Decades of road simulation? Perhaps with functional programming regarding rules and 'best practices' according to the rule of law and making sure the car operates on the road as expected in ideal conditions. But there's no way to simulate the real world failures like you're asserting has been done. And certainly not for decades.
You clearly have no idea what the state of the art actually is, where I've actually built such simulators. We've been building them for several decades (of real time) already. Yes, some algorithms (mostly for communications and basic sensors, including tire pressure) have had simulated time exceeding a hundred thousand hours, which is over a decade of continuous real testing.
You'd be amazed what can be simulated these days. One of my colleagues works on simulators for a tire company, modeling the wear pattern and friction for their tires, to maximize the tire's handling and hydroplaning resistance throughout its life. His simulator evaluates different tread patterns and different rubber formulations against different driving styles and conditions. Fascinating stuff, and the only physical result is the confirmation tests, when the real thing is actually manufactured and driven for a few months.
Yes, this is real life, not your if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it fantasy.
You can choose to ignore what I've written, as you've chosen to ignore the other research and progress in the field. Looking through your comment history, you seem to do that a lot. You also seem to have a bias against modern automotive safety, based on myths that have been continually disproven.
Yes, it's true that there are faults to modern technology, especially with regards to safety equipment. However, you don't seem to understand that the risk of new technology is far less than the risk presented by older technology. A driver in a collision who has an airbag may break a collarbone, but he won't have frontal-lobe trauma as he would if he were allowed to hit the steering wheel.
These things can (and are) tested. What's important is that the circumstances of the test be identical, so the difference in effectiveness can be measured. One good way to do that for vehicles is to take an old vehicle, and crash it into a new vehicle. That way, thanks to Newton's third law, we know the impact force is exactly identical. In fact, here's a good demonstration.
Yes, just one algorithm. As slashping points out, it's the combination of other smaller algorithms:
One part is the always-on image stabilization in the vision recognition system. It finds nice reference points (buildings, lane markings, a horizon, etc) and keys those to determine the relative movement of objects in view. Moving the whole vehicle doesn't affect image recognition at all.
Another part goes into the handling system, to allow the vehicle to rapidly adjust its expected handling characteristics in an emergency. That also isn't really a "blowout" algorithm, as it's the same routine used for hitting ice or snow, or a deep puddle, hooking up a trailer, or any other major change that falls outside regular wear on the vehicle.
Yet another part of the whole algorithm is in the vehicle-to-vehicle communications routine, to announce to other vehicles and stationary beacons that the vehicle has experienced an emergency, and should be considered a risk. That's a courtesy to other vehicles, to provide redundancy and confirm their sensors. It can also begin coordinating additional help, such as a tow truck that can be coming to assist before you've even realized you're missing a tire.
Of course, there are also the more mundane algorithms that will have some accommodation for emergencies. Vehicle control systems handle short-term navigation, and they'll be directed to get the car off the road ASAP. Environmental controls can turn off vents to keep the smell of burning rubber out of the passenger cabin. In-car entertainment systems can present a message explaining the situation to calm passengers.
All of those parts get bundled together into a single unit for designers to track, and it'll probably be documented somewhere as the "tire blowout algorithm".
Lets crank it up a notch. The tire didn't blow out, but the tread separated and wrapped itself round some structure of the undercarriage and locks up the rear end. On asphalt pavement with a ton of road grit and gravel.
Lol, now put the driverless car on a highway with thousands of other cars, fog, rain, etc... and let the fun begin.
Put those cars on the r[o]ad and let the slaughter begin.
Ok. Where's the hard part? What you're describing is a worst-case situation, and most of it doesn't matter. Fog and rain only affect one out of several sensors, and a road with "a ton of road grit and gravel" isn't unusual. That's expected for a road. Every time the software checks its own state, it considers the road condition. If it doesn't have "a ton of road grit and gravel", then the vehicle doesn't need to compensate for that.
