Any "autonomous" car that doesn't behave autonomously all the time--short of direct driver override--is a criminal liability nightmare.
You have a reading comprehension problem. Read what the hell I wrote, please. I didn't say the car would not operate safely without a connection, just that it would operate more optimally with one. There's a huge difference between safe basic service and optimal service.
Nobody expects "autonomous" to mean "never, ever, talks to anything" and there will be no legal challenge to a product that contains a cloud component as long as it seamlessly handles cloud service outages in a safe manner. The consumer public will expect from "autonomous" is that no driver is needed. That's all it means to them. Neither they, nor the law, will expect it to comply to a compsci term of art. It simply will not mean the product does not have a cloud component... and already doesn't, given navigation maps are updated in real time.
First off I don't expect vehicles marketed as "autonomous" to actually be. Because I'm not naive.
Secondly, there's a fair chance there will be a basic on-board program that works right/safely, but not optimally, and a more CPU intensive one using cloud resources that takes over when there is a connection.
Remote robotic surgery is the commonly cited example.
If you think remote human operation of robotic applications won't touch just about every industry, and won't require "fast lanes", I recommend resuming recreational reading activities because your imagination has up and died.
1) Not all services that need prioritization are going to have their own protocol. 2) Any discrimination against service types can be abused to affect the subset of people using that service type. That will stifle innovation by making everyone trying something new try to make their traffic look like everything else. 3)...or run it in a completely opaque encrypted tunnel. In which case, there is no service information by which to prioritize, and if there is a legitimate public interest in prioritizing it, too bad.
The solution here is so damn simple. X% of the bandwidth should be net neutral. We should be arguing about what X needs to be, not absolutist garbage.
In the event an autonomous vehicle detects a service interruption with something outside its V2V range which it is relying on, a proper design would have a fallback course of action. That doesn't mean vehicles won't be using realtime communication outside of their V2V range.
QoS is about prioritizing certain types of traffic independent of who is sending or receiving it.
No, "QoS" is about prioritizing traffic. Period. Doesn't matter whether you applied the tags based on the type of service, or on the identity of the sender or the receiver, or for any other reason you felt like it.
If TFA is going to try to pick at Comcast's logic here, they might want to try to be logical about it. Comcast did not say the "instantaneuos data transmission" required was for V2V. Said author put those words in Comcast's mouth. There are plenty of other scenarios in which a vehicle may require prioritized communications with something not in range of its V2V radio... do you think a V2V traffic control system is going to be wired together solely with daisy chained V2V radios? No. And it isn't made out of unicorn farts either. On the back end of that is a plain old network. Any communications from a car to something not within a couple hundred feet of itself is going to need to travel across that network and god design practices say you get it off the interference-laden RF spectrum ASAP and backhaul it. Especially if it happens on the border between two municipal systems or involves a third party, some of this will cross the Internet.
Ghod I hate arguing on Comcast's behalf. Please people stop saying stupid shit so I can go take a shower.
Well, I wouldn't agree that there is a common definition.
But since this is yours, that's good enough for argument's sake.
Now, your question was "what exactly do you get without net neutrality except for rent seeking"
Since I don't advocate abolishing all forms of "net neutrality" I don't have any reason to mount a devil's advocate defense of that posture... I was clear that some portion of the network bandwidth should be considered public space, though I would say some service-based prioritization is merited even there in cases where certain poorly designed software suites become a public menace.
So Instead I will answer "what exactly do you get from prioritizing some traffic based on endpoint." The answer is that companies (and government entities) that wish to offer products that require reliable delivery of frames don't have to build out a prohibitively expensive and pretty much logistically impossible private network to offer these services to the market and/or public. Any sort of low latency real-time application falls into this category.
So, to stay close to the topic, let's say self-driving cars almost get there... they are to the point where they can do most things, but occasionally still require driver intervention... so you really cannot offer driverless taxi/shuttle services due to those corner cases. Now let's say a company comes up with a mechanical turk solution to this, where the cars can anticipate situations where they will need help, schedule a 3-minute VR session with a remote human driver to get them over the hump, then free the human driver up to go service other cars.
