of a pickup...
Or are they testing how the computers can deal with something that just doesn't compute?
My first real job saw me grow through the company over 14 years. Since then I've done a 2 year contracting position and a 3 year stint at a 3rd company. I will personally always keep an open ear in case that "perfect" job comes along, but I go into any new position with the intention of being there long term (ideally the rest of my career). My average at given position is about 2.75 years which seems to appeal to prospective employers as they see a lot of resumes with 6-12 month jobs and they get concerned about their ROI.
I'm now looking at a new position in a different company where the SVP has been there for 21 years and the Lead that I'd be working with has been there 15 years. As a prospective employee I find that a bonus as it suggests that A) the company is worth being at long term and B) it's probably not a meat grinder.
Your argument that "Closed source bugs are found in never years" is the definition of "quickly" most everyone would call strange.
I made no such argument and I made no argument for closed source. My argument was/is purely against the myth of OSS being better/safer than closed source just by the virtue that it can be looked at. That isn't true both because smart people miss bugs (especially they they occur due to separate parts of a large project interacting with each other) all the time and it makes the assumption that people are actively looking at it for flaws.
What is true is that the end user has the ability to review it themselves, fix it if they find problems, and support/modify it beyond what the developer(s) does as they see fit. OSS is a good thing and it has many advantages over closed options, but people trying to spread the "belief" that OSS is somehow safer is no better than those that used to talk about how Macs were more secure than any other platform.
If you've been following OpenSSL Heartbleed coverage, you know that the project has only had one full-time developer working on it. Since Heartbleed (a recent discovery, you'll recall) they've discovered more holes to close such as this one. I'd call less than two months since more eyes started staring at OpenSSL "quickly."
Are you seriously arguing that this one developer is the only person that ever looked at the code? That goes counter to your original implied assertion that because it's OSS then "many skilled eyes DO converge on the code". You can't have it both ways, either there are lots of people looking at the code or there aren't.
How many people actually looked at the code is irrelevant though. Your original assertion was that OSS is somehow magically safer/better because "many skilled eyes" look at it. The reality, however, is that in complex projects there will always be bugs that even the most skilled will miss unless they know exactly what they are looking for. The source being open or closed makes no difference in that regard.
open source has one strength, it's that when many skilled eyes DO converge on the code it can be tested and fixed far more quickly
Did you even read the summary? They believe that this flaw has existed since 1998. You have a very strange definition of "quickly" if 16 years falls into that category.
I'm all for OSS, but people like you that continue to trot out this tripe aren't helping it. The benefit isn't that there all these mythical "skilled eyes" looking at the code, it's that you can look at the code.
Last time I looked, the Fed is Constitutionally required to regulate trade between the states. This isnt going to be a matter of states rights and wont be their decision.
There is no such requirement. They are just granted the power to do so.
Furthermore this is about trade/sales within the state. None of these laws prevent you from buying a Tesla in another state and then taking it back to and registering it in your home state. This is about how the cars can be sold within a given state. So yes it does have a State's rights aspect and is in the State's rights to pass such laws as they see fit until such a time as it is contested and ruled on by the state's supreme court and/or SCOTUS.
They filter/firewall residential DHCP service to keep you from running servers (http, https, ftp etc) but they don't tell you this directly.
The only port I've found blocked is SMTP. I ran servers on 22, 80, and 443 plus others for a long time before I just got tired of my logs filling up with people trying to break in. I still run the servers but just moved them all to different ports to cut down the noise.
Also, they have pretty crappy traffic management so even though I pay for 25/25Mbps connection, I can pretty much count on only getting that when speed checking on their servers. Any real traffic can never approach that, even in aggregate.
No problems there either. I frequently actually get higher rates than I'm actually paying for and have been seeing that on all the various plans I've had over the years. I'll see sustained rates (30+ seconds) about 2-5Mb higher than my "limit", but I'll see spikes (2-5s) 10-15Mb over.
I have a lot of complaints about Verizon and FiOS, but the Internet portion of the service has always been top notch for me and is the only reason they keep getting my money (no one else that serves my neighborhood can compete with the speeds/price Verizon offers).
Technically that fad was pushing them into rivers/canals.
I'll be the contrarian here and state the belief that this ruling isn't so good.
The major issue, of course, is that there is massive abuse to the system, but if you look at what the system is supposed to do I think this ruling turns things more decidedly in the favor of large companies.