What is being built is a perfect super-human driver. It has access to senses that humans don't, never gets distracted, never panics, and never deviates from best practices. It has spent several decades of (sim) time in simulations, dealing with hundreds of thousands of hazards, and now you're worried about rain?
Oh, I love this game! The Luddites bring it up every time autonomous cars are discussed.
How will a computer respond to a tire blow out on the highway at 60mph plus? Some other emergency?
Within a few milliseconds of the emergency being detected by sensors, the computer will have fully assessed the situation and determined the safest course of action. A blown tire is simple, because it only really affects the vehicle handling parameters. At over 60MPH on a highway, the vehicle is going to have very minimal handling needs. The steering system can be told (within those milliseconds) that it will need to adjust, and in a few rotations of the tire, it can analyse the shape of effects of the new tire's shape. At minimum, it will know that it needs to steer a few degrees to the side of its intended course, allowing it to stay on course and maneuver safely to the shoulder.
How will the car that gets slammed into by an autonomous vehicle with a blown tire respond?
If by some absurd accident that does occur, it'd be treated like any other unavoided collision. As soon as the vehicle determines that a collision is unavoidable, it will attempt to minimize the damage. There has been research into having algorithms adjust the vehicle speed to change impact position, relying on a database of the vehicle's crush characteristics to reduce the chance of injury. Results show that the computer can do that faster and more successfully than any human driver.
How will the cars behind it react to the event in front? How fast?
When the front car detects the blowout, or when the cars behind it detect the debris or change in driving characteristics, they will consider the car to be a risk, and avoid it. They will start slowing down, changing lanes, and otherwise avoiding the affected vehicle. Again, this has all been tested.
As for the speed of this decision, everything happens in a few dozen milliseconds. At 60MPH highway speeds, that means that the computer will process and understand a situation before the vehicle has traveled a few feet. In comparison, a human brain reacts in about 150 to 250 ms, depending mostly on the type of stimulus. It doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, or how much attention you're paying to what's going on. An autonomous vehicle can observe, consider, and begin reacting to an emergency in front of it before your brain can even understand what your eyes are seeing.
What will happen to the hacker that intercepted and manipulated those signals the other cars are sending to each other? ( assumption made )
Oh, don't be so coy. You've made an awful lot of assumptions without actually understanding the current state of the art.
Legally, probably nothing will happen to the hacker, because it'd be difficult to find and catch such an attack, but that has nothing to do with the cars. It's equally hard to find someone using a cell phone jammer today. There have been a few cases, but they were caught due to prolonged or repeated use.
From the perspective of the cars on the road, losing communications with the other vehicles is a known and tested risk. Similarly, mismatched information is a risk condition. The easiest response is to slow down and try to move out of traffic.
Has any of these scenarios been tested? I don't see any crushed google cars so I am going to guess NONE.
Yes, these scenarios have been tested extensively, but you don't know about it, because you're not bothering to do research. One of the fascinating aspects of robotics research is that researchers can control all of the inputs to the algorithms. We can put a sensor in a tire, then drive it down a test track and make it blow. We can take that data, mix it with data from a dozen other test runs, and use that to build thousands of simulation input cases. Those inputs are run in simulated environments, with and without vehicle-to-vehicle
Yes, six bolts... And a person using a wrench, and a supervisor to assign the task and manage the person with the wrench, and a contract manager to ensure that the job was done, and a material supervisor to take the government-funded mold and ship it to a government storage facility, and of course that truck driver, too, and the accountants to make sure all of the costs are properly documented.
It'd be a lot cheaper if the government didn't require contracts to be so thorough, but in an effort to completely eliminate fraud, government contracts require excessive attention to detail, and that drives up the cost of every step of the process. There are a good number of companies out there that simply refuse to do government business, for exactly that reason... and a large number of contractor companies who exist solely to deal with the bureaucracy and pass the actual work on to subcontractors.
