Did you stop reading before you got to the part where they said what the felonies were? Felony DWI and reckless driving. Are you really trying to say you should be allowed to drive people with those on your record? For those to be felonies you either killed someone or committed the violation several times.
Your description of jargon is nuts. Nobody has to know the origin of a word or term in order to correctly used said word. That applies to everyday words as well as jargon. Why is a cat called a cat? If you can't explain that, you surely don't know what you are talking about when you say you like pictures of cats.
Any photographer could tell you what those terms mean, insofar as it actually matters to them.
You are off by decades. The term 'black Friday' was used starting in the 60s. It was used not by the retailers, but the police, who used it to describe the incredible traffic jams and crowds that occurred on that day. The day after Thanksgiving crowds were already a thing in the 1950s. It was indeed 'a whole big thing' way back then. I don't know when the special sales started, but they were certainly in place when I worked at a department store in the 70s. We had to be there at 4AM to retag all the merchandise before the store opened at 6AM (instead of the usual 10AM),
What are you talking about? The government isn't 'after' or 'investigating' anybody. The accountant knows the review is on Yelp - all the court is doing is compelling Yelp to give the accountant the ID of the reviewer. Other than the judge making the order, 'the government' has zero involvement.
The intent of the amendment is to restrict the power of the government. That is why it says 'Congress shall make no law...' and not 'You can say whatever you want and nobody can do anything about it'.
The amendment does not shield you from any negative repercussions of your speech, except for repercussions imposed by the government.
The only reason the autonomous vehicle should 'stop anyway' is because it completely lacks judgement, which is an absolutely key part of driving. There is no such thing as risk-free driving. Even a stop when others are not expecting it can cause an accident, and you can't just hand-wave that away and say 'well that is their fault' - it is reality.
So in this case, the driver used his judgement - eye contact with the other party means something. If the child appeared to be chased by the mother the driver would probably stop, as his judgement would say that the child will not. If the mother was not looking at him he would probably prepare for a stop in case she is unaware he is there and is not planning to stop. But when someone is looking at you, and they have a safe place to wait, and the sensible thing for them to do is stop and wait, your judgement should tell you they will stop. If you are not going to trust the other party to do the proper or sensible thing, are you going to stop at every green light to make sure nobody is going to run the red in the cross traffic?
The simple fact is, a good driver uses his judgement constantly. Some of that judgement comes from driving experience, more of it comes from just being human. New drivers lack the driving judgement, it is why they are (or should be) restricted in when and where they can drive. SDCs have neither the driving judgement nor the human judgement - they should be even more restricted than new drivers.
Newsflash, if it happened 'all the time' it wouldn't be news. The reason it is news is because it happens INFREQUENTLY. What actually happens 'all the time' is that buses and trucks encounter each other AND DON'T CRASH.
This is the big problem with a lot of self-driving proponents - they focus on the RARE events and say they could be prevented, but completely ignore the common, everyday realities of driving.
Either there are not enough restaurants in the US or the management is incompetent or they are just greedy and they accept way too many reservations, just like the US airlines.
How about the most obvious answer: people do not want to make a reservation. I also eat at restaurants frequently. The only time we ever make a reservation is if there will be a large group, or we have to be somewhere at a specific time after dinner, or if it is a place that is impossible to get into without a reservation. We would MUCH rather have to wait a while for a table than be tied down to having to be at a specific place at a specifc time just to eat dinner.
Also, US airlines do not 'accept way too many reservations'. The only people who believe that are the dopes who think over-booking is the same as over-selling.
They didn't bail out GM. The company ceased to exist. The owners of the company (shareholders) got nothing. The government bought the assets of the former company in order to form a new company in order to protect jobs. There is absolutely no reason to think the government would bail out bitcoin any more than they would bail out any other investors in a failed company.
Except you have completely misread that FCC notice. The notice puts zero requirements or liability on the manufacturer of the device, it is about the requirements and limitations on the USE of the device. 'Must accept interference' does not mean 'can handle interference', it means that if the device does not work because of interference, you have no legal recourse. 'Must not cause harmful interference' means that if the device is interfering with a licensed service, even if the device is operating perfectly, you must stop using it. If you continue using it, YOU, not the manufacturer, will be fined.