The idea of the patent system was that anyone could patent their grand idea and then have legal backing to protect it in court from someone that uses the idea without consent. The filing fees were also designed to be low to keep the barrier of entry low enough that "the little guy" could get the same protection as the big corporations.
Prior to this ruling (ignoring the shake downs by trolls) an individual or small company had a chance of winning a patent case against much larger entities (motions and legal wrangling aside) as the process of discovery forces the defendant to show their cards and prove they aren't infringing with no upfront cost to the plaintiff.
With this ruling, if you come up with the next great search algorithm (software patent absurdity aside) and Bing/Google/Yahoo steals it you now have to foot the bill for the discovery. Without the court order you also aren't going to get very far in that process as they aren't exactly going to welcome you into their office, sit you down at a console, and give you access to their code.
So what this ruling does, in my opinion, is give the larger companies the right to violate patents from smaller entities with near impunity. It also (as someone suggested further down regarding OSS projects) gives rise to a whole new possible "reverse-patent" trolling business scheme.
Basically this ruling, I think, has made things worse.
If informative page or site decides to screw you over, you're the one boned. Not the site.
Very little information on the web that the average person would access (e.g. not something really obscure) is only going to be found on one site. There are other places to get the same information. More specifically, most of the worst offenders of javascript and ad garbage are just blogs regurgitating information from more reputable sites. So you as the user are not getting boned at all by moving on to better places.
If enough people get fed up with a sites practices (formatting, 1 paragraph per page click throughs, javascript crap, ads, etc..) then either the site will resolve the problems that keep people away or they will disappear into the cruft of the internet like so many crappy sites before them.
The real problem is that "we" want everything on the internet to be free to "us", but it costs someone time and resources to put it there. The paywall model failed a long time ago for average sites (yes there are still some around, but not nearly like it was in the late 90s) and ads are what sprung up to try to fill the revenue void. The site owners have every bit as much of a right to want to recover their costs (and hopefully make a bit of a profit) for their work as anyone else does for the work they do. How long do you think the company you work for would keep going if none of it's customers paid for it's product/services?
If youi're taking a snipe at contractors vs govt personnel here on this one, there really isn't much a difference in the loyalty or trustworthiness of the two.
If you're working on something security related, you have to sign the same forms saying you're liable to the same laws and penalties if you divulge secrets, etc.
It isn't like the govt. worker is held to any standards higher than the contractor is, if working on the same system/data.
And a secret clearance background check isn't any more thorough for a govt employee than it is for a contractor, they pretty much use the same exact methods and entities for them.
All true, but at least we'd be paying the Fed employee less to screw us over. I did a stint as a DoD contractor and was paid a little more than twice what a Fed doing the same work (in the same group) was getting paid. And I was getting about a quarter of what was going to my contracting company for the position. Hell, given that math I'd be more worried about disgruntled Feds than contractors
dump the clutch
In principle I agree with everything you said except that. If you are doing a burnout that means power is already going to the wheels and therefore the clutch is already engaged.
What you are thinking of there is what launch control systems help with (engaging the transmission at the optimal time for the best off the line start) and all of the cars I'm familiar with that have such an option also use transmission and drive line components that can handle torque values much greater than the engine (from the factory) can provide. I expect constant use, however, would shorten the lifespan of wear components (clutch, transmission fluid, etc..) considerably though.
I don't think that's really true, at least not in the near term.
Years ago I had something simple made out of steel at a local machine shop and it cost be a bloody fortune for something simple. That's the kind of stuff this will be replacing for the near term. The one off relatively simple things is where something like this printer comes into play and (good) machine shops don't live off of that type of work. What you are talking about is the higher volume and higher skill machining and that will not be replaced anytime soon by a ~$1500 machine. Hell it already hasn't been replaced by the $300,000 machines. Just look at the RepRap itself. We've had that for a few years now and I remember some of the same claims about plastic items, but people still buy all kinds of plastic crap because it can be made quicker, cheaper, and better by the places that specialize in it.
Besides all that, are your ready to trust a DIY printer to build you the barrel of a gun, a new head for your engine, or any other item that has to deal with high stress loads? If so, please stay away from me when you use them
Over time the technology will improve (assuming IP law doesn't get in the way) and of course there will come a time when there is a shift away from manual labor (as is the case with all technology), but my point is that even those machinists that are starting their apprenticeships now don't need to give it up and go learn CAD as there is going to be plenty of work for them for quite some time yet.