However, every last one of the $5,000 toilet seats will be free from unknown defects, meet the 20-page list of design requirements, fit every model of toilet the government requires (including those from other contractors who won't release their proprietary contracted design spec), be constructed from US-supplied materials by US workers, and every minute of each worker's time will be properly recorded and billed, including the time spent ensuring that the time was recorded correctly, and all of those details will be documented in the truckload of paperwork that accompanies each seat.
The interesting part of that diagram is that the length of the nonparallel sides is inconsistent with the other measurements given. In practice, that means that students who don't understand how to properly calculate the area of the figure (using reasonable methods for that grade level) will have a noticeably different answer than those who do understand it.
Sure, it's an inaccurate diagram, and could be considered lazy teaching, but it's utterly unrelated to Common Core.
Conspiracy theories aside, you're sorely mistaken on a few key details. Common Core is a set of concepts, and a timeline for when they should be understood. It is not a curriculum, and it does not change the organizational structure of any school. The teachers are accountable to the school district, as they always have been. The school district is accountable to the state, as it always have been.
Yes, schools that aren't producing employable graduates will face pressure to improve. On the other hand, schools whose students understand the concepts listed in the twostandards will have no reason or requirement to change what they're doing.
Common Core also has absolutely nothing to do with your decision to send your child to an out-of-district school, should you desire to do so, and it has nothing to do with the additional expenses you may incur. Instead, the extra expenses are because you are opting out of the services provided by your local government, such as buses and shared textbooks, and must then cover those costs on your own. Yes, you do still have to pay taxes to support your local school district, because that's what your duly-elected representatives have written into law, and you do still benefit from having schools. Though you say you "derive zero direct benefit" from your local school district, you do still receive an indirect benefit in the community improvement. The benefit may not be as great as a well-performing school might provide, but that does not give you any right to stop contributing to it. If you want that right, feel free to petition your local representative government.
Last I checked, the actual standard doesn't actually include any testing standards or teaching methods. It's really pretty loose for a standard (though my engineering bias rears its ugly head here).
Rather, the actual standard says what concepts must be taught at what grade levels... and that's about it. There are some examples and the set of minimal facts to be understood, but it doesn't prescribe any curriculum, and it doesn't say how to evaluate students' progress toward that basic comprehension.
It's also not a "federal standard". States are adopting it on their own, and if your state has chosen to legislate partucular testing methods to ensure compliance, that's your legislators' fault, not Common Core.
From what I've seen (from association with a highly-regarded educator's college), Common Core is a great step forward. Previously, every state had their own standard, so a Louisiana high-school student, for (a fictitious, as I've forgotten all states' relative rankings) example, might be far behind a similar Oregon student in mathematics, but still meet their state's standards. For high-achieving students who relocated and were then told that their education wasn't good enough for their new location, it was devastating. For students transferring the other way, they'd often end up skipping grades, leaving holes in their understanding that wouldn't appear until later, when the curriculum assumes a particular concept was covered.
Common Core has actually done the impossible: It is being adopted as a One True Standard to gauge a student's understanding, based on a set of concepts, rather than a district's particular placement test. Well-written tests against Common Core can also indicate whether a student has understood the concepts adequately for their grade level, based on real-world needs, rather than the opinions of a teacher who hasn't seen business needs in the past decade.
Even if the proof isn't novel, or if there's some glaring error, Israeli secondary-school students now have a champion for a while, who found something interesting. That student in particular has a vested interest in a particular area of her field, and hopefully that will grow into a later expertise, and ultimately significant contributions to human knowledge.
Faults and all, this is how mankind progresses... Stumbling forward one mistake at a time.
...but it will still do the job. TP-Link is covered, because you can't install a Japanese firmware image (which would include Japanese radio parameters) onto a North American device. Everything TP-Link produces will be in compliance with the rules.
