Flip the argument around: A legal precedent exists for a decision not to release documents, so why does that prove something to hide?
You, topology and bobbied are making a basic logical error here. The fact that there is no proof of anything to hide is not proof that there is nothing to hide.
Given that life had to originate somewhere, and that we know next to nothing about the distribution of life in the universe, panspermia seems to me like a solution looking for a question to be the answer of. I am bemused by the fact that some people seem to find a universe having panspermia more satisfying than one without it, just as I am bemused by people who find a universe with reincarnation more appealing than one without (if you can't remember anything about your former selves, what's the difference? - they are as good as dead.)
I don't deny panspermia could happen; my attitude is essentially 'call me when you have something that goes beyond speculation.'
You are getting confused over who is claiming certainty in this discussion. No-one is claiming that it is proven that something is being hidden, but someone (bobbied, initially) is claiming (or at least apparently trying to imply; he hasn't yet chosen to clarify his comment) that it is out of the question that something is being hidden.
Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...
And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?
I may well be wrong in this, but I thought deregulation was the proximate cause of Pan Am's demise.
Other airlines made profitable use of 747s - e.g. Virgin, which started with an all-747 fleet, and AFAIK, was not particularly favored by government subsidies or regulation.
I like the expression 'abuse-excuse' but it apparently already has a different meaning - the use of prior abuse as an excuse for bad behavior. 'Excuse-abuse' seems appropriate here.
To follow on from my earlier reply, but with regard to your last sentence specifically: "If they can layer on system security without compromising occupant safety, they will, but not at the expense of crash survivability."
That's a non-sequitur in this case. The correct viewpoint should have been "if they can connect to outside networks without compromising occupant safety, they will, but not at the expense of anyone's safety."
Once you have chosen to make such connections possible, layering on security is not optional. If they say they can't do that without impairing crash survivability then don't create the security risk in the first place.
Your exposition is informative, but it doesn't reach the point of explaining why the access necessary for this sort of remote exploit is necessary for the proper operation of the car. You cannot make a case for that from generalized "it's complicated" arguments.
It is highly ironic that you should link to Tennant's article, given that you are attempting to claim that there is a fallacy behind the author's words. A much more effective (and perhaps only) way for you to refute them (and which would also conform to Tennant's ideas of a correct response) would be to present some examples of "alternative approaches to medicine" that do work (and while you are about it, explain in what way they are "alternative" - a choice between chemo and radiation, for example, is not the sort of alternative being discussed here.)
That's a supremely good idea. Left turns from/to two-way streets are difficult and disruptive in New York City.
Except... don't pedestrians fall under threat from right turns, too?
Assuming the analysis has been done correctly, the statistics show that left turns are significantly more dangerous. My completely un-researched (other than by walking and driving in cities) guesses as to why is that drivers attempting to dart through oncoming traffic are not paying any attention to anything else, and are partially hidden from pedestrians by that traffic (and vice-versa). They also have more time to accelerate before impact, and possibly are more motivated (by oncoming traffic) to accelerate hard.
If these guesses are right, then left turns from one one-way street to another are less dangerous than those involving two-way streets, other things being equal.
If you don't understand memory management then you are not yet a C++ programmer, let alone an intermediate one.
In my experience of interviewing, I have spoken to many alleged C++ programmers who can give a textbook definition for the terms 'copy constructor' and 'assignment operator', but who have no idea of their purpose, and their role in resource management. Unfortunately, I do not need to imagine the sort of code they write, because I have seen it.
You will never know that your code actually works.
As you spend a VAST amount of time debugging weird stuff, you will eventually realize it would be better if the program crashed when the error happened.
This person is claiming twenty years of programming experience, and if so, then all but the last of these things have already come to pass.
Sadly, it is not hard to believe that this person not only has 20 years experience, but in a professional capacity, and ditto for everyone who is supporting this idea. This is why there is so much bad software around: too much of it is written by people who do not really understand either what their own code is doing or what they are trying to do with their code.
Someone explain this techno nerd obsession with replacing people with robots, I just don't get it.
There's a general and a specific answer to that question:
General: If it is going to happen, it is much better to be the person doing it than the person it is done to, so if it can happen, best assume it will.