Notwithstanding the fact that driving through Place de l'Etoile 75 times in a day in rapid succession would probably drive teleworkers more batshit than telemarketing currently does, we cannot and will not have a vibrant market in telecommunications services to make this sort of thing a reality unless these services can reliably deliver a VR session between the car and the teleworker's home office regardless of whether their teenager is download the latest patch to gears of war at that time, whether everyone in the world is slashdotting some recently deceased movie star's iMDB page, or whether some botnet operator decided they had had it up to here with Sony yet again.
And, a second reason why "rent seeking" is not the only option is that network infrastructure has significantly more degrees of freedom than real estate, so the government has more options to put demands on companies to expand services in contested markets without asking them to do the impossible. Such legislation would not fall under the banner of "net neutrality" at all but rather monopoly/cabal prohibitions.
In-flight electricity in vehicles is way less cost competitive with solar/TEG than the electricity at your home given it needs to be produced from fuel through a rather inefficient process, so it boils down to whether the extra weight and potential need for maintenance is worth it... and in the case of solar whether the panels can be kept safe.
It wouldn't surprise me. Hrm... the number of autocomplete form fields containing passwords in the average desktop browser over time would be an interesting stat chart, were there a way to collect it.
My random character passwords tend to become muscle memory after a short time, and a bit more time afterwards I quite literally forget what the password is and only retain the ability to type it.
On man I've been there for sure. Even had one time when I was really tired and absolutely could not log into a box from a 19" rackmount KVM console... had to switch to a real keyboard.
Do note that under some more advanced security models, the box doesn't store your password, but rather cryptographic derivative of it, and as such should not be able to show the password except on the page where it is originally being entered.
Some specifications actually demand this, like SNMPv3 USM, though a lot of vendors just ignore the spec and store the cleartext password anyway.
Anyway as to the OP I think you nailed it on the head: masking is on the way out due to consumers choosing devices with crummier and crummier input devices over time, since apparently coherency is passe. Given this I can hardy say that they have the wrong idea here: the rise of careless and hasty behavior may mean that masking frustrates the 30-second attention spans of the modern era to the point where less people will bother to change default passwords, and might at this point have become counterproductive.
How much sugar does a normal person put into coffee?
I've seen people unload multiple tablespoons of sugar into a cup of coffee. YMMV.
How many times do you eat ketchup a day and how many cups of coffee do you drink? YMMV.
GP was obviously worried enough about the quantity of sugar they were using in their coffee to substitute an artificial sweetener. I'll error on the side of trusting them not to be overreacting.
If you have weight problems I suggest to count what you eat over the day and make a rough estimate how many calories that are.
The types of food you eat matter at least as much as the calorie count. If simple dietary restriction actually worked and was at all tolerable, people would just do that. As many have and will point out until the point sinks in, your body it not a calorimeter... it decides how much of the food you eat to digest, and how much energy to give to your brain and muscles.
They are more than 2.5g each. At least the size I find on shelves. Per my above correction that was an error. Actually more like 10ish I guess.
Point being, think how long it takes to slowly let a lifesaver dissolve in your mouth and how sweet it is. Compare that to how sweet a Coke is not, and how fast it gets drunk. Taste is all about surface area * time... in a beverage of any type, most of it gets washed quickly down your throat, never contacting your taste buds.
Using an optimized sugar-to-tastebud delivery system would actually be a way to experimentally separate the hypothesis that "fooling your body" into thinking you are eating more than you are is harmful, versus other effects of artificial sweeteners.
I should start putting actual sugar in my coffee again
No. You should give up sugar to the extent possible and just not expect artificial sweeteners to help much with that goal, and don't expect them to be entirely harmless.
(I'd not worry about the added sugar in stuff like ketchup, unless you find yourself eating large quantities of it, but do keep an eye on food labels and eliminate anything that has way more sugar than you'd expect.)
An occasional life saver, sucked not chewed, should be able to take the edge off at first when you hit a severe jag... note that one 12oz can of sugared coke is 3 of those, despite not even being very sweet compared to the sucralose diet coke, and not much sweeter than the aspartame diet coke.
I've quit daily sugar intake twice now; it is not easy for some people to do.
I had been off sugar for about a decade, started indulging again, and gained 10lbs in a year. Am now still considered overweight by 5lbs despite being mostly back off the sugar, but weight has more or less stabilized. Cholesterol went down after getting back off, as well.