If an open-source project like DD-WRT wants to produce firmware images that can break FCC rules, by offering the user full control of the radio, for example, that's not TP-Link's problem. That's the third-party vendor breaking the rules, not TP-Link. Similarly if a user modifies another region's firmware image, that user made a conscious decision to violate regulations, and should be held responsible for it.
It's almost like this is confirming "a report from last month that it is blocking open source firmware."
Maybe the submitter or editors should put a link to the old story in the new one's summary... probably even in the first sentence, so we know it's a continuation of something we've already heard something about.
You're right about one thing... It has always been like this.
It has always been the case that when you strip away all nuance and context, and reduce a complex situation down to a one-sentence slogan, any difference seems unfair.
Frankly, TFS sounds like an anonymous reader's pet bug hasn't gotten the attention he feels it deserves, so he submitted it to Slashdot to make it a bigger deal. Ultimately, though, it boils down to user error.
Fixing an information leak is effectively making a blacklist for particular attack vectors. It's never going to be complete. The only way to actually ensure that an anonymizing method works is for the user to ensure that he's behaving anonymously. If that means using a different input mechanism, then do that. If it means a different browser, and ensure you only visit different sites, then do that. There's no software that can replace good opsec practices.
Or the first and second-level managers were the ones who laid out an effective plan, and their subordinates (whom you'd promote) didn't bother to implement it correctly.
Perhaps it'd be better to investigate the whole situation first, rather than jump to any knee-jerk response.
There are fallbacks, backups, and disaster recovery mechanisms. They are three different things, with three different purposes, and managers love to confuse them.
From a security perspective, this is very interesting indeed.
For a few decades now, we've been aware of the security threats against networks. There are procedures and practices that can secure a network or computer, and frankly, we don't include those on tours.
On the other hand, a 3D printer is new shiny technology, and executives love showing off how up-to-date they are by showing the room full of printers. For an attacker, the attack in TFA would be quite simple. During a tour, put a listening bug near the printers, and get early access to prototypes. At this point, such an attack have a very high profit, because you can get actual designs, rather than just occasional descriptions of designs like would normally be expected of listening devices. At the same time, this attack may fall outside existing security plans. Usually the security guys are not looking for audio eavesdroppers to protect physical designs.
Adding more fiat money only dilutes the value of the existing money,
You're missing a key detail of modern economics: the debt economy. Think of money and debt as (loosely) matter and anti-matter. When they're together, they can cancel each other out, and one can be produced by producing an equal (except for an mentioned below) amount of the other. The federal reserve bank is able to do this, and that's where the "out of thin air" magic happens.
By producing money, which is then loaned to banks, the banks have enough money on hand to serve their customers' needs, including making more loans. That allows corporate customers to have enough money available to continue to do business, including paying out paychecks. That lets individuals continue to have money to spend, which goes back to keeping business moving. Ultimately, that's the goal of any economy: to keep goods and services moving from the people who produce them to the people who need them.
The other side of the economy is the debt. When the banks receive the loan from the Fed, they also get an equal amount of debt they are obligated to pay back. When borrowers get their loans, they also get debt. Debt, of course, doesn't get sent out with paychecks, so the borrowers have to pay the debt out of their profits, which limits how quickly they are willing to spend the money they have secured. That prevents runaway spending, and keeps the value of the money stable.
The Fed, then, can control inflation by controlling the interest rate, which affects the balance of money and debt. If they lower the interest rate, businesses (which make up the vast majority of economic transactions) are able to put more money into circulation, at the risk of increasing inflation. If they raise the interest rate, the debt increases, which will help prevent inflation, but has the risk of stopping the all-important circulation of goods and services. It's a careful balance, but it's pretty effective at stopping abrupt crashes or surges in the economy
...the ONLY reason he could need the immunity is because he was asked to set up a private e-mail sever that he KNEW Hillary would be using for 'government business' and at THAT point Pagliano should have declined or otherwise sought approval from his boss because it is no longer 'a friend doing a friend a solid' but an 'underlying doing government work'.