Specific: Almost all of Uber's problems spring from the fact that cabs currently need to have drivers.
These points of view do not consider what effects this will have on society in general. Capitalism does not do that.
Of course, there are also people who simply like the technical challenge, but they are generally not financing themselves in this pursuit.
The hard part is indeed establishing what the right level of security is and how to evaluate companies against that.
That will be an issue, but I get the impression that many organizations will have to make significant improvements before it becomes a matter of immediate practical concern.
This is not an article about what is possible, it is about what actually happens. I have seen incredible abuses of operator overloading, for example. I have also seen some highly confused Java, but its pedestrian syntax seems to make it a little harder to write cryptic bad code in.
Road wear is often estimated as the fourth power of axle weight. So I imagine the final regulation will include road wear as a factor.
That is an admirably rational argument that I fear won't stand up to politicians' desire to pander to car manufacturers and dealers, oil companies, and that part of the electorate who feel entitled to drive a big vehicle that they have no use case for and can't really afford to run. I hope I am wrong.
Waterfall is a straw man. It only continues to be mentioned because it is an easy target. Claims that X is better than waterfall are a waste of time; they tell us nothing about whether X is actually effective.
So Tiversa breached systems to get data from them to show the system owner that they needed their services?
But if Tiversa did breach those systems, then they did need Tiversa's services didn't they?
Yet the linked-to article says "If Wallace is telling the truth, the FTC aggressively prosecuted a company based on bogus evidence."
The only way I can see the evidence being bogus is if Wallace exploited a position of trust granted to him by the target company, and not even necessarily then. Whatever the truth is, the report is not self-consistent. Apparently, rational analysis and critical thinking are not employed at CNN - but we suspected that, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Idiots like this are why "we can't have nice things"
Privacy issues aside, morons like this are why the drone-boys are going to be facing some new laws in the not-so-distant future.
Furthermore, behavior like this gives us an idea of what would happen if 'flying cars' were ever readily available.
Flip the argument around: A legal precedent exists for a decision not to release documents, so why does that prove something to hide?
You, topology and bobbied are making a basic logical error here. The fact that there is no proof of anything to hide is not proof that there is nothing to hide.
Given that life had to originate somewhere, and that we know next to nothing about the distribution of life in the universe, panspermia seems to me like a solution looking for a question to be the answer of. I am bemused by the fact that some people seem to find a universe having panspermia more satisfying than one without it, just as I am bemused by people who find a universe with reincarnation more appealing than one without (if you can't remember anything about your former selves, what's the difference? - they are as good as dead.)
I don't deny panspermia could happen; my attitude is essentially 'call me when you have something that goes beyond speculation.'
You can call defense of democracy an ideological bias if you like, but you won't make many friends here doing so.
You are getting confused over who is claiming certainty in this discussion. No-one is claiming that it is proven that something is being hidden, but someone (bobbied, initially) is claiming (or at least apparently trying to imply; he hasn't yet chosen to clarify his comment) that it is out of the question that something is being hidden.
Did you read the part of the linked to article that says that a similar request was refused and the court agreed that these records are not releasable though a FOIA request back in 2013? Yea, didn't think so...
And that proves there's nothing to hide because...?
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009...
I assume the irony in your enthusiasm for eugenics as an antidote to sociopathology was intentional.
I may well be wrong in this, but I thought deregulation was the proximate cause of Pan Am's demise.
Other airlines made profitable use of 747s - e.g. Virgin, which started with an all-747 fleet, and AFAIK, was not particularly favored by government subsidies or regulation.
I like the expression 'abuse-excuse' but it apparently already has a different meaning - the use of prior abuse as an excuse for bad behavior. 'Excuse-abuse' seems appropriate here.
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
Whatever you call it, the bottom line is, you are the "guilty until proven innocent" kind of guy.
That's really all you had to say.
No, he made a valid point that you seem unable to refute.
To follow on from my earlier reply, but with regard to your last sentence specifically: "If they can layer on system security without compromising occupant safety, they will, but not at the expense of crash survivability."
That's a non-sequitur in this case. The correct viewpoint should have been "if they can connect to outside networks without compromising occupant safety, they will, but not at the expense of anyone's safety."