During that whole decade before the weight gain I was drinking more sucralose and aspartame than anyone would think healthy. Still am. There is no "artificial" taste for me anymore... sugar actually tastes weak and underwhelming. The artificial sweeteners probably do screw up the gut a bit... but sugar is worse overall.
Drink something that tastes better than coffee. or better coffee; you won't need to sweeten it so much.
Lots of people have their own ideas about what constitutes net neutrality, and not many of them are the same. There are some absolutists on both sides, and from what I hear talking to people, the general public is too unaware about the uses of contentionless/prioritized networks, and the measures necessary to keep harmful traffic at bay on the network at large, to sympathize with the provisions necessary to get the most out the Internet. Doesn't help that the telco companies are such a bunch of odious nipple twisters.
Personally I think we should ask math/game-theory/computational-simulation specialists to model what percent of the Internet needs to be "neutral" to preserve a beneficial market, and error on the more neutral side of that figure. And the model should include CDNs not just ISPs.
You know, evidence based policy and such, rather than just a tug of war between corporate greed on one side and hate for local cable companies on the other.
I thought that was the point, given how useless it would otherwise be to put a bunch of panels out where they have no security and a really long run along a daisy chain of distribution wires. Oh hey look all the houses south of the border installed new solar panels... hey those panels look familiar... come to think of it, that used copper wire we just bought off the scrap dealer looks familiar too...
Or maybe Trump just wants it to light up at night so it will be visible from space.
I'm still pulling for pottery embedded in the concrete so only the most EXTREME freeclimbers can get in. It's EXTREME VETTING.
(None of this situation is actually funny, but I have to cope somehow.)
Slashdot Mirror
Any "autonomous" car that doesn't behave autonomously all the time--short of direct driver override--is a criminal liability nightmare.
You have a reading comprehension problem. Read what the hell I wrote, please. I didn't say the car would not operate safely without a connection, just that it would operate more optimally with one. There's a huge difference between safe basic service and optimal service.
Nobody expects "autonomous" to mean "never, ever, talks to anything" and there will be no legal challenge to a product that contains a cloud component as long as it seamlessly handles cloud service outages in a safe manner. The consumer public will expect from "autonomous" is that no driver is needed. That's all it means to them. Neither they, nor the law, will expect it to comply to a compsci term of art. It simply will not mean the product does not have a cloud component... and already doesn't, given navigation maps are updated in real time.
I think they'd need more footage than they have of him actually talking about "adoption"... and to train it on Russian.
Though they do have plenty of footage of him talking about golf and grandchildren...
That's the point of net neutrality
I keep hearing that, but never seeing an actual policy document that says how. Other than vague plans completely cripple the use of QoS.
First off I don't expect vehicles marketed as "autonomous" to actually be. Because I'm not naive.
Secondly, there's a fair chance there will be a basic on-board program that works right/safely, but not optimally, and a more CPU intensive one using cloud resources that takes over when there is a connection.
Remote robotic surgery is the commonly cited example.
If you think remote human operation of robotic applications won't touch just about every industry, and won't require "fast lanes", I recommend resuming recreational reading activities because your imagination has up and died.
1) Not all services that need prioritization are going to have their own protocol. ...or run it in a completely opaque encrypted tunnel. In which case, there is no service information by which to prioritize, and if there is a legitimate public interest in prioritizing it, too bad.
2) Any discrimination against service types can be abused to affect the subset of people using that service type. That will stifle innovation by making everyone trying something new try to make their traffic look like everything else.
3)
The solution here is so damn simple. X% of the bandwidth should be net neutral. We should be arguing about what X needs to be, not absolutist garbage.
Doesnt mean the rest of Comcast is all evil empire n shit.
Well... they are. But that does not make them wrong in this case.
In the event an autonomous vehicle detects a service interruption with something outside its V2V range which it is relying on, a proper design would have a fallback course of action. That doesn't mean vehicles won't be using realtime communication outside of their V2V range.
QoS is about prioritizing certain types of traffic independent of who is sending or receiving it.
No, "QoS" is about prioritizing traffic. Period. Doesn't matter whether you applied the tags based on the type of service, or on the identity of the sender or the receiver, or for any other reason you felt like it.