So a similar thing thing on the Internet would be: this gadget may malfunction if it receives bad data. If it does, too bad. If this device is sending out harmful packets you must stop using it. If you don't, you will be fined.
Wow, how insightful. Thanks for pointing out how different gambling is from all other entertainment industries. Of course, they are somewhat different. If you spend your money on movies, or books, or concerts, or theme parks, or video games you will never come home with more money than you originally had. With casinos, you might.
'So now I admit'? I never said otherwise, I also never said anything about updates. Can't you even read? Here is what I said, please feel free to point out where I said it had anything to do with being open vs closed source, or about applying updates:
They are not claiming that open source is riskier than closed source. They are saying that companies that have no policy on the use of open-source software may be running (or distributing) software they are not even aware of. So when someone in charge of security sees that XYZ has a vulnerability, he may not know that they are affected. On the other hand, closed-source software generally requires approvals, money, licenses, etc, so the company is at least aware of the use of the software.
Obviously that should be the policy. That is not what the article is about. What the article is saying is that if anyone in your company is free to install or use FOSS, and there is no tracking of that, you have no way of enforcing that policy because you don't know what is installed where. If the CIO sees a report that says Struts has a vulnerability, how is he supposed to ensure that all the systems running Struts are patched if he has no idea what systems (if any) are running Struts?
All the article is saying is to have a policy regarding open source, and track where it is used. Of course, they are trying to sell a product to help with that, but that does not negate the point.
The whole freaking article is about MANAGEMENT. Did you somehow miss that in your zealotry? There is NOTHING in the article that says open source is bad, or closed source is better. What it is talking about is the lack of rigor in companies in TRACKING their use of FOSS, so that the company remains in control. The RISK comes from being out of control, not from the software.
If IIS was used, and the CIO saw a report that said there was a flaw in IIS, he could probably consult the database of licenses they have for IIS, find out where it is used, and ask to see what patches were applied. If Apache is used, and he sees a report that there is a flaw in Apache, how can he see where Apache is used if the company has not tracked FOSS?
Most companies will have policy that says all commercial software must be licensed, and will keep track of where those licenses are used. Apparently fare fewer companies have poilcies saying all FOSS usage must be tracked, and THAT is what the article is about.
Nobody is saying that there are more risks in FOSS. What is so hard to grasp about this? They are saying that UNCONTROLLED use of FOSS is risky, not because of the software, but because the company does not know what software it is running. They aren't saying "don't use FOSS", they are saying "have a policy so you remain in control of what you are running".
And yes, FOSS vs commercial makes a difference, because most companies have policies against installing and running unlicensed software, but far fewer have policies against installing and running FOSS without prior authorization, for example.
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. Companies do NOT have policies regarding open source, so in fact they DON'T have a way of checking for issues. The article is not saying using open source is risky, or anything like that (which is how many here read it), but that you must have a POLICY regarding open source so you can remain in control of your systems. You can't just have people (admins or not) installing anything they want willy-nilly and stay in control.
You miss the point. The discussion has nothing to do with what a closed-source vendor may or may not do.
Equifax did not patch until 6 months later. WHY? Who was responsible for patching the systems and making sure the patches were applied? It certainly should not be left to some admin, it should be way higher up (CIO). But if there is no policy regarding use of open source, and the CIO has no accurate inventory of what software is in use where, how is he supposed to do that?
The article is about POLICY and compliance with it. If your company has no POLICY regarding open source, and no checking for compliance with that policy, how do you (as, for instance, the CIO) ensure that the systems are in fact patched in a timely manner? Just leave it up to some low-level admin? Package managers, etc are just tools, they are not a substitute for policy (without policy, what is to prevent someone from downloading the source and building themselves, avoiding the pesky package manager)?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you stop reading before you got to the part where they said what the felonies were? Felony DWI and reckless driving. Are you really trying to say you should be allowed to drive people with those on your record? For those to be felonies you either killed someone or committed the violation several times.
