I have had a faulty ABS sensor, and the experience was not like you say. Here is what actually happened: the yellow 'ABS' light on the dash came on, informing me that the ABS was disabled. Scary.
You watch too many movies. If someone actually wants you dead there are far easier ways to accomplish that than hacking your car. For instance, they could shoot you as you drive past. That actually happens in the real world. Should we sue automakers so they only use bulletproof glass and armor plating? Or they could drop a rock on you as you go under an overpass, also happens in real life. Or a bomb.
No, he is saying that there should be an actual danger before you yell the sky is falling.
What are the actual odds of an accident being caused by a hacker? What are the actual odds of an accident being caused by a software bug in security code?
Hard to have a remote starter if you can't wireless control the engine. Hard to have traction control if you can't control the engine and brakes from the same point. Hard to have stability control if you can't control the steering, brakes, and engine.
Can those things be done some other way? Probably. But the other ways are more likely more complex, and you would have to show that the more complex ways actually increase safety, which may not be the case.
I understand all that, and I am not saying that wind erosion is implausible. What I don't understand is the desire to remove the substance doing the erosion, wind or water, from the discussion and just reduce it to 'a flow'. It seems to me that wind or water actually matters.
No, it is not illegal to deny somebody admission to anything based on race. It is illegal to deny employment or housing based on race, and if a place is open to the public (stores, restaurants, etc) you can't deny admission based on race, but there is nothing preventing a private organization from denying admission based on any criteria they choose.
Remember that in additional to freedom of speech you also have freedom of assembly, which means you get to choose who you will associate with. There are plenty of private organizations that restrict membership based on criteria that would not be allowed in a 'public' setting.
Which would you rather be hit with, a 20 MPH wind, or a 20MPH wall of water? Remind me again how they are the same.
If you are trying to figure out what formed some canyons, the WHAT and not just HOW is pretty important. If you are just going to call it 'flow' why bother looking at it at all?
You do realize that the 'hammer of justice' came from their own organization, right? You also realize that they used the name of the organization in their stupid little chant, which reflects very poorly on the organization, right?
What is 'disproportionate' about the organization not wanting to be associated with these morons?
If only you had the maturity to see the wonderful irony in your statement. Everything would be perfect if only it weren't for "those other people", right? Think about that for a moment, then see if you can figure out why there is violence in the world. Here is a hint: it has nothing to do with "oldsters".
Your bank lets you perform transactions without being able to verify your identity via photo ID without sunglasses? Sounds like you should find a better bank.
Seriously? All they do is ask you to remove them for a moment so the camera (or the receptionis, or the teller) can see you without the glasses. Then you put them back on.
And guess what? The manager isn't going to do a damn thing until he can verify your identity, which will involve removing the glasses.
Oh, bullshit. The same number of kids thought they were going to be real musicians as thought they were going to be real race car drivers, assassins, airline pilots, or any of the other games you can get - zero.
Nobody played those games to 'get skills', they played the games because they were fun. There is nothing 'sad' about it at all.
Cities consder taxis an important part of their transportation system. As such, they regulate with regard to things like rates, must-carry rules, equipment, driver qualification, etc. Because of those regulations, it is not possible to compete on price or service. If you can not compete on price or service, then the only ways to increase profits are by picking up more fares, or lowering your costs.
Before the 'artificial scarcity' that you decry was created cabs did extremely dangerous things to try to get fares (cutting off other cabs, picking up fares on the wrong side of the street, etc). This was a real, not imagined, problem. To solve the problem they created the artificial scarcity so that the cabs do not have to compete.
The artificial scarcity is not created to keep businesses from failing, it is to keep the citizens of the city safe from the actions of dangerous cab drivers (which the NYT called the 'Yellow Peril' back in the 1920's).
You can not have regulated rates and must-carry rules without a limited number of licenses. Restaurants, etc, of course do not have regulated rates or must-serve rules (note that must -carry includes things not related to discrimination based on the person, but also discrimination based on the profitabilty of the trip).
If you have regulated rates, must-carry rules, and unlimited participants then there only two ways to be profitable: get more fares, and cut costs. Getting more fares means competing for fares, and since you can't do it on price that leads to things like drivers cutting off other drivers to get to a fare, fake fares (Uber would never stoop to that, would they?), stopping in dangerous places to pick up a fare, etc. These things actually occurred when the number of cabs was not limited (NYT called it the 'Yellow Peril' because the streets were so dangerous because of the antics of cabs competing for fares).
The other way to increase profit is to cut costs, which leads to shoddy equipment maintenance and over-worked, under-qualified drivers.
People like you always make it seem like these regulations just appeared out of nowhere, fully formed, exactly as they are now. They didn't. They were all in response to real problems. And, thanks to Uber, you can see exactly what would happen in the absense of regulations. 'Surge pricing', refused trips, scheduling fake trips with a competitor, uninsured drives, etc. In short, every one of the problems that the regulations are there for.