Unless the button magically disables itself on DOT roads, you're not going to see it in a production car.
The GT-R (at least the original, I haven't continued to follow it) limited itself unless the GPS told it you were at a known race track and if I recall correctly one of the recent Mustangs required an extra or special key to enable it's full abilities. So it is possible to limit it's functionality in some way (read: limit their liability when you do something stupid).
The driver was a pro. Come back when you've raced something more than your rusty old 70s Datsun.
You realize that there are many classes of cars in pro racing? You realize that each class (and even cars within a class) have different needs of the driver? Yes the basic concepts and principles hold true throughout, but how the vehicles handle those principles can be vastly different. Unless the guy was a Prototype driver his pro experience has little practical application to the CGT.
Also, as a "pro" he should have had the respect for the vehicle to not drive it like that in that environment (hell he should have known better than to drive any car like that in that environment).
That being said, the Carrera GT was manufactured in 2004, when car electronics where simply not that good.
That's not true. We have a 2001 996 C4 (~1/4 of the price of the CGT) with PSM (Porsche's stability system) and it is exceptionally good at what it is supposed to do. The problem with such systems is that they are always counter operative to driving aggressively. It's argued by the purists in the Porsche community, but PSM changed the 911 for the better as a daily driver as the cars with it are far less likely to swap ends on you. On the track, however, it has to be turned off to get the most from the car (unfortunately in the AWD models you can never fully turn it off).
So in 2004 the CGT could have had a very capable system, but they chose not to add it because it wasn't appropriate to the purpose of the car. The car is fully controllable and perfectly safe. You just have to understand what you are driving and pay absolute attention to it. It's not like we are talking about a Honda that needs to be "safe" in the hands of the least common denominator. We are talking about a $400k+ (new) purpose built car sold in very small numbers.
This case was simply a matter of someone that did not understand/respect the car doing something stupid (doubly so since he is supposedly a race driver already).
That's why ABS is there.
Actually no that is not why ABS is there. As you said, you can't cheat physics and removing the brakes (no matter how much of a fractional amount of time) is not going to make you stop faster.
The point of ABS is to prevent skidding which gives you better control during the braking maneuver. Once your wheels break traction and start skidding, nothing you do with your steering wheel is going to change a damn thing. The idea of ABS it to keep you from skidding so that you are still able to control the car (e.g. swerve to avoid the object that caused you to brake suddenly).
All you need to incentivize spending money wisely is privatization; if you waste money you suffer consequences (get fired),
I'm not saying the other guy is right, but you've never held a real corporate job have you? Waste is rampant in all major companies and the executives responsible for it don't get fired (they may leave for "family reasons", but they take their bonuses and parachutes with them).
The problem with Michael's argument is that just because a company is in the red doesn't automatically stop waste. In fact in some cases it makes it worse as all the little fiefdoms within continue to fight for their piece regardless of how it impacts the rest of the company or if they really need it.
Countries like France and Germany have larger economies than the UK so could trivially be doing the same kind of blanket spying GCHQ has been doing but they don't.
International spying is not a trivial thing that is solved purely by money. China, Russia, the UK, and the USA are the only major players because they are the ones that have been doing it for a long time (China is the upstart, but there are multiple reasons for their quick up take beyond just money) and continue to focus on it.
I would agree that some of those countries focus their resources in other places which indeed impacts the technical ability (both toys and ability to use them effectively) of their agencies, but if they suddenly redirected resources it wouldn't change things in the near term.
So yes I genuinely believe there are countries who don't do what the NSA and GCHQ does, not because they can't,
I'm sorry, but you are childishly naive about human nature if you truly believe that. For it's security a nation needs to know as much as possible about both it's friends and foes. That is an undeniable fact. The question becomes one of balance with the other things that is expected of the government. A central similarity between the main players is that they have allowed (willingly or not) their governments to go to extreme ends for "safety".
I would also point out that a few months ago the average American would have (equally naively) argued that the US doesn't go to the levels that has now been made clear. Just because a spy agency hasn't been caught doing such things doesn't mean that they aren't doing it and to trust that they aren't is sticking your head in the sand.