Your description of jargon is nuts. Nobody has to know the origin of a word or term in order to correctly used said word. That applies to everyday words as well as jargon. Why is a cat called a cat? If you can't explain that, you surely don't know what you are talking about when you say you like pictures of cats.
Any photographer could tell you what those terms mean, insofar as it actually matters to them.
You are off by decades. The term 'black Friday' was used starting in the 60s. It was used not by the retailers, but the police, who used it to describe the incredible traffic jams and crowds that occurred on that day. The day after Thanksgiving crowds were already a thing in the 1950s. It was indeed 'a whole big thing' way back then. I don't know when the special sales started, but they were certainly in place when I worked at a department store in the 70s. We had to be there at 4AM to retag all the merchandise before the store opened at 6AM (instead of the usual 10AM),
What are you talking about? The government isn't 'after' or 'investigating' anybody. The accountant knows the review is on Yelp - all the court is doing is compelling Yelp to give the accountant the ID of the reviewer. Other than the judge making the order, 'the government' has zero involvement.
The intent of the amendment is to restrict the power of the government. That is why it says 'Congress shall make no law...' and not 'You can say whatever you want and nobody can do anything about it'.
The amendment does not shield you from any negative repercussions of your speech, except for repercussions imposed by the government.
So you have no license on your code at all? How does anyone know they can use it?
And how does safer appear, other than a different patient outcome (which did not happen)?
The only reason the autonomous vehicle should 'stop anyway' is because it completely lacks judgement, which is an absolutely key part of driving. There is no such thing as risk-free driving. Even a stop when others are not expecting it can cause an accident, and you can't just hand-wave that away and say 'well that is their fault' - it is reality.
So in this case, the driver used his judgement - eye contact with the other party means something. If the child appeared to be chased by the mother the driver would probably stop, as his judgement would say that the child will not. If the mother was not looking at him he would probably prepare for a stop in case she is unaware he is there and is not planning to stop. But when someone is looking at you, and they have a safe place to wait, and the sensible thing for them to do is stop and wait, your judgement should tell you they will stop. If you are not going to trust the other party to do the proper or sensible thing, are you going to stop at every green light to make sure nobody is going to run the red in the cross traffic?
The simple fact is, a good driver uses his judgement constantly. Some of that judgement comes from driving experience, more of it comes from just being human. New drivers lack the driving judgement, it is why they are (or should be) restricted in when and where they can drive. SDCs have neither the driving judgement nor the human judgement - they should be even more restricted than new drivers.
Newsflash, if it happened 'all the time' it wouldn't be news. The reason it is news is because it happens INFREQUENTLY. What actually happens 'all the time' is that buses and trucks encounter each other AND DON'T CRASH.
This is the big problem with a lot of self-driving proponents - they focus on the RARE events and say they could be prevented, but completely ignore the common, everyday realities of driving.
Either there are not enough restaurants in the US or the management is incompetent or they are just greedy and they accept way too many reservations, just like the US airlines.
How about the most obvious answer: people do not want to make a reservation. I also eat at restaurants frequently. The only time we ever make a reservation is if there will be a large group, or we have to be somewhere at a specific time after dinner, or if it is a place that is impossible to get into without a reservation. We would MUCH rather have to wait a while for a table than be tied down to having to be at a specific place at a specifc time just to eat dinner.
Also, US airlines do not 'accept way too many reservations'. The only people who believe that are the dopes who think over-booking is the same as over-selling.
They didn't bail out GM. The company ceased to exist. The owners of the company (shareholders) got nothing. The government bought the assets of the former company in order to form a new company in order to protect jobs. There is absolutely no reason to think the government would bail out bitcoin any more than they would bail out any other investors in a failed company.
IHS has indicated that lane departure WARNINGS increase safety. That is far different than 'the car is driving until something goes wrong'.
Except you have completely misread that FCC notice. The notice puts zero requirements or liability on the manufacturer of the device, it is about the requirements and limitations on the USE of the device. 'Must accept interference' does not mean 'can handle interference', it means that if the device does not work because of interference, you have no legal recourse. 'Must not cause harmful interference' means that if the device is interfering with a licensed service, even if the device is operating perfectly, you must stop using it. If you continue using it, YOU, not the manufacturer, will be fined.