Which is also by design, because adding more vehicles to already congested roads just means it takes much longer for anyone to get anywhere. When traffic is basically at a standstill (peak hours) it does not matter if you are in a cab or waiting for one, you are not really getting anywhere. The only difference is whether you are paying for the privilege of going nowhere.
This is another one of those things that Uber supporters just don't seem to get. Surge pricing? It's great, because it gets more drivers on the road. Exactly what we DON'T need.
Ever hear of risk/benefit ratios? Some people are very risk-averse, even when there is a real benefit to doing something. That would be people that NEVER drive in a car, etc.
At the other end of the spectrum are people who take unnecessary risks, even when there is no benefit. We even have a name for those people - Darwin Award Candidates.
In the middle we have normal people, who are willing to accept risk if the risk is outweighed by the benefits. This is where 'most people' are - the ones who will let kids play, but still want them to be safe while doing so. Yes, you can cross the street. No, you can not jump off the roof.
Giving honey to an infant carries a small but real risk of severe injury, and zero benefits. Doing so puts you in the Darwin Award category, and is nothing to be proud of. You are certainly not in the 'the rest of us' category.
Your logic is 100% backwards. You are the one making the claim that the laws against fraud and racketeering don't seem to apply to companies over a certain size. In order to make that claim, you must have at least one example in mind. What is it? On the other hand, expecting a citation for someone being indicted implies that you know there is at least one case where someone should have been indicted, bringing us back to square one.
My point is that EVERY legitimate warranty claim is the result of something happening that should not have happened. So here we have a proposal to deny someone's warranty claim based on the fact that an eFUSE or whatever said they overclocked the chip, when in fact the state of the eFUSE itself could be a defect. That makes no sense at all.
Then it is completely worthless. Instead of having to try to determine whether the problem was caused by overclocking, you instead get to try to determine why the fuse was blown. Unless, of course, you are planning on them just rejecting warranty claims because it is 'unlikely' that it is their fault. OIn which case they might as well not include such a charade and just claim that it is 'unlikely' any problem is their fault and reject all warranty claims.
Can banks just decide not to do business with you? Yes. Can they keep your money? No, that would be theft. What does one have to do with the other?
Of course their are anti-discrimination laws, but what 'discrimination' they protect against is very narrowly defined (race, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation).
What makes you think the Constitution applies to 'government regulated entities'? It certainly does not.
Slashdot Mirror
I have had a faulty ABS sensor, and the experience was not like you say. Here is what actually happened: the yellow 'ABS' light on the dash came on, informing me that the ABS was disabled. Scary.
You watch too many movies. If someone actually wants you dead there are far easier ways to accomplish that than hacking your car. For instance, they could shoot you as you drive past. That actually happens in the real world. Should we sue automakers so they only use bulletproof glass and armor plating? Or they could drop a rock on you as you go under an overpass, also happens in real life. Or a bomb.
OBDII is mandated by the government.
No, he is saying that there should be an actual danger before you yell the sky is falling.
What are the actual odds of an accident being caused by a hacker? What are the actual odds of an accident being caused by a software bug in security code?
Hard to have a remote starter if you can't wireless control the engine. Hard to have traction control if you can't control the engine and brakes from the same point. Hard to have stability control if you can't control the steering, brakes, and engine.
Can those things be done some other way? Probably. But the other ways are more likely more complex, and you would have to show that the more complex ways actually increase safety, which may not be the case.
They're suing because, theoretically, some third party could make them the victim of a crime? Good luck with that.
I understand all that, and I am not saying that wind erosion is implausible. What I don't understand is the desire to remove the substance doing the erosion, wind or water, from the discussion and just reduce it to 'a flow'. It seems to me that wind or water actually matters.
No, it is not illegal to deny somebody admission to anything based on race. It is illegal to deny employment or housing based on race, and if a place is open to the public (stores, restaurants, etc) you can't deny admission based on race, but there is nothing preventing a private organization from denying admission based on any criteria they choose.
Remember that in additional to freedom of speech you also have freedom of assembly, which means you get to choose who you will associate with. There are plenty of private organizations that restrict membership based on criteria that would not be allowed in a 'public' setting.
Which would you rather be hit with, a 20 MPH wind, or a 20MPH wall of water? Remind me again how they are the same.
If you are trying to figure out what formed some canyons, the WHAT and not just HOW is pretty important. If you are just going to call it 'flow' why bother looking at it at all?
If you're going to dumb it down that much, why not just call it 'something'.
You do realize that the 'hammer of justice' came from their own organization, right? You also realize that they used the name of the organization in their stupid little chant, which reflects very poorly on the organization, right?
What is 'disproportionate' about the organization not wanting to be associated with these morons?
If only you had the maturity to see the wonderful irony in your statement. Everything would be perfect if only it weren't for "those other people", right? Think about that for a moment, then see if you can figure out why there is violence in the world. Here is a hint: it has nothing to do with "oldsters".
Your bank lets you perform transactions without being able to verify your identity via photo ID without sunglasses? Sounds like you should find a better bank.