Pretending "they're just jealous that they can't do this" which is what you're basically implying just gives them an excuse that is not valid and that they do not deserve.
I'm not pretending anything. The whole point of spying is to get as much data as you can about the target. That's it. Nothing more. The problem comes into when there is little or no oversight to control how far that goes. In the US the oversight (such that it is) isn't ruled by some moral compass (and I doubt it is in most other places either). Such oversight is done through politics so each decision comes down to either "how can I benefit" or "how will this hurt me" in regards to the political career. There is no room for purity in successful politics or spying.
The main difference is that this is happening on Brazilian soil.
Actually I think the main difference is technical superiority. If the <insert country upset about the NSA that also has their own spying programs> had the same capabilities as the US, does anyone in the real world really believe that they wouldn't be doing the same damn thing? In espionage you don't say "well we could tap the phones of the leader of the target country/organization, but that wouldn't be nice so we'll just tap the low level people instead". The whole point of what any of these agencies do is to get as deep into their target as possible.
I'm not excusing some of the things the NSA has done. I'm just pointing out that there is no large scale government out there that doesn't have a spying program and those spying programs are equally as greedy as those in the US (even if they aren't as capable).
When you get clocked doing 20 over and you tell the cop that your speedometer is broken let me know if their words aren't "Tell it to a judge."
By saying that to the cop you are showing that you are aware of the situation which makes you at fault since you are showing prior knowledge. That's different than getting your speedo calibrated after the ticket and finding it under reporting. Unless they can find evidence to the contrary the reasonable assumption of the later case is that you had no way to know it was broken.
You also still end up with a ticket and a mark on your driving record, because again you assumed responsibility for anything wrong with the car by driving it.
I'm in VA and had a period in my younger days where I saw far too much of the inside of my local traffic courts. As such I can say that if you came to court with certified documentation that your speedometer was under reporting most judges would let you off (especially if you also brought receipts showing it was corrected). In a few cases the judge would do the math based on your calibration report and reduce the ticket to what you "thought" you were doing. I never saw such a case where the judge stuck them with the original ticket.
Change gthe oil in my car, add radiator fluid, fix a tire. I also know how to unclog a drain.
There was a day when those things were difficult and specialized but the tools have been made easier to use and more common over time. The same will happen with programming (and has been happening since the first program was written).
So if coding is so routine, then everyone should know how to do.
PS: A lot of effort has been made to allow the masses to code. COBOL, VB/VBA come to mind. If it is so mechanical why the effort?
There is a difference between framing a wall in an otherwise finished house and framing the house itself. There is a difference between changing your oil and rebuilding your engine. Just because some tasks in a job really are (or should be) simple enough that anyone with a clue and the inclination can do it doesn't mean that there isn't still room for the specialists and more experienced non-specialists to do the heavy lifting.
That doesn't mean that everyone can or should code, but that doesn't mean people should fear writing a little bit of it when they find a need just like they shouldn't fear patching a hole in their drywall.
The only reason the equivalent of changing your oil isn't routine in coding is that people believe it's some mystical thing that they can't do. When it's really simple for them to "paint the walls" without having to "build the whole house" they'll do it (even if the rest of us professionals have an aneurysm over the drips and splatters). They just need the simple tools and understanding which starts with education.
Verizon started rolling out FIOS in Massachusetts and did deploy it to a number of communities but then just stopped.
It's worse than that in some places. Verizon laid the lines literally to my parents property line but decided not to go any farther even though the rest of the houses beyond that point all had signed the agreement that brought FiOS into the sub-division. So this is a case where you have half a sub-division with access to FiOS and half without.
Interestingly Verizon claimed that it was due to people not signing up in the numbers that the agreement promised, but that was at least partially due to the majority of the houses what wanted it were beyond the point where they packed it in. My dad even offered to foot the bill to have them do the last 25' to his house but they weren't interested.
except for real state secrets, where it could be longer).
And just how much of what the NSA does do you think isn't categorized as "state secrets"? Who is going to judge what really is a state secret? The same ones that approved the things we're already complaining about?
All such a law would do is make clueless people feel better, give incumbents a "see what I did for your benefit" talking point, and generate more work and cost for government offices to comply with it (even the ones that still aren't being honest).
I'm not saying that I wouldn't want such a thing to exist, i'm just pointing out the reality that it won't have the desired effect and will in fact just result in a lot of waste.