Of course there are none yet. Congress is kicking the can to the administrative agencies to figure out how to review submissions to determine if the vehicles are at least as safe as cars are now. Whether the federal agency will succeed in carrying out its mission, it will be in a better position to figure that out than congressmen are. It sounds like the "watchdogs" are asking for the self-driving vehicle equivalent of the Clipper chip: something that will be an antique before it is even passed, and then will be almost impossible to update because laws are not easily changed.
The real question is whether an introduction to coding makes the students more trainable for jobs they might get. Those jobs do not only include those where computer programming is 100% of the job. In Chicago, that includes whether students would be better prepared to be CNC machinists. I have my doubts about the Chicago Public Schools' ability to assess the skill platform to develop and the curriculum to develop a facility for further learning in the field.
Things get strange with state and local governments because you can have an administration divided among different parties. If the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Comptroller, etc are of different parties, it may be that one of them wants to refuse document requests in a way that minimizes costs because of the inability to get money from another piece of the administration. For all I know, if moves the costs of the fight to someone else's budget. Things like this can get weird as all get out for political reasons that never get articulated.
The article gets wrong the priority of the U.S. Constitution and the statute he would be sentenced under. It is unconstitutional to give a cruel and unusual punishment. No U.S. law can permit it. If the sentencing guidelines would calculate a cruel and unusual punishment, it is illegal as being unconstitutional.
Given that the hack he is accused of carrying out for was defacing the U.S. Commission for sentencing guidelines, and protesting sentences against hackers as being too harsh, if he is convicted it is hard to say that he didn't know he had it coming. He would have actually studied up on the punishment before doing the crime.
U.S. Prosecutors will probably offer a deal: turn on your compatriots for a reduced sentence. Prosecution in Great Britain will have little leverage to force that.
Well, at some point a supervolcano is likely to test the hypothesis for us even if we don't do it. It might be next year, it might be 1000 years from now. But when it happens, we will see.
Well, Monty Python objected when CBS removed the naughty bits. http://mentalfloss.com/article/501461/when-monty-python-took-american-television-court They thought it misrepresented their work.
The point of that suit is that copyright does not protect artistic or reputational rights in the work apart from the permission to copy or make derivative works. Trying to make money by showing viewers what they want has been a long struggle.
The problem that officials face is what to do with imperfect information. In the current environment, Russians messing with the U.S. election, an America-First President, and recent overseas terrorist attacks, who is going to decide not to act on even thin information? I doubt that the actual decision makers are most corporations are in a position to second-guess the U.S. government. The whole thing could just be thin information steamrolling because nobody wants to be the one to put a stop to things.
The problem Amazon faces is true of all safety equipment. If some fly-by-night or foreign vendor puts sunglasses on the store as being fit for solar eclipse viewing Amazon is on hook for injuries. The same will be true of any other safety equipment that fails. As the only deep pocket left in sight, Amazon will bear the hole burden. It is the result of making sure the injured person is compensated if someone is more responsible than the injured person. Our system encourages knee-jerk decisions just like this to prevent injuries.
It's the American way. Once you move away from caveat emptor, it is the only logical stopping place.
This is what happens when you make TV for the viewers. Network TV has to make every show 42 minutes long, with 18 minutes for commercials, and having to repeat the last scene when coming back from the TV break. It also has to consider what advertising demographic is drawn to it.
When you only care about the paying viewer, the show is as long as the story takes, and no shorter or longer. You can plan for immersion. Non-advertisement cable made the invasion a while ago. No commercial breaks for Game of Thrones.
The story focuses too much on Amazon. It is a postal pricing policy that applies broadly. The fact is that if the post office has mispriced the service, it has done so for all participants, not just Amazon. This is done all too often by news outlets to pump up eyeballs on the story.
Sure, the Post Office should price its services correctly. But how do you know if it is wrong? Marginal cost is hard to estimate when you are driving the route already. And if the post office changed its pricing, it could well be that a different package last-mile business would step in. The post office is staffed with union employees, and it could be possible to beat the post office's last mile service on price if the price was raised $1.50 a package.
That was Andrew Jackson who refused to implement a Supreme Court order to prevent the incursion of Georgia militias to Cherokee land. It was part of the chain of events leading to the Trail of Tears.
The prisoner's dilemma: each prisoner does not know if another is going to cooperate. Cooperating results in a plea deal for reduced punishment, but inflicting full punishment on the non-cooperating prisoner.