That's precisely why the immunity is granted. In the situation you describe, any testimony from Pagliano would be self-incriminating, and Pagliano could simply enact his Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to testify. Now that his testimony cannot be used against him, he can be compelled to testify if needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Decades of road simulation? Perhaps with functional programming regarding rules and 'best practices' according to the rule of law and making sure the car operates on the road as expected in ideal conditions. But there's no way to simulate the real world failures like you're asserting has been done. And certainly not for decades.
You clearly have no idea what the state of the art actually is, where I've actually built such simulators. We've been building them for several decades (of real time) already. Yes, some algorithms (mostly for communications and basic sensors, including tire pressure) have had simulated time exceeding a hundred thousand hours, which is over a decade of continuous real testing.
You'd be amazed what can be simulated these days. One of my colleagues works on simulators for a tire company, modeling the wear pattern and friction for their tires, to maximize the tire's handling and hydroplaning resistance throughout its life. His simulator evaluates different tread patterns and different rubber formulations against different driving styles and conditions. Fascinating stuff, and the only physical result is the confirmation tests, when the real thing is actually manufactured and driven for a few months.
Yes, this is real life, not your if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it fantasy.
You can choose to ignore what I've written, as you've chosen to ignore the other research and progress in the field. Looking through your comment history, you seem to do that a lot. You also seem to have a bias against modern automotive safety, based on myths that have been continually disproven.
Yes, it's true that there are faults to modern technology, especially with regards to safety equipment. However, you don't seem to understand that the risk of new technology is far less than the risk presented by older technology. A driver in a collision who has an airbag may break a collarbone, but he won't have frontal-lobe trauma as he would if he were allowed to hit the steering wheel.
These things can (and are) tested. What's important is that the circumstances of the test be identical, so the difference in effectiveness can be measured. One good way to do that for vehicles is to take an old vehicle, and crash it into a new vehicle. That way, thanks to Newton's third law, we know the impact force is exactly identical. In fact, here's a good demonstration.
An algorithm? Just one?
Yes, just one algorithm. As slashping points out, it's the combination of other smaller algorithms:
All of those parts get bundled together into a single unit for designers to track, and it'll probably be documented somewhere as the "tire blowout algorithm".
Lets crank it up a notch. The tire didn't blow out, but the tread separated and wrapped itself round some structure of the undercarriage and locks up the rear end. On asphalt pavement with a ton of road grit and gravel.
Lol, now put the driverless car on a highway with thousands of other cars, fog, rain, etc... and let the fun begin.
Put those cars on the r[o]ad and let the slaughter begin.
Ok. Where's the hard part? What you're describing is a worst-case situation, and most of it doesn't matter. Fog and rain only affect one out of several sensors, and a road with "a ton of road grit and gravel" isn't unusual. That's expected for a road. Every time the software checks its own state, it considers the road condition. If it doesn't have "a ton of road grit and gravel", then the vehicle doesn't need to compensate for that.
What is being built is a perfect super-human driver. It has access to senses that humans don't, never gets distracted, never panics, and never deviates from best practices. It has spent several decades of (sim) time in simulations, dealing with hundreds of thousands of hazards, and now you're worried about rain?
Oh, I love this game! The Luddites bring it up every time autonomous cars are discussed.
How will a computer respond to a tire blow out on the highway at 60mph plus? Some other emergency?
Within a few milliseconds of the emergency being detected by sensors, the computer will have fully assessed the situation and determined the safest course of action. A blown tire is simple, because it only really affects the vehicle handling parameters. At over 60MPH on a highway, the vehicle is going to have very minimal handling needs. The steering system can be told (within those milliseconds) that it will need to adjust, and in a few rotations of the tire, it can analyse the shape of effects of the new tire's shape. At minimum, it will know that it needs to steer a few degrees to the side of its intended course, allowing it to stay on course and maneuver safely to the shoulder.
How will the car that gets slammed into by an autonomous vehicle with a blown tire respond?