So a similar thing thing on the Internet would be: this gadget may malfunction if it receives bad data. If it does, too bad. If this device is sending out harmful packets you must stop using it. If you don't, you will be fined.
Wow, how insightful. Thanks for pointing out how different gambling is from all other entertainment industries. Of course, they are somewhat different. If you spend your money on movies, or books, or concerts, or theme parks, or video games you will never come home with more money than you originally had. With casinos, you might.
By that idiotic definition, not having insurance is gambling (betting nothing bad will happen)
RIAA established 1952
MPAA established 1922
Disney Corp founded 1923
Berne Copyright extension of copyright to authors death + 50 years - 1908
i never met a plumber who only got paid if/when someone used the toilet.
'So now I admit'? I never said otherwise, I also never said anything about updates. Can't you even read? Here is what I said, please feel free to point out where I said it had anything to do with being open vs closed source, or about applying updates:
They are not claiming that open source is riskier than closed source. They are saying that companies that have no policy on the use of open-source software may be running (or distributing) software they are not even aware of. So when someone in charge of security sees that XYZ has a vulnerability, he may not know that they are affected. On the other hand, closed-source software generally requires approvals, money, licenses, etc, so the company is at least aware of the use of the software.
Obviously that should be the policy. That is not what the article is about. What the article is saying is that if anyone in your company is free to install or use FOSS, and there is no tracking of that, you have no way of enforcing that policy because you don't know what is installed where. If the CIO sees a report that says Struts has a vulnerability, how is he supposed to ensure that all the systems running Struts are patched if he has no idea what systems (if any) are running Struts?
All the article is saying is to have a policy regarding open source, and track where it is used. Of course, they are trying to sell a product to help with that, but that does not negate the point.
The whole freaking article is about MANAGEMENT. Did you somehow miss that in your zealotry? There is NOTHING in the article that says open source is bad, or closed source is better. What it is talking about is the lack of rigor in companies in TRACKING their use of FOSS, so that the company remains in control. The RISK comes from being out of control, not from the software.
If IIS was used, and the CIO saw a report that said there was a flaw in IIS, he could probably consult the database of licenses they have for IIS, find out where it is used, and ask to see what patches were applied. If Apache is used, and he sees a report that there is a flaw in Apache, how can he see where Apache is used if the company has not tracked FOSS?
Most companies will have policy that says all commercial software must be licensed, and will keep track of where those licenses are used. Apparently fare fewer companies have poilcies saying all FOSS usage must be tracked, and THAT is what the article is about.
Nobody is saying that there are more risks in FOSS. What is so hard to grasp about this? They are saying that UNCONTROLLED use of FOSS is risky, not because of the software, but because the company does not know what software it is running. They aren't saying "don't use FOSS", they are saying "have a policy so you remain in control of what you are running".
And yes, FOSS vs commercial makes a difference, because most companies have policies against installing and running unlicensed software, but far fewer have policies against installing and running FOSS without prior authorization, for example.
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. Companies do NOT have policies regarding open source, so in fact they DON'T have a way of checking for issues. The article is not saying using open source is risky, or anything like that (which is how many here read it), but that you must have a POLICY regarding open source so you can remain in control of your systems. You can't just have people (admins or not) installing anything they want willy-nilly and stay in control.
You miss the point. The discussion has nothing to do with what a closed-source vendor may or may not do.
Equifax did not patch until 6 months later. WHY? Who was responsible for patching the systems and making sure the patches were applied? It certainly should not be left to some admin, it should be way higher up (CIO). But if there is no policy regarding use of open source, and the CIO has no accurate inventory of what software is in use where, how is he supposed to do that?
Yeah, OK. But how much 'closed source but free' stuff is there, compared to open source? Virtually none.
The article is about POLICY and compliance with it. If your company has no POLICY regarding open source, and no checking for compliance with that policy, how do you (as, for instance, the CIO) ensure that the systems are in fact patched in a timely manner? Just leave it up to some low-level admin? Package managers, etc are just tools, they are not a substitute for policy (without policy, what is to prevent someone from downloading the source and building themselves, avoiding the pesky package manager)?