If TFA is going to try to pick at Comcast's logic here, they might want to try to be logical about it. Comcast did not say the "instantaneuos data transmission" required was for V2V. Said author put those words in Comcast's mouth. There are plenty of other scenarios in which a vehicle may require prioritized communications with something not in range of its V2V radio... do you think a V2V traffic control system is going to be wired together solely with daisy chained V2V radios? No. And it isn't made out of unicorn farts either. On the back end of that is a plain old network. Any communications from a car to something not within a couple hundred feet of itself is going to need to travel across that network and god design practices say you get it off the interference-laden RF spectrum ASAP and backhaul it. Especially if it happens on the border between two municipal systems or involves a third party, some of this will cross the Internet.
Ghod I hate arguing on Comcast's behalf. Please people stop saying stupid shit so I can go take a shower.
Well, I wouldn't agree that there is a common definition.
But since this is yours, that's good enough for argument's sake.
Now, your question was "what exactly do you get without net neutrality except for rent seeking"
Since I don't advocate abolishing all forms of "net neutrality" I don't have any reason to mount a devil's advocate defense of that posture... I was clear that some portion of the network bandwidth should be considered public space, though I would say some service-based prioritization is merited even there in cases where certain poorly designed software suites become a public menace.
So Instead I will answer "what exactly do you get from prioritizing some traffic based on endpoint." The answer is that companies (and government entities) that wish to offer products that require reliable delivery of frames don't have to build out a prohibitively expensive and pretty much logistically impossible private network to offer these services to the market and/or public. Any sort of low latency real-time application falls into this category.
So, to stay close to the topic, let's say self-driving cars almost get there... they are to the point where they can do most things, but occasionally still require driver intervention... so you really cannot offer driverless taxi/shuttle services due to those corner cases. Now let's say a company comes up with a mechanical turk solution to this, where the cars can anticipate situations where they will need help, schedule a 3-minute VR session with a remote human driver to get them over the hump, then free the human driver up to go service other cars.
Notwithstanding the fact that driving through Place de l'Etoile 75 times in a day in rapid succession would probably drive teleworkers more batshit than telemarketing currently does, we cannot and will not have a vibrant market in telecommunications services to make this sort of thing a reality unless these services can reliably deliver a VR session between the car and the teleworker's home office regardless of whether their teenager is download the latest patch to gears of war at that time, whether everyone in the world is slashdotting some recently deceased movie star's iMDB page, or whether some botnet operator decided they had had it up to here with Sony yet again.
And, a second reason why "rent seeking" is not the only option is that network infrastructure has significantly more degrees of freedom than real estate, so the government has more options to put demands on companies to expand services in contested markets without asking them to do the impossible. Such legislation would not fall under the banner of "net neutrality" at all but rather monopoly/cabal prohibitions.
In-flight electricity in vehicles is way less cost competitive with solar/TEG than the electricity at your home given it needs to be produced from fuel through a rather inefficient process, so it boils down to whether the extra weight and potential need for maintenance is worth it... and in the case of solar whether the panels can be kept safe.
So yes, it's a missed opportunity.
+1 Insightful. There's a nice example of a perverse incentive for you.
If your computer can scan it to let you in, someone else's computer can scan it to let them take a copy.
It wouldn't surprise me. Hrm... the number of autocomplete form fields containing passwords in the average desktop browser over time would be an interesting stat chart, were there a way to collect it.
My random character passwords tend to become muscle memory after a short time, and a bit more time afterwards I quite literally forget what the password is and only retain the ability to type it.
On man I've been there for sure. Even had one time when I was really tired and absolutely could not log into a box from a 19" rackmount KVM console... had to switch to a real keyboard.
Do note that under some more advanced security models, the box doesn't store your password, but rather cryptographic derivative of it, and as such should not be able to show the password except on the page where it is originally being entered.
Some specifications actually demand this, like SNMPv3 USM, though a lot of vendors just ignore the spec and store the cleartext password anyway.
Anyway as to the OP I think you nailed it on the head: masking is on the way out due to consumers choosing devices with crummier and crummier input devices over time, since apparently coherency is passe. Given this I can hardy say that they have the wrong idea here: the rise of careless and hasty behavior may mean that masking frustrates the 30-second attention spans of the modern era to the point where less people will bother to change default passwords, and might at this point have become counterproductive.
