What do you mean by 'assisted driving technology'? It seems to me that the safest option is where the human is doing the driving, but the car is ready in case of emergency (ie apply the brakes if you are going to hit something). The absolute worst option is the vehicle is driving, but the human has to be 'at the ready' (autopilot). In that case, you are requiring humans to do the thing they are worst at, which is paying attention through long periods of boredom. So, in your example of truckers: as you said they already spending too much time behind the wheel. Now, take away all of their tasks EXCEPT 'pay attention', and it will surely lead to disaster - probably worse than if there is no assist at all. So in that case there better be zero requirement for the human to do ANYTHING.
It says Qualcomm LICENSED the first version from the University of Illinois, so it may not have been theirs to use 'common sense' and just 'give it away'. So at the very least they had to go back to the licenses and see what rights they had, and they probably had to get U of I to agree to the release. I am guessing doing those searches/negotiations was not real high on the priority list of anyone's legal department.
This is still complete bullshit. If the odds are 'tremendously in favor', then it should be dirt simple to point out at least a few FELONIES that every one of us are guilty of, knowingly or not. Or maybe even just ONE felony that many people commit without knowing it. Anything at all? The claim is that nearly a BILLION inadvertent felonies are committed every single day, and you can't list ONE of them?
One of the problems with the 'there are so many laws you MUST be breaking some' argument is that most of the laws don't apply to 'everyone' in the first place. Are you the federal government? If not, then none of the laws creating agencies, funding them, operating them, giving them authority, etc apply to you. Are you a car manufacturer? If not, then none of the laws setting equipment rules for new cars apply to you. Are you a school district? If not, then none of the laws governing school districts apply to you. And so on and so on.
So after you eliminate everything that does not apply to you (ie the vast majority of laws) , how many of the ones left are felonies? Very few.
Then we get to the 'you can't possibly know' nonsense. You don't have to know every law, you just need a general idea of things that are regulated and from there you can certainly find out if something you want to do is permitted or not. Some of the idiotic examples others gave below are good examples of this. 'Transport a firearm wrong' - you had absolutely no idea that there are laws governing firearms and the transportation thereof? 'Shipping violations' - you had absolutely no idea that some things can't be shipped in certain ways? Etc, etc
So then we come back to reality, which is that most people go their entire lives without committing a single felony, knowingly or not. Which is about as far from the 'everyone commits three felonies a day' bullshit as you can get.
Move your prescription pills into a pill-reminder box - not illegal in most places as long as not a controlled substance and you can prove you have a presciption Small accounting errors are federal felonies, once you sign your tax form. - No shit, it says that right where you sign it Transport a firearm wrong. - No shit, if you are transporting firearms you need to know the appropriate laws shipping violations of items - Again, ifyou are shipping something hazardous you need to know the laws moving animals, letting pet animals go into the wild - Duh Loan a vehicle to someone that commits a felony with it. - Bullshit publish information from an anonymous source. - Bullshit
The first one says (in part) this:is primarily a statute aimed at reaching those persons who provide material support to terrorists knowing that such support will be used to commit one of the offenses... (emphasis mine). You mean it is illegal to support terrorism? I had no idea!
The third one is about harboring persons, spying, and disclosure of classified information. Again, I am shocked to find these things illegal.
The fourth one is yet another shocker! Apparently it is illegal to participate in a scheme to defraud.
The last one clearly says midemeanor.
Are you seriously trying to claim that 'everyone' is doing these things 'every day'? Who do you hang out with?
Any law that prohibited anything in my post would immediately be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. So, reset the counter to zero and try again.
That is some idiotic 'logic' there. Since there are a lot of laws, you MUST be committing at least three felonies? Really? Don't you find it rather odd that, given the number of idiots that actually believe this, none of them can come up with a SINGLE example? Just one?
You may not know exactly what stocks your 401K is invested in, but you should at the very least know if you are in 'aggressive, moderate, or conservative' funds. If you can't stand the risk that new companies/new business models represent, then you should not be in an aggressive fund. And if you were in a moderate or conservative fund, then you were most certainly NOT invested in Helios.
Are you actually stupid enough to believe that '3 felonies a day' bullshit? Perhaps you could list a few of these felonies that 'everyone' is committing 'every day'/
Do you have reading problems? Here, I'll make it easier for you: But neither the call center nor Abramovich were affiliated with the well-known brands presented to the customer during the prerecorded message.