If by some absurd accident that does occur, it'd be treated like any other unavoided collision. As soon as the vehicle determines that a collision is unavoidable, it will attempt to minimize the damage. There has been research into having algorithms adjust the vehicle speed to change impact position, relying on a database of the vehicle's crush characteristics to reduce the chance of injury. Results show that the computer can do that faster and more successfully than any human driver.
How will the cars behind it react to the event in front? How fast?
When the front car detects the blowout, or when the cars behind it detect the debris or change in driving characteristics, they will consider the car to be a risk, and avoid it. They will start slowing down, changing lanes, and otherwise avoiding the affected vehicle. Again, this has all been tested.
As for the speed of this decision, everything happens in a few dozen milliseconds. At 60MPH highway speeds, that means that the computer will process and understand a situation before the vehicle has traveled a few feet. In comparison, a human brain reacts in about 150 to 250 ms, depending mostly on the type of stimulus. It doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, or how much attention you're paying to what's going on. An autonomous vehicle can observe, consider, and begin reacting to an emergency in front of it before your brain can even understand what your eyes are seeing.
What will happen to the hacker that intercepted and manipulated those signals the other cars are sending to each other? ( assumption made )
Oh, don't be so coy. You've made an awful lot of assumptions without actually understanding the current state of the art.
Legally, probably nothing will happen to the hacker, because it'd be difficult to find and catch such an attack, but that has nothing to do with the cars. It's equally hard to find someone using a cell phone jammer today. There have been a few cases, but they were caught due to prolonged or repeated use.
From the perspective of the cars on the road, losing communications with the other vehicles is a known and tested risk. Similarly, mismatched information is a risk condition. The easiest response is to slow down and try to move out of traffic.
Has any of these scenarios been tested? I don't see any crushed google cars so I am going to guess NONE.
Yes, these scenarios have been tested extensively, but you don't know about it, because you're not bothering to do research. One of the fascinating aspects of robotics research is that researchers can control all of the inputs to the algorithms. We can put a sensor in a tire, then drive it down a test track and make it blow. We can take that data, mix it with data from a dozen other test runs, and use that to build thousands of simulation input cases. Those inputs are run in simulated environments, with and without vehicle-to-vehicle
Yes, six bolts... And a person using a wrench, and a supervisor to assign the task and manage the person with the wrench, and a contract manager to ensure that the job was done, and a material supervisor to take the government-funded mold and ship it to a government storage facility, and of course that truck driver, too, and the accountants to make sure all of the costs are properly documented.
It'd be a lot cheaper if the government didn't require contracts to be so thorough, but in an effort to completely eliminate fraud, government contracts require excessive attention to detail, and that drives up the cost of every step of the process. There are a good number of companies out there that simply refuse to do government business, for exactly that reason... and a large number of contractor companies who exist solely to deal with the bureaucracy and pass the actual work on to subcontractors.
I've worked for a government contractor before.
Yes, the toilet seat costs $5,000.
However, every last one of the $5,000 toilet seats will be free from unknown defects, meet the 20-page list of design requirements, fit every model of toilet the government requires (including those from other contractors who won't release their proprietary contracted design spec), be constructed from US-supplied materials by US workers, and every minute of each worker's time will be properly recorded and billed, including the time spent ensuring that the time was recorded correctly, and all of those details will be documented in the truckload of paperwork that accompanies each seat.
That truck driver also gets paid.
70 square units.
The interesting part of that diagram is that the length of the nonparallel sides is inconsistent with the other measurements given. In practice, that means that students who don't understand how to properly calculate the area of the figure (using reasonable methods for that grade level) will have a noticeably different answer than those who do understand it.
Sure, it's an inaccurate diagram, and could be considered lazy teaching, but it's utterly unrelated to Common Core.
Conspiracy theories aside, you're sorely mistaken on a few key details. Common Core is a set of concepts, and a timeline for when they should be understood. It is not a curriculum, and it does not change the organizational structure of any school. The teachers are accountable to the school district, as they always have been. The school district is accountable to the state, as it always have been.