The typical scenario is that underling is offered a deal to provide evidence against his boss. The ultimate boss is the one that is the target of full punishment.
If you don't turn over the password to your phone's data, the prosecutor isn't going to be able to use it to verify your story. Even if you promised to testify, unlocking your phone would have to be part of the deal.
The whole point of laws like FOIA is that the law says that the information is public. If each White House decides what it lays open and what it does not, then it will only lay open the stuff that it does not care if people see. So you meet someone somewhere else if you don't want them showing up on the visitor log. That makes a log disclosure sooooo effective.
If you read the warning letter at the link, it may not make a lot of sense to many of you. Here goes:
FDA wants to have companies work with it to make things as safe as possible. Cooperation with FDA means that FDA worries less about you.
FDA usually starts with an "untitled letter" or "notice of violation" letter. This is FDA's way letting a company know that it found something that is concerning them. It may be that there is no problem, but FDA's concern has to be addressed or things may escalate. Obviously, St. Jude's efforts to convince FDA that there was not a problem did not work here.
When FDA moves to a warning letter, it has convinced itself that there is a problem that has to be fixed. The idea is to get the company to fix it on its own, which happens 99% of the time. Most companies address problems at this stage because they want to protect their reputation as a good company at FDA. Recalcitrant companies applications for approval can be viewed with somewhat more suspicion than companies that jump on issues and fix them right away. Nobody really wants more on-site FDA inspections.
We saw with Theranos what can happen if you fail to fix the problem identified in a warning letter: escalation to enforcement to make the company comply.
A company of any size, or with a product of significant complexity, needs to have written procedures for addressing problems and escalating unsolved problems to a higher level of management. FDA found that St. Jude did not follow its procedures and that the procedures were inadequate. So, to satisfy FDA the company will need to convince FDA that the written procedures are adequate and that there is supervision to enforce those procedures within the company.
At this stage companies will often turn to outside consultants to help fix the problem because higher management no longer has confidence in lower management to fix the problem.
The first computer game I spent substantial time on was the text game adventure.demo on a Honeywell Sigma 6. I was taught to program on that computer on Hollerith Cards, but after a couple of years at college they hooked up some user terminals. Going to the computer lab to play the game gave me a chance to talk to actual computer geeks and get started with my knowledge of computers.
Ok, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how civil contempt works here. Rather than address 100 different posts let me summarize:
The whole idea here is that he has been ordered to do something, and is refusing to do it. The judge may order him held to persuade him to follow the order. Persuasion can take a while on something like this. The judge has a duty to monitor the situation and eventually determine that the defendant is unpersuadable. Once it becomes clear that the person is unpersuadable, then proceedings for criminal contempt of court should start.
At that point, there are full criminal law protections and procedures. The standard becomes proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecution has the burden of proof on every issue of contention: i.e. whether he really forgot.
So, to address many posts: (1) it is not forever; (2) if he continues to there will eventually be a criminal trial of at least civil contempt. This is a form of obstruction of justice, so the penalty can be severe.
Most things I can think of alternatives either have manipulable human intervention or compromise vote privacy.
Let's say you print a receipt to the voter with a key to check if the vote was logged correctly (and a matching paper record that is anonymous). That would put power in the hands of the people to detect hacking of the vote count, assuming the hack was in the recording of the vote, not the tabulation of recorded votes (the latter of which can be machine or human). But that risks compromise of voter privacy. After all, you have a potential trail back to the voter.
Let's say you do paper ballots which are anonymous but numbered. You can double-check via sampling every election to do "quality control" which would also detect tabulation hacking. The results of that, again, do no good with crooked election officials. Easy enough to cover up the tabulation error.
Keeping votes anonymous, preventing recording manipulation, and preventing tabulation and reporting manipulation all have to be dealt with or the subject of assumptions. Which ones do you want to preserve?
I work in a building where the entrance faces a pedestrian walkway. It is a half-block walk to either of two streets. The problem is generic to the whole multi-block walkway.
With Uber I can position the cursor on the map to identify the pickup location. This is not that hard, and there is no reason for the ride-sharing company to not learn from it, and sell information to or trade information with a mapping company.
Having lived near Fort Meade, I have always believed that if NSA was out to get me, I couldn't stop it. Something they would do would get around my security. The one thing I could count on is that NSA was highly unlikely to actually take an interest in me. So I will take reasonable measures, but I don't walk around covered in tin foil.