So no, the call centers DID NOT 'likely have deals from those companies'. And since they were not affiliated with the companies, they COULD NOT be selling 'discounted' packages from those companies.
Except for 'press 1', EVERYTHING in the message was fraud.
Abramovich's scheme involved calling unsuspecting customers with a prerecorded message instructing them to “Press 1” to hear more about an “exclusive” vacation deal offered by a well-known travel or hospitality company, like TripAdvisor, Expedia, Marriott, or Hilton, the FCC said.
They would then be transferred to a call center, where live operators would attempt to sell them one or more “discounted” vacation packages, like timeshares.
But neither the call center nor Abramovich were affiliated with the well-known brands presented to the customer during the prerecorded message.
How can they possibly interpreted as fraudulent? He claimed he was selling discounted vacation packages from real companies like Expedia and TripAdvisor when that was not true. That is fraudulent. In fact, it was TripAdvisor who tipped off the FCC as to what he was doing.
Our hatred of spam may not be based on content, but the law and the prosecution of this guy is ENTIRELY about content. He is not charged with 'irritating people', he is charged with spoofing caller ID to defraud.
You don't see what law he broke? You quoted it directly in your original post. He broke the 'Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009', which prohibits doing what he did - spoofing caller ID 'with intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value'.
Re-read what you quoted. It doesn't say 'causing harm or defrauding', it says 'with INTENT to harm or defraud'. And nowhere does it say that they 'got to talk to vacation salespeople...'. It says they talked to people CLAIMING to be legitmate companies, but were in fact fake. In other words, fraud.
So what exactly is the problem with WebAuthn then? It does not have any dependency on biometrics. All it requires is an authenticator capable of correctly signing a challenge with a private key that you have. How you protect the ability to sign the challenge, is up to YOU, the user. For some people (probably many people), possession of the device and a fingerprint may be sufficient. For others, a PIN or password may be required. Maybe the really paranoid want to type the challenge into a battery operated PC with secure crypto hardware and no external connections inside a faraday cage in a room with Fort-Lnox like protection and a loud white noise generator running, and then copy the response off the screen. ALL of which are better than having someone else be responsible for the safe-keeping of your password.
Still two factors. First factor is you must have the physical device that contains the private keys, and the second factor is what you use to access those keys (PIN, password, biometrics)
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, what 'architecture' are you talking about? If it is the ISA, then ANY ISA will benefit from out-of-order execution, which is why even RISC processors use it (unless you know of some magical way to make memory accesses run at CPU speed). And if you mean the micro-architecture, then they clearly DID 'make the investments in making a better architecture' as they switched from an in-order architecture to an out-of-order one.
Meltdown was not caused by 'not checking things properly for the sake of squeezing a few extra cycles'. Where did you get that idea? If was caused because the check was done in the wrong place. A check in the right place would not have added any extra cycles. It was clearly a MISTAKE. Your idiotic idea that it was 'deliberate' is laughable at best. Of course the OOO execution was deliberate, but the incorrect check wasn't. The fix causes a slowdone because they can't fix it PROPERLY with just software, so more drastic measures needed to be taken. If the check was in the right place in the hardware there would be no slowdown.
Spectre is primarily a software problem. The hardware provides for separation of memory between processes. Spectre is caused by software not using the hardware, and attempting to provide it's own protection (poorly). In spectre, the hardware does not give access to any memory that is different from what it is architected to do.
Holy crap there is a lot of stupid here. First of all, out-of-order execution is older than Intel itself. Intel is a relative latecomer to the OOO party, having been beating by at least Control Data, IBM, and AMD. Second, it is not a 'marketing gimmick', it actually makes the processor run workload faster. There is no 'cheating. Perhaps you think the switch from relays to tubes to transistors to ICs were also all 'marketing gimmicks' to make processors 'seem' faster?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by 'assisted driving technology'? It seems to me that the safest option is where the human is doing the driving, but the car is ready in case of emergency (ie apply the brakes if you are going to hit something). The absolute worst option is the vehicle is driving, but the human has to be 'at the ready' (autopilot). In that case, you are requiring humans to do the thing they are worst at, which is paying attention through long periods of boredom. So, in your example of truckers: as you said they already spending too much time behind the wheel. Now, take away all of their tasks EXCEPT 'pay attention', and it will surely lead to disaster - probably worse than if there is no assist at all. So in that case there better be zero requirement for the human to do ANYTHING.