Yes, schools that aren't producing employable graduates will face pressure to improve. On the other hand, schools whose students understand the concepts listed in the two standards will have no reason or requirement to change what they're doing.
Common Core also has absolutely nothing to do with your decision to send your child to an out-of-district school, should you desire to do so, and it has nothing to do with the additional expenses you may incur. Instead, the extra expenses are because you are opting out of the services provided by your local government, such as buses and shared textbooks, and must then cover those costs on your own. Yes, you do still have to pay taxes to support your local school district, because that's what your duly-elected representatives have written into law, and you do still benefit from having schools. Though you say you "derive zero direct benefit" from your local school district, you do still receive an indirect benefit in the community improvement. The benefit may not be as great as a well-performing school might provide, but that does not give you any right to stop contributing to it. If you want that right, feel free to petition your local representative government.
Last I checked, the actual standard doesn't actually include any testing standards or teaching methods. It's really pretty loose for a standard (though my engineering bias rears its ugly head here).
Rather, the actual standard says what concepts must be taught at what grade levels... and that's about it. There are some examples and the set of minimal facts to be understood, but it doesn't prescribe any curriculum, and it doesn't say how to evaluate students' progress toward that basic comprehension.
It's also not a "federal standard". States are adopting it on their own, and if your state has chosen to legislate partucular testing methods to ensure compliance, that's your legislators' fault, not Common Core.
From what I've seen (from association with a highly-regarded educator's college), Common Core is a great step forward. Previously, every state had their own standard, so a Louisiana high-school student, for (a fictitious, as I've forgotten all states' relative rankings) example, might be far behind a similar Oregon student in mathematics, but still meet their state's standards. For high-achieving students who relocated and were then told that their education wasn't good enough for their new location, it was devastating. For students transferring the other way, they'd often end up skipping grades, leaving holes in their understanding that wouldn't appear until later, when the curriculum assumes a particular concept was covered.
Common Core has actually done the impossible: It is being adopted as a One True Standard to gauge a student's understanding, based on a set of concepts, rather than a district's particular placement test. Well-written tests against Common Core can also indicate whether a student has understood the concepts adequately for their grade level, based on real-world needs, rather than the opinions of a teacher who hasn't seen business needs in the past decade.
Even if the proof isn't novel, or if there's some glaring error, Israeli secondary-school students now have a champion for a while, who found something interesting. That student in particular has a vested interest in a particular area of her field, and hopefully that will grow into a later expertise, and ultimately significant contributions to human knowledge.
Faults and all, this is how mankind progresses... Stumbling forward one mistake at a time.
Never mind that that's not actually how Common Core guidelines work, but hey... it's the current target of hate, and we've got two minutes to spare...
...but it will still do the job. TP-Link is covered, because you can't install a Japanese firmware image (which would include Japanese radio parameters) onto a North American device. Everything TP-Link produces will be in compliance with the rules.
If an open-source project like DD-WRT wants to produce firmware images that can break FCC rules, by offering the user full control of the radio, for example, that's not TP-Link's problem. That's the third-party vendor breaking the rules, not TP-Link. Similarly if a user modifies another region's firmware image, that user made a conscious decision to violate regulations, and should be held responsible for it.
It's almost like this is confirming "a report from last month that it is blocking open source firmware."
Maybe the submitter or editors should put a link to the old story in the new one's summary... probably even in the first sentence, so we know it's a continuation of something we've already heard something about.
How about it, whipslash?
You're right about one thing... It has always been like this.
It has always been the case that when you strip away all nuance and context, and reduce a complex situation down to a one-sentence slogan, any difference seems unfair.
Apparently Hertz has had a "relationship" with IBM for 20 years... no details as to the nature of that relationship.
The other article says the number is actually 230. 30% exaggeration is fine for a news story, right?