What's with this "nearly" stuff. That's not how to write a sensationalist headline. Though I give you props for using "sexbot".
How much sugar does a normal person put into coffee?
I've seen people unload multiple tablespoons of sugar into a cup of coffee. YMMV.
How many times do you eat ketchup a day and how many cups of coffee do you drink? YMMV.
GP was obviously worried enough about the quantity of sugar they were using in
their coffee to substitute an artificial sweetener. I'll error on the side of trusting
them not to be overreacting.
If you have weight problems I suggest to count what you eat over the day and make a rough estimate how many calories that are.
The types of food you eat matter at least as much as the calorie count. If simple
dietary restriction actually worked and was at all tolerable, people would just do that.
As many have and will point out until the point sinks in, your body it not a calorimeter...
it decides how much of the food you eat to digest, and how much energy to give to
your brain and muscles.
It's hard to have that discussion unless you are willing to explain your own personal definition of "net neutrality"
They are more than 2.5g each. At least the size I find on shelves. Per my above correction that was an error. Actually more like 10ish I guess.
Point being, think how long it takes to slowly let a lifesaver dissolve in your mouth and how sweet it is. Compare that to how sweet a Coke is not, and how fast it gets drunk. Taste is all about surface area * time... in a beverage of any type, most of it gets washed quickly down your throat, never contacting your taste buds.
Using an optimized sugar-to-tastebud delivery system would actually be a way to experimentally separate the hypothesis that "fooling your body" into thinking you are eating more than you are is harmful, versus other effects of artificial sweeteners.
Correction, 1 12 oz coke is 8ish lifesavers. Not 3, Don't know why I typed 3.
I should start putting actual sugar in my coffee again
No. You should give up sugar to the extent possible and just not expect
artificial sweeteners to help much with that goal, and don't expect them
to be entirely harmless.
(I'd not worry about the added sugar in stuff like ketchup, unless you find
yourself eating large quantities of it, but do keep an eye on food labels
and eliminate anything that has way more sugar than you'd expect.)
An occasional life saver, sucked not chewed, should be able to take the
edge off at first when you hit a severe jag... note that one 12oz can of
sugared coke is 3 of those, despite not even being very sweet compared
to the sucralose diet coke, and not much sweeter than the aspartame
diet coke.
I've quit daily sugar intake twice now; it is not easy for some people to do.
I had been off sugar for about a decade, started indulging again, and
gained 10lbs in a year. Am now still considered overweight by 5lbs despite
being mostly back off the sugar, but weight has more or less stabilized.
Cholesterol went down after getting back off, as well.
During that whole decade before the weight gain I was drinking more sucralose
and aspartame than anyone would think healthy. Still am. There is no "artificial"
taste for me anymore... sugar actually tastes weak and underwhelming. The
artificial sweeteners probably do screw up the gut a bit... but sugar is worse overall.
Drink something that tastes better than coffee. or better coffee; you won't need
to sweeten it so much.
I thought that the idea of net neutrality...
Lots of people have their own ideas about what constitutes net neutrality, and not many of them are the same. There are some absolutists on both sides, and from what I hear talking to people, the general public is too unaware about the uses of contentionless/prioritized networks, and the measures necessary to keep harmful traffic at bay on the network at large, to sympathize with the provisions necessary to get the most out the Internet. Doesn't help that the telco companies are such a bunch of odious nipple twisters.
Personally I think we should ask math/game-theory/computational-simulation specialists to model what percent of the Internet needs to be "neutral" to preserve a beneficial market, and error on the more neutral side of that figure. And the model should include CDNs not just ISPs.
You know, evidence based policy and such, rather than just a tug of war between corporate greed on one side and hate for local cable companies on the other.
Assuming ten-year replacement
Hah!
I thought that was the point, given how useless it would otherwise be to put a bunch of panels out where they have no security and a really long run along a daisy chain of distribution wires. Oh hey look all the houses south of the border installed new solar panels... hey those panels look familiar... come to think of it, that used copper wire we just bought off the scrap dealer looks familiar too...
Or maybe Trump just wants it to light up at night so it will be visible from space.
I'm still pulling for pottery embedded in the concrete so only the most EXTREME freeclimbers can get in. It's EXTREME VETTING.
(None of this situation is actually funny, but I have to cope somehow.)