It says Qualcomm LICENSED the first version from the University of Illinois, so it may not have been theirs to use 'common sense' and just 'give it away'. So at the very least they had to go back to the licenses and see what rights they had, and they probably had to get U of I to agree to the release. I am guessing doing those searches/negotiations was not real high on the priority list of anyone's legal department.
This is still complete bullshit. If the odds are 'tremendously in favor', then it should be dirt simple to point out at least a few FELONIES that every one of us are guilty of, knowingly or not. Or maybe even just ONE felony that many people commit without knowing it. Anything at all? The claim is that nearly a BILLION inadvertent felonies are committed every single day, and you can't list ONE of them?
One of the problems with the 'there are so many laws you MUST be breaking some' argument is that most of the laws don't apply to 'everyone' in the first place. Are you the federal government? If not, then none of the laws creating agencies, funding them, operating them, giving them authority, etc apply to you. Are you a car manufacturer? If not, then none of the laws setting equipment rules for new cars apply to you. Are you a school district? If not, then none of the laws governing school districts apply to you. And so on and so on.
So after you eliminate everything that does not apply to you (ie the vast majority of laws) , how many of the ones left are felonies? Very few.
Then we get to the 'you can't possibly know' nonsense. You don't have to know every law, you just need a general idea of things that are regulated and from there you can certainly find out if something you want to do is permitted or not. Some of the idiotic examples others gave below are good examples of this. 'Transport a firearm wrong' - you had absolutely no idea that there are laws governing firearms and the transportation thereof? 'Shipping violations' - you had absolutely no idea that some things can't be shipped in certain ways? Etc, etc
So then we come back to reality, which is that most people go their entire lives without committing a single felony, knowingly or not. Which is about as far from the 'everyone commits three felonies a day' bullshit as you can get.
Move your prescription pills into a pill-reminder box - not illegal in most places as long as not a controlled substance and you can prove you have a presciption
Small accounting errors are federal felonies, once you sign your tax form. - No shit, it says that right where you sign it
Transport a firearm wrong. - No shit, if you are transporting firearms you need to know the appropriate laws
shipping violations of items - Again, ifyou are shipping something hazardous you need to know the laws
moving animals, letting pet animals go into the wild - Duh
Loan a vehicle to someone that commits a felony with it. - Bullshit
publish information from an anonymous source. - Bullshit
And so on.
OK, I clicked on a few of your links.
The first one says (in part) this:is primarily a statute aimed at reaching those persons who provide material support to terrorists knowing that such support will be used to commit one of the offenses ... (emphasis mine). You mean it is illegal to support terrorism? I had no idea!
The third one is about harboring persons, spying, and disclosure of classified information. Again, I am shocked to find these things illegal.
The fourth one is yet another shocker! Apparently it is illegal to participate in a scheme to defraud.
The last one clearly says midemeanor.
Are you seriously trying to claim that 'everyone' is doing these things 'every day'? Who do you hang out with?
Here is the law. Please point out the section that you claim exists.
Any law that prohibited anything in my post would immediately be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. So, reset the counter to zero and try again.
That is some idiotic 'logic' there. Since there are a lot of laws, you MUST be committing at least three felonies? Really? Don't you find it rather odd that, given the number of idiots that actually believe this, none of them can come up with a SINGLE example? Just one?
And smart investors think it is nuts to measure even on a yearly basis. How long did Amazon operate at a yearly loss before it became profitable?
You may not know exactly what stocks your 401K is invested in, but you should at the very least know if you are in 'aggressive, moderate, or conservative' funds. If you can't stand the risk that new companies/new business models represent, then you should not be in an aggressive fund. And if you were in a moderate or conservative fund, then you were most certainly NOT invested in Helios.
Are you actually stupid enough to believe that '3 felonies a day' bullshit? Perhaps you could list a few of these felonies that 'everyone' is committing 'every day'/
Do you have reading problems? Here, I'll make it easier for you: But neither the call center nor Abramovich were affiliated with the well-known brands presented to the customer during the prerecorded message.