That's really the crux of the issue.
Frankly, TFS sounds like an anonymous reader's pet bug hasn't gotten the attention he feels it deserves, so he submitted it to Slashdot to make it a bigger deal. Ultimately, though, it boils down to user error.
Fixing an information leak is effectively making a blacklist for particular attack vectors. It's never going to be complete. The only way to actually ensure that an anonymizing method works is for the user to ensure that he's behaving anonymously. If that means using a different input mechanism, then do that. If it means a different browser, and ensure you only visit different sites, then do that. There's no software that can replace good opsec practices.
who better than A MEMBER OF THAT CLUB to speak out?
Snowden was in the FBI? That's news to me...
Because, you know, it's not like foreign aid money actually does anything more useful than a wall of bigotry.
Or the first and second-level managers were the ones who laid out an effective plan, and their subordinates (whom you'd promote) didn't bother to implement it correctly.
Perhaps it'd be better to investigate the whole situation first, rather than jump to any knee-jerk response.
There are fallbacks, backups, and disaster recovery mechanisms. They are three different things, with three different purposes, and managers love to confuse them.
From a security perspective, this is very interesting indeed.
For a few decades now, we've been aware of the security threats against networks. There are procedures and practices that can secure a network or computer, and frankly, we don't include those on tours.
On the other hand, a 3D printer is new shiny technology, and executives love showing off how up-to-date they are by showing the room full of printers. For an attacker, the attack in TFA would be quite simple. During a tour, put a listening bug near the printers, and get early access to prototypes. At this point, such an attack have a very high profit, because you can get actual designs, rather than just occasional descriptions of designs like would normally be expected of listening devices. At the same time, this attack may fall outside existing security plans. Usually the security guys are not looking for audio eavesdroppers to protect physical designs.
Adding more fiat money only dilutes the value of the existing money,
You're missing a key detail of modern economics: the debt economy. Think of money and debt as (loosely) matter and anti-matter. When they're together, they can cancel each other out, and one can be produced by producing an equal (except for an mentioned below) amount of the other. The federal reserve bank is able to do this, and that's where the "out of thin air" magic happens.
By producing money, which is then loaned to banks, the banks have enough money on hand to serve their customers' needs, including making more loans. That allows corporate customers to have enough money available to continue to do business, including paying out paychecks. That lets individuals continue to have money to spend, which goes back to keeping business moving. Ultimately, that's the goal of any economy: to keep goods and services moving from the people who produce them to the people who need them.
The other side of the economy is the debt. When the banks receive the loan from the Fed, they also get an equal amount of debt they are obligated to pay back. When borrowers get their loans, they also get debt. Debt, of course, doesn't get sent out with paychecks, so the borrowers have to pay the debt out of their profits, which limits how quickly they are willing to spend the money they have secured. That prevents runaway spending, and keeps the value of the money stable.
The Fed, then, can control inflation by controlling the interest rate, which affects the balance of money and debt. If they lower the interest rate, businesses (which make up the vast majority of economic transactions) are able to put more money into circulation, at the risk of increasing inflation. If they raise the interest rate, the debt increases, which will help prevent inflation, but has the risk of stopping the all-important circulation of goods and services. It's a careful balance, but it's pretty effective at stopping abrupt crashes or surges in the economy
Who exactly do you think would be running the gold mine?
Do you really think that somehow, getting rid of fiat currency will also somehow invalidate the old rule of "it takes money to make money?"
...the ONLY reason he could need the immunity is because he was asked to set up a private e-mail sever that he KNEW Hillary would be using for 'government business' and at THAT point Pagliano should have declined or otherwise sought approval from his boss because it is no longer 'a friend doing a friend a solid' but an 'underlying doing government work'.
That's precisely why the immunity is granted. In the situation you describe, any testimony from Pagliano would be self-incriminating, and Pagliano could simply enact his Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to testify. Now that his testimony cannot be used against him, he can be compelled to testify if needed.