You are missing the point of the study. Facts and logic don't matter much. Public opinion will be more important for these cars, because that is what decides
1. the laws the autonomous cars operate under 2. whether enough people buy/use such cars 3. indirectly the algorithms manufacturers choose for these cars
Now public opinion is self-contradictory as per this study. When "news" is put from the perspective of accident victims outside the car, lots of people prefer something completely different from what the "same" people would if the news is from the perspective of a occupant of an autonomous car.
Even if self-driving cars turn out to be so good that they never causes any accidents at all on the road and prevent many, the following possibilities still remain :
1. Journalists, being what they are, misrepresent the situation even when the autonomous car was hit by human drivers 2. Review sites artificially causing such situations and elaborating on the philosophical implications of their results
Being self-contradictory, public opinion is sure to be "wrong" - but that is what is more important than facts.
If by "on site" you mean at the border between inside and outside : that is what I meant by the factor 3.
If you mean "within" : do you have examples where adequate border security frequently couldn't prevent massacres within ? Maybe American guns carried into Canada to cause massacres in Canada , taking Canada as a kind of gun-free zone? Or outside guns used inside "gun free zones" in airports in the US?
Occasionally flaws in border security will be found, but that is no reason to change the way of life if we can learn from it and prevent it from happening in the future. If it happens frequently, we need to deal with it.
Have you bosses finally told you that "removing the 3.5 mm headphone jack is the best idea ever" ? Or you are just hedging your bets in case they tell this to you later?
So they haven't yet told you whether "removing the headphone jack is the greatest idea ever", or "Apple respects the users' choice to use the standard headphone jack".
Or, probably a reading comprehension problem on your part? Just a hunch.
open source is more secure because you can see the code
Did you interpret it as "open source is perfectly secure because you can see the code" ? I earlier didn't think this needs explanation, but from the emphasis you are laying on non-comparison, one would think you interpret "more" as "perfect".
OK, if you point out who is better than OpenSSL in amount and variety of usage along with excellence in security track record, we'll get somewhere.
Usain Bolt's slowness stands on its own. He can't even sprint to the centre of the Milky Way in a whole second. Just because he is faster than all other human , doesn't mean we need to mollycoddle him. This sort of apologist behavior is what is spoiling all athletes.
You are right about needing "good guys with guns to stop them".
But it can be done while respecting the other sensible law about not carrying guns where drunkards abound. It has the added advantage of working in places that are gun-free zones for other reasons. How? Observe the places of frequent easy gun violence - there are 3 factors that together enable the violence :
1. Easy availability of guns and ammunition outside. 2. No guns inside. 3. No proportionate security at the border between outside and inside.
Note that any one of these factors removed, and gun violence becomes extremely difficult. Consider :
1. Schools outside the US have factors 2 and 3 listed above, yet rarely suffer from gun violence.
2. Coffee shops in gun-culture states of the US : They have factors 1 and 3, but not factor 2 so they are safe..
No mad gunman is mad enough to shoot in coffee shops in Florida. The "good guys with guns" will make mincemeat of him before the mad gunman can do much.
3. US-Canadian border : It has factors 1 and 2, but not factor 3. US-canadian border security is armed well enough to stop a mad gunman from the north US to shoot in schools in south Canada.
Now the US has the factor 1 in ample amount. So they just need a large factor 3 too - bars/schools need multi-layer security formation with occasional mock drills. This is the cost of American 2nd Amendment.
If Americans cannot afford this, they cannot afford their 2nd amendment.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than OpenSSL, there are the claims that "open source is more secure because you can see the code"
This has some merit - if you interpret "you can see" as "you can see and show to experts".
Are you saying if OpenSSL, with the same skill of developers / same amount of funding, were closed source - it would have fewer bugs? Or the same/more ease of fixing bugs once known? Or the same/more ease of deploying the fix to diverse systems once fixed ?
Now skill of developers does vary, but it is unknown in closed source. With open source software, you could judge it/fix it by paying for a good review. Security review is a highly specialized job, it is not going to happen just by making the source available.