So no, the call centers DID NOT 'likely have deals from those companies'. And since they were not affiliated with the companies, they COULD NOT be selling 'discounted' packages from those companies.
Except for 'press 1', EVERYTHING in the message was fraud.
Also, TFA DOES indeed make such allegations.
Consumers also were subject to fake robocalls offering "discounted" travel services by real companies including Expedia and TripAdvisor.
Emphasis mine
From http://www.miamiherald.com/new...
Abramovich's scheme involved calling unsuspecting customers with a prerecorded message instructing them to “Press 1” to hear more about an “exclusive” vacation deal offered by a well-known travel or hospitality company, like TripAdvisor, Expedia, Marriott, or Hilton, the FCC said.
They would then be transferred to a call center, where live operators would attempt to sell them one or more “discounted” vacation packages, like timeshares.
But neither the call center nor Abramovich were affiliated with the well-known brands presented to the customer during the prerecorded message.
How can they possibly interpreted as fraudulent? He claimed he was selling discounted vacation packages from real companies like Expedia and TripAdvisor when that was not true. That is fraudulent. In fact, it was TripAdvisor who tipped off the FCC as to what he was doing.
Uh, that is a crime. In fact, it is the crime he is charged with.
Our hatred of spam may not be based on content, but the law and the prosecution of this guy is ENTIRELY about content. He is not charged with 'irritating people', he is charged with spoofing caller ID to defraud.
You don't see what law he broke? You quoted it directly in your original post. He broke the 'Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009', which prohibits doing what he did - spoofing caller ID 'with intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value'.
Re-read what you quoted. It doesn't say 'causing harm or defrauding', it says 'with INTENT to harm or defraud'. And nowhere does it say that they 'got to talk to vacation salespeople ...'. It says they talked to people CLAIMING to be legitmate companies, but were in fact fake. In other words, fraud.
So what exactly is the problem with WebAuthn then? It does not have any dependency on biometrics. All it requires is an authenticator capable of correctly signing a challenge with a private key that you have. How you protect the ability to sign the challenge, is up to YOU, the user. For some people (probably many people), possession of the device and a fingerprint may be sufficient. For others, a PIN or password may be required. Maybe the really paranoid want to type the challenge into a battery operated PC with secure crypto hardware and no external connections inside a faraday cage in a room with Fort-Lnox like protection and a loud white noise generator running, and then copy the response off the screen. ALL of which are better than having someone else be responsible for the safe-keeping of your password.
Still two factors. First factor is you must have the physical device that contains the private keys, and the second factor is what you use to access those keys (PIN, password, biometrics)
For something like webauthn, the biometrics data never leaves your device so there is nothing to capture.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, what 'architecture' are you talking about? If it is the ISA, then ANY ISA will benefit from out-of-order execution, which is why even RISC processors use it (unless you know of some magical way to make memory accesses run at CPU speed). And if you mean the micro-architecture, then they clearly DID 'make the investments in making a better architecture' as they switched from an in-order architecture to an out-of-order one.
Meltdown was not caused by 'not checking things properly for the sake of squeezing a few extra cycles'. Where did you get that idea? If was caused because the check was done in the wrong place. A check in the right place would not have added any extra cycles. It was clearly a MISTAKE. Your idiotic idea that it was 'deliberate' is laughable at best. Of course the OOO execution was deliberate, but the incorrect check wasn't. The fix causes a slowdone because they can't fix it PROPERLY with just software, so more drastic measures needed to be taken. If the check was in the right place in the hardware there would be no slowdown.
Spectre is primarily a software problem. The hardware provides for separation of memory between processes. Spectre is caused by software not using the hardware, and attempting to provide it's own protection (poorly). In spectre, the hardware does not give access to any memory that is different from what it is architected to do.
Holy crap there is a lot of stupid here. First of all, out-of-order execution is older than Intel itself. Intel is a relative latecomer to the OOO party, having been beating by at least Control Data, IBM, and AMD. Second, it is not a 'marketing gimmick', it actually makes the processor run workload faster. There is no 'cheating. Perhaps you think the switch from relays to tubes to transistors to ICs were also all 'marketing gimmicks' to make processors 'seem' faster?
Sure, when the next highest category (consoles) is only 25%.