Yet so many of those that have good reason to think that they would be a target of highly competent infiltrators appear to rely on the same hope of obscurity. And so do their sysadmins. We see if from these officials of the Democratic Party, we see it from movie stars that ought to know that the traffic through their phones is of great interest, and we see it from businesses that have information on hundreds of thousands or millions of their customers.
In the U.S., police are restricted in the "searches" they can conduct without a warrant. They may conduct "reasonable" searches without a warrant because our Constitution protects against "unreasonable" searches. The police may observe activity with their eyes from the street or other public place. Technology raises other issues. The Supreme Court found it "unreasonable" to use an infrared camera to look at houses to see which ones had excess heat to identify houses that were growing marijuana and using hot grow lamps. Just about anything goes in an airport: x-rays, dogs, etc. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would make of these observations. It may be that the quality of the cameras was selected precisely to stay within some perceived Constitutional limit. Violating those limits could destroy the entire case because not only the evidence gathered illegally, but all it led to ("fruit of the poisonous tree") is excluded from a trial.
Administrative Procedure is the kind of thing that makes even most lawyers go to sleep. From my brief review it appears that the court thinks that the FCC does not have an internally consistent logic for the treatment of the broadband carriers within the statutory limits set for it by Congress.
It could well be right. That court does practically nothing else but review the actions of administrative agencies. It is very good at doing that.
Not that Congress can do anything useful about anything. Which is another way of saying it cannot break things even more badly if you look at the bright side.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.
Nothing there about the President, though he does serve at the pleasure of the President. Obviously, maintaining the President's pleasure means keeping the policies. Oh, and the "White House" is lots of people who are not the President, so it is quite possible to not get drawn into White House inside politics and still maintain the President's policies.
Remember, that ethanol is present as an oxygenate to prevent carbon monoxide and soot. The discontinuation of the use of MBTE (methyl tert-butyl ether) left ethanol the primary one. Methanol is even worse for engines than ethanol. Whatever the shortcomings of ethanol from an engineering basis, it is non-toxic in reasonable quantities.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there are none yet. Congress is kicking the can to the administrative agencies to figure out how to review submissions to determine if the vehicles are at least as safe as cars are now. Whether the federal agency will succeed in carrying out its mission, it will be in a better position to figure that out than congressmen are. It sounds like the "watchdogs" are asking for the self-driving vehicle equivalent of the Clipper chip: something that will be an antique before it is even passed, and then will be almost impossible to update because laws are not easily changed.
The real question is whether an introduction to coding makes the students more trainable for jobs they might get. Those jobs do not only include those where computer programming is 100% of the job. In Chicago, that includes whether students would be better prepared to be CNC machinists. I have my doubts about the Chicago Public Schools' ability to assess the skill platform to develop and the curriculum to develop a facility for further learning in the field.
Things get strange with state and local governments because you can have an administration divided among different parties. If the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Comptroller, etc are of different parties, it may be that one of them wants to refuse document requests in a way that minimizes costs because of the inability to get money from another piece of the administration. For all I know, if moves the costs of the fight to someone else's budget. Things like this can get weird as all get out for political reasons that never get articulated.
The article gets wrong the priority of the U.S. Constitution and the statute he would be sentenced under. It is unconstitutional to give a cruel and unusual punishment. No U.S. law can permit it. If the sentencing guidelines would calculate a cruel and unusual punishment, it is illegal as being unconstitutional.
Given that the hack he is accused of carrying out for was defacing the U.S. Commission for sentencing guidelines, and protesting sentences against hackers as being too harsh, if he is convicted it is hard to say that he didn't know he had it coming. He would have actually studied up on the punishment before doing the crime.
U.S. Prosecutors will probably offer a deal: turn on your compatriots for a reduced sentence. Prosecution in Great Britain will have little leverage to force that.
Well, at some point a supervolcano is likely to test the hypothesis for us even if we don't do it. It might be next year, it might be 1000 years from now. But when it happens, we will see.
Nature is kinda funny like that.
Well, Monty Python objected when CBS removed the naughty bits. http://mentalfloss.com/article/501461/when-monty-python-took-american-television-court They thought it misrepresented their work. The point of that suit is that copyright does not protect artistic or reputational rights in the work apart from the permission to copy or make derivative works. Trying to make money by showing viewers what they want has been a long struggle.