As for funding, if closed source were any better large software houses would have used the replacement of OpenSSL. Or funded a closed source replacement. Most didn't. Finding fault with OpenSSL (and its open source brethren) is like saying Usain Bolt can't sprint very fast. Otherwise show a closed source competitor with similar usage and less bugs. Preferably at a lower budget, but not necessarily.
"with many eyes all bugs are shallow"
This is vague - "many" and "shallow" are both open to interpretation. But are you saying the fewer the eyes, the shallower the bugs?
The reason for the drug tests is so the people giving their money (taxpayers) have confidence the money is being spent appropriately
OK, how about looking at it like this?
The tax payers, I.e. the wealthy : are not "giving" their money. They are paying. You yourself used the correct word tax "payers" there.
That is not to say that no favour is being done, but it is not by the wealthy. "People", or" voters ", via their trustee the government/representatives in legislation are doing the favour, the giving.
Then why were you harping on it being insignificant? The part of oesophagus exposed to high temperature is insignificant as compared to large areas of muscle growth over a long period of time of high exercise.
It is not that it is insignificant, it is that it is diluted over more body cells, and may be accompanied by other cancer preventing effects of exercise.
The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.
The whole mechanism of muscle building by exercising is kind of about controlled cell breakage - which combined with good diet and rest leads to a better (mostly stronger, likely to be bigger) muscles. In what sense is it insignificant ?
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing the point of the study. Facts and logic don't matter much. Public opinion will be more important for these cars, because that is what decides
1. the laws the autonomous cars operate under
2. whether enough people buy/use such cars
3. indirectly the algorithms manufacturers choose for these cars
Now public opinion is self-contradictory as per this study. When "news" is put from the perspective of accident victims outside the car, lots of people prefer something completely different from what the "same" people would if the news is from the perspective of a occupant of an autonomous car.
Even if self-driving cars turn out to be so good that they never causes any accidents at all on the road and prevent many, the following possibilities still remain :
1. Journalists, being what they are, misrepresent the situation even when the autonomous car was hit by human drivers
2. Review sites artificially causing such situations and elaborating on the philosophical implications of their results
Being self-contradictory, public opinion is sure to be "wrong" - but that is what is more important than facts.
Claim :
I hear there are many dictionaries around, some of them free.
I am not willing to prove my hearing to you, but here is the proof of what I hear : http://www.dictionary.com/.
Further proof, the existence of the word in the said dictionary :
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
I hear there are many dictionaries around, some of them free.
How about you learn what "more" means? And really do it, rather than just pretend. Because I'll know if you haven't.
ON SITE
If by "on site" you mean at the border between inside and outside : that is what I meant by the factor 3.
If you mean "within" : do you have examples where adequate border security frequently couldn't prevent massacres within ? Maybe American guns carried into Canada to cause massacres in Canada , taking Canada as a kind of gun-free zone? Or outside guns used inside "gun free zones" in airports in the US?
Occasionally flaws in border security will be found, but that is no reason to change the way of life if we can learn from it and prevent it from happening in the future. If it happens frequently, we need to deal with it.
You didn't reply what they told you? Is it that "removing the 3.5 mm headphone jack is the best idea ever" ?
This has some merit - if you interpret "you can see" as "you can see and show to experts".
Ok, so what do you think "open source" is not "more secure" than "because you can see the code and show it to experts" ?
Is it not more secure than Jesus Christ ? Or is it not more secure than strawberries ? Or is it not more secure than Andromeda ?
Do you know the meaning of "more" ?
Have you bosses finally told you that "removing the 3.5 mm headphone jack is the best idea ever" ? Or you are just hedging your bets in case they tell this to you later?
So they haven't yet told you whether "removing the headphone jack is the greatest idea ever", or "Apple respects the users' choice to use the standard headphone jack".
Or, probably a reading comprehension problem on your part? Just a hunch.
open source is more secure because you can see the code
Did you interpret it as "open source is perfectly secure because you can see the code" ? I earlier didn't think this needs explanation, but from the emphasis you are laying on non-comparison, one would think you interpret "more" as "perfect".