Seriously? All they do is ask you to remove them for a moment so the camera (or the receptionis, or the teller) can see you without the glasses. Then you put them back on.
And guess what? The manager isn't going to do a damn thing until he can verify your identity, which will involve removing the glasses.
Oh, bullshit. The same number of kids thought they were going to be real musicians as thought they were going to be real race car drivers, assassins, airline pilots, or any of the other games you can get - zero.
Nobody played those games to 'get skills', they played the games because they were fun. There is nothing 'sad' about it at all.
Cities consder taxis an important part of their transportation system. As such, they regulate with regard to things like rates, must-carry rules, equipment, driver qualification, etc. Because of those regulations, it is not possible to compete on price or service. If you can not compete on price or service, then the only ways to increase profits are by picking up more fares, or lowering your costs.
Before the 'artificial scarcity' that you decry was created cabs did extremely dangerous things to try to get fares (cutting off other cabs, picking up fares on the wrong side of the street, etc). This was a real, not imagined, problem. To solve the problem they created the artificial scarcity so that the cabs do not have to compete.
The artificial scarcity is not created to keep businesses from failing, it is to keep the citizens of the city safe from the actions of dangerous cab drivers (which the NYT called the 'Yellow Peril' back in the 1920's).
You can not have regulated rates and must-carry rules without a limited number of licenses. Restaurants, etc, of course do not have regulated rates or must-serve rules (note that must -carry includes things not related to discrimination based on the person, but also discrimination based on the profitabilty of the trip).
If you have regulated rates, must-carry rules, and unlimited participants then there only two ways to be profitable: get more fares, and cut costs. Getting more fares means competing for fares, and since you can't do it on price that leads to things like drivers cutting off other drivers to get to a fare, fake fares (Uber would never stoop to that, would they?), stopping in dangerous places to pick up a fare, etc. These things actually occurred when the number of cabs was not limited (NYT called it the 'Yellow Peril' because the streets were so dangerous because of the antics of cabs competing for fares).
The other way to increase profit is to cut costs, which leads to shoddy equipment maintenance and over-worked, under-qualified drivers.
People like you always make it seem like these regulations just appeared out of nowhere, fully formed, exactly as they are now. They didn't. They were all in response to real problems. And, thanks to Uber, you can see exactly what would happen in the absense of regulations. 'Surge pricing', refused trips, scheduling fake trips with a competitor, uninsured drives, etc. In short, every one of the problems that the regulations are there for.
Which is also by design, because adding more vehicles to already congested roads just means it takes much longer for anyone to get anywhere. When traffic is basically at a standstill (peak hours) it does not matter if you are in a cab or waiting for one, you are not really getting anywhere. The only difference is whether you are paying for the privilege of going nowhere.
This is another one of those things that Uber supporters just don't seem to get. Surge pricing? It's great, because it gets more drivers on the road. Exactly what we DON'T need.
Ever hear of risk/benefit ratios? Some people are very risk-averse, even when there is a real benefit to doing something. That would be people that NEVER drive in a car, etc.
At the other end of the spectrum are people who take unnecessary risks, even when there is no benefit. We even have a name for those people - Darwin Award Candidates.
In the middle we have normal people, who are willing to accept risk if the risk is outweighed by the benefits. This is where 'most people' are - the ones who will let kids play, but still want them to be safe while doing so. Yes, you can cross the street. No, you can not jump off the roof.
Giving honey to an infant carries a small but real risk of severe injury, and zero benefits. Doing so puts you in the Darwin Award category, and is nothing to be proud of. You are certainly not in the 'the rest of us' category.
With brilliant logic like that I guess you are not a kernel developer.
Your logic is 100% backwards. You are the one making the claim that the laws against fraud and racketeering don't seem to apply to companies over a certain size. In order to make that claim, you must have at least one example in mind. What is it? On the other hand, expecting a citation for someone being indicted implies that you know there is at least one case where someone should have been indicted, bringing us back to square one.
My point is that EVERY legitimate warranty claim is the result of something happening that should not have happened. So here we have a proposal to deny someone's warranty claim based on the fact that an eFUSE or whatever said they overclocked the chip, when in fact the state of the eFUSE itself could be a defect. That makes no sense at all.
Then it is completely worthless. Instead of having to try to determine whether the problem was caused by overclocking, you instead get to try to determine why the fuse was blown. Unless, of course, you are planning on them just rejecting warranty claims because it is 'unlikely' that it is their fault. OIn which case they might as well not include such a charade and just claim that it is 'unlikely' any problem is their fault and reject all warranty claims.
And of course it is impossible for the fuse to be blown by anything other than the user overclocking, right?
Can banks just decide not to do business with you? Yes. Can they keep your money? No, that would be theft. What does one have to do with the other?
Of course their are anti-discrimination laws, but what 'discrimination' they protect against is very narrowly defined (race, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation).
What makes you think the Constitution applies to 'government regulated entities'? It certainly does not.