The problem that officials face is what to do with imperfect information. In the current environment, Russians messing with the U.S. election, an America-First President, and recent overseas terrorist attacks, who is going to decide not to act on even thin information? I doubt that the actual decision makers are most corporations are in a position to second-guess the U.S. government. The whole thing could just be thin information steamrolling because nobody wants to be the one to put a stop to things.
The problem Amazon faces is true of all safety equipment. If some fly-by-night or foreign vendor puts sunglasses on the store as being fit for solar eclipse viewing Amazon is on hook for injuries. The same will be true of any other safety equipment that fails. As the only deep pocket left in sight, Amazon will bear the hole burden. It is the result of making sure the injured person is compensated if someone is more responsible than the injured person. Our system encourages knee-jerk decisions just like this to prevent injuries.
It's the American way. Once you move away from caveat emptor, it is the only logical stopping place.
I remember downloading Slackware onto 5.25 floppies on a 2400 baud modem. It took forever, but it was worth it. I liked it better than SLS.
This is what happens when you make TV for the viewers. Network TV has to make every show 42 minutes long, with 18 minutes for commercials, and having to repeat the last scene when coming back from the TV break. It also has to consider what advertising demographic is drawn to it.
When you only care about the paying viewer, the show is as long as the story takes, and no shorter or longer. You can plan for immersion. Non-advertisement cable made the invasion a while ago. No commercial breaks for Game of Thrones.
I hope this continues.
The story focuses too much on Amazon. It is a postal pricing policy that applies broadly. The fact is that if the post office has mispriced the service, it has done so for all participants, not just Amazon. This is done all too often by news outlets to pump up eyeballs on the story.
Sure, the Post Office should price its services correctly. But how do you know if it is wrong? Marginal cost is hard to estimate when you are driving the route already. And if the post office changed its pricing, it could well be that a different package last-mile business would step in. The post office is staffed with union employees, and it could be possible to beat the post office's last mile service on price if the price was raised $1.50 a package.
That was Andrew Jackson who refused to implement a Supreme Court order to prevent the incursion of Georgia militias to Cherokee land. It was part of the chain of events leading to the Trail of Tears.
The prisoner's dilemma: each prisoner does not know if another is going to cooperate. Cooperating results in a plea deal for reduced punishment, but inflicting full punishment on the non-cooperating prisoner.
The typical scenario is that underling is offered a deal to provide evidence against his boss. The ultimate boss is the one that is the target of full punishment.
If you don't turn over the password to your phone's data, the prosecutor isn't going to be able to use it to verify your story. Even if you promised to testify, unlocking your phone would have to be part of the deal.
The whole point of laws like FOIA is that the law says that the information is public. If each White House decides what it lays open and what it does not, then it will only lay open the stuff that it does not care if people see. So you meet someone somewhere else if you don't want them showing up on the visitor log. That makes a log disclosure sooooo effective.
If you read the warning letter at the link, it may not make a lot of sense to many of you. Here goes:
FDA wants to have companies work with it to make things as safe as possible. Cooperation with FDA means that FDA worries less about you.
FDA usually starts with an "untitled letter" or "notice of violation" letter. This is FDA's way letting a company know that it found something that is concerning them. It may be that there is no problem, but FDA's concern has to be addressed or things may escalate. Obviously, St. Jude's efforts to convince FDA that there was not a problem did not work here.
When FDA moves to a warning letter, it has convinced itself that there is a problem that has to be fixed. The idea is to get the company to fix it on its own, which happens 99% of the time. Most companies address problems at this stage because they want to protect their reputation as a good company at FDA. Recalcitrant companies applications for approval can be viewed with somewhat more suspicion than companies that jump on issues and fix them right away. Nobody really wants more on-site FDA inspections.
We saw with Theranos what can happen if you fail to fix the problem identified in a warning letter: escalation to enforcement to make the company comply.
A company of any size, or with a product of significant complexity, needs to have written procedures for addressing problems and escalating unsolved problems to a higher level of management. FDA found that St. Jude did not follow its procedures and that the procedures were inadequate. So, to satisfy FDA the company will need to convince FDA that the written procedures are adequate and that there is supervision to enforce those procedures within the company.
At this stage companies will often turn to outside consultants to help fix the problem because higher management no longer has confidence in lower management to fix the problem.
The first computer game I spent substantial time on was the text game adventure.demo on a Honeywell Sigma 6. I was taught to program on that computer on Hollerith Cards, but after a couple of years at college they hooked up some user terminals. Going to the computer lab to play the game gave me a chance to talk to actual computer geeks and get started with my knowledge of computers.