OK, if you point out who is better than OpenSSL in amount and variety of usage along with excellence in security track record, we'll get somewhere.
Usain Bolt's slowness stands on its own. He can't even sprint to the centre of the Milky Way in a whole second. Just because he is faster than all other human , doesn't mean we need to mollycoddle him. This sort of apologist behavior is what is spoiling all athletes.
OK, so you are saying no one else can do better than OpenSSL, but OpenSSL is bad.
Usain Bolt, the poor sprinter.
You are right about needing "good guys with guns to stop them".
But it can be done while respecting the other sensible law about not carrying guns where drunkards abound. It has the added advantage of working in places that are gun-free zones for other reasons. How? Observe the places of frequent easy gun violence - there are 3 factors that together enable the violence :
1. Easy availability of guns and ammunition outside.
2. No guns inside.
3. No proportionate security at the border between outside and inside.
Note that any one of these factors removed, and gun violence becomes extremely difficult. Consider :
1. Schools outside the US have factors 2 and 3 listed above, yet rarely suffer from gun violence.
2. Coffee shops in gun-culture states of the US : They have factors 1 and 3, but not factor 2 so they are safe..
No mad gunman is mad enough to shoot in coffee shops in Florida. The "good guys with guns" will make mincemeat of him before the mad gunman can do much.
3. US-Canadian border : It has factors 1 and 2, but not factor 3. US-canadian border security is armed well enough to stop a mad gunman from the north US to shoot in schools in south Canada.
Now the US has the factor 1 in ample amount. So they just need a large factor 3 too - bars/schools need multi-layer security formation with occasional mock drills. This is the cost of American 2nd Amendment.
If Americans cannot afford this, they cannot afford their 2nd amendment.
Powertop is one.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than OpenSSL, there are the claims that "open source is more secure because you can see the code"
This has some merit - if you interpret "you can see" as "you can see and show to experts".
Are you saying if OpenSSL, with the same skill of developers / same amount of funding, were closed source - it would have fewer bugs? Or the same/more ease of fixing bugs once known? Or the same/more ease of deploying the fix to diverse systems once fixed ?
Now skill of developers does vary, but it is unknown in closed source. With open source software, you could judge it/fix it by paying for a good review. Security review is a highly specialized job, it is not going to happen just by making the source available.
As for funding, if closed source were any better large software houses would have used the replacement of OpenSSL. Or funded a closed source replacement. Most didn't. Finding fault with OpenSSL (and its open source brethren) is like saying Usain Bolt can't sprint very fast. Otherwise show a closed source competitor with similar usage and less bugs. Preferably at a lower budget, but not necessarily.
"with many eyes all bugs are shallow"
This is vague - "many" and "shallow" are both open to interpretation. But are you saying the fewer the eyes, the shallower the bugs?
I will feel threatened that my unicode spurning /. is being taken away from me. Beware, I will extract revenge from you.
The reason for the drug tests is so the people giving their money (taxpayers) have confidence the money is being spent appropriately
OK, how about looking at it like this?
The tax payers, I.e. the wealthy : are not "giving" their money. They are paying. You yourself used the correct word tax "payers" there.
That is not to say that no favour is being done, but it is not by the wealthy. "People", or" voters ", via their trustee the government/representatives in legislation are doing the favour, the giving.
Then why were you harping on it being insignificant? The part of oesophagus exposed to high temperature is insignificant as compared to large areas of muscle growth over a long period of time of high exercise.
It is not that it is insignificant, it is that it is diluted over more body cells, and may be accompanied by other cancer preventing effects of exercise.
The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.
And if this "NOT MUCH" is positive, according to your statement quote above, it should result in at least a "not much" more chances of a bad copy.
What cell division ?
The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.
The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.
This can only be true if your "insignificant" means "negative".
The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.
This can only be true if you "insignificant" means "negative".
The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.
So much insignificant that it becomes negative ?
The more times you attempt a clean copy, the more chances for a bad copy.
The whole mechanism of muscle building by exercising is kind of about controlled cell breakage - which combined with good diet and rest leads to a better (mostly stronger, likely to be bigger) muscles. In what sense is it insignificant ?