Ok, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how civil contempt works here. Rather than address 100 different posts let me summarize:
The whole idea here is that he has been ordered to do something, and is refusing to do it. The judge may order him held to persuade him to follow the order. Persuasion can take a while on something like this. The judge has a duty to monitor the situation and eventually determine that the defendant is unpersuadable.
Once it becomes clear that the person is unpersuadable, then proceedings for criminal contempt of court should start.
At that point, there are full criminal law protections and procedures. The standard becomes proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecution has the burden of proof on every issue of contention: i.e. whether he really forgot.
So, to address many posts: (1) it is not forever; (2) if he continues to there will eventually be a criminal trial of at least civil contempt. This is a form of obstruction of justice, so the penalty can be severe.
Most things I can think of alternatives either have manipulable human intervention or compromise vote privacy.
Let's say you print a receipt to the voter with a key to check if the vote was logged correctly (and a matching paper record that is anonymous). That would put power in the hands of the people to detect hacking of the vote count, assuming the hack was in the recording of the vote, not the tabulation of recorded votes (the latter of which can be machine or human). But that risks compromise of voter privacy. After all, you have a potential trail back to the voter.
Let's say you do paper ballots which are anonymous but numbered. You can double-check via sampling every election to do "quality control" which would also detect tabulation hacking. The results of that, again, do no good with crooked election officials. Easy enough to cover up the tabulation error.
Keeping votes anonymous, preventing recording manipulation, and preventing tabulation and reporting manipulation all have to be dealt with or the subject of assumptions. Which ones do you want to preserve?
I work in a building where the entrance faces a pedestrian walkway. It is a half-block walk to either of two streets. The problem is generic to the whole multi-block walkway.
With Uber I can position the cursor on the map to identify the pickup location. This is not that hard, and there is no reason for the ride-sharing company to not learn from it, and sell information to or trade information with a mapping company.
Having lived near Fort Meade, I have always believed that if NSA was out to get me, I couldn't stop it. Something they would do would get around my security. The one thing I could count on is that NSA was highly unlikely to actually take an interest in me. So I will take reasonable measures, but I don't walk around covered in tin foil.
Yet so many of those that have good reason to think that they would be a target of highly competent infiltrators appear to rely on the same hope of obscurity. And so do their sysadmins. We see if from these officials of the Democratic Party, we see it from movie stars that ought to know that the traffic through their phones is of great interest, and we see it from businesses that have information on hundreds of thousands or millions of their customers.
Yo! You are NOT obscure.
In the U.S., police are restricted in the "searches" they can conduct without a warrant. They may conduct "reasonable" searches without a warrant because our Constitution protects against "unreasonable" searches. The police may observe activity with their eyes from the street or other public place. Technology raises other issues. The Supreme Court found it "unreasonable" to use an infrared camera to look at houses to see which ones had excess heat to identify houses that were growing marijuana and using hot grow lamps. Just about anything goes in an airport: x-rays, dogs, etc. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would make of these observations. It may be that the quality of the cameras was selected precisely to stay within some perceived Constitutional limit. Violating those limits could destroy the entire case because not only the evidence gathered illegally, but all it led to ("fruit of the poisonous tree") is excluded from a trial.
This is almost as bad as listening to lawyers talk about software.
Administrative Procedure is the kind of thing that makes even most lawyers go to sleep. From my brief review it appears that the court thinks that the FCC does not have an internally consistent logic for the treatment of the broadband carriers within the statutory limits set for it by Congress.
It could well be right. That court does practically nothing else but review the actions of administrative agencies. It is very good at doing that.
Not that Congress can do anything useful about anything. Which is another way of saying it cannot break things even more badly if you look at the bright side.
First of all, his oath of office (from Wikipedia)
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.
Nothing there about the President, though he does serve at the pleasure of the President. Obviously, maintaining the President's pleasure means keeping the policies. Oh, and the "White House" is lots of people who are not the President, so it is quite possible to not get drawn into White House inside politics and still maintain the President's policies.
Remember, that ethanol is present as an oxygenate to prevent carbon monoxide and soot. The discontinuation of the use of MBTE (methyl tert-butyl ether) left ethanol the primary one. Methanol is even worse for engines than ethanol. Whatever the shortcomings of ethanol from an engineering basis, it is non-toxic in reasonable quantities.