Once you have chosen to make such connections possible, layering on security is not optional. If they say they can't do that without impairing crash survivability then don't create the security risk in the first place.
Your exposition is informative, but it doesn't reach the point of explaining why the access necessary for this sort of remote exploit is necessary for the proper operation of the car. You cannot make a case for that from generalized "it's complicated" arguments.
It is highly ironic that you should link to Tennant's article, given that you are attempting to claim that there is a fallacy behind the author's words. A much more effective (and perhaps only) way for you to refute them (and which would also conform to Tennant's ideas of a correct response) would be to present some examples of "alternative approaches to medicine" that do work (and while you are about it, explain in what way they are "alternative" - a choice between chemo and radiation, for example, is not the sort of alternative being discussed here.)
That's a supremely good idea. Left turns from/to two-way streets are difficult and disruptive in New York City.
Except... don't pedestrians fall under threat from right turns, too?
Assuming the analysis has been done correctly, the statistics show that left turns are significantly more dangerous. My completely un-researched (other than by walking and driving in cities) guesses as to why is that drivers attempting to dart through oncoming traffic are not paying any attention to anything else, and are partially hidden from pedestrians by that traffic (and vice-versa). They also have more time to accelerate before impact, and possibly are more motivated (by oncoming traffic) to accelerate hard.
If these guesses are right, then left turns from one one-way street to another are less dangerous than those involving two-way streets, other things being equal.
Putting aside any other consideration, you don't want that DC10 taken out of service during the fire season.
The Tate Modern, London, formerly the Bankside generation plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you don't understand memory management then you are not yet a C++ programmer, let alone an intermediate one.
In my experience of interviewing, I have spoken to many alleged C++ programmers who can give a textbook definition for the terms 'copy constructor' and 'assignment operator', but who have no idea of their purpose, and their role in resource management. Unfortunately, I do not need to imagine the sort of code they write, because I have seen it.
You will have many horrible consequences.
You have no idea what your code will produce.
You will never know that your code actually works.
As you spend a VAST amount of time debugging weird stuff, you will eventually realize it would be better if the program crashed when the error happened.
This person is claiming twenty years of programming experience, and if so, then all but the last of these things have already come to pass.
Sadly, it is not hard to believe that this person not only has 20 years experience, but in a professional capacity, and ditto for everyone who is supporting this idea. This is why there is so much bad software around: too much of it is written by people who do not really understand either what their own code is doing or what they are trying to do with their code.
Someone explain this techno nerd obsession with replacing people with robots, I just don't get it.
There's a general and a specific answer to that question:
General: If it is going to happen, it is much better to be the person doing it than the person it is done to, so if it can happen, best assume it will.
Specific: Almost all of Uber's problems spring from the fact that cabs currently need to have drivers.
These points of view do not consider what effects this will have on society in general. Capitalism does not do that.
Of course, there are also people who simply like the technical challenge, but they are generally not financing themselves in this pursuit.
The hard part is indeed establishing what the right level of security is and how to evaluate companies against that.
That will be an issue, but I get the impression that many organizations will have to make significant improvements before it becomes a matter of immediate practical concern.
If a piece of code is well written...
This is not an article about what is possible, it is about what actually happens. I have seen incredible abuses of operator overloading, for example. I have also seen some highly confused Java, but its pedestrian syntax seems to make it a little harder to write cryptic bad code in.
Road wear is often estimated as the fourth power of axle weight. So I imagine the final regulation will include road wear as a factor.
That is an admirably rational argument that I fear won't stand up to politicians' desire to pander to car manufacturers and dealers, oil companies, and that part of the electorate who feel entitled to drive a big vehicle that they have no use case for and can't really afford to run. I hope I am wrong.
They need critical reasoning skills and an understanding of how the world they live in actually works.
Waterfall is a straw man. It only continues to be mentioned because it is an easy target. Claims that X is better than waterfall are a waste of time; they tell us nothing about whether X is actually effective.
So Tiversa breached systems to get data from them to show the system owner that they needed their services?
But if Tiversa did breach those systems, then they did need Tiversa's services didn't they?
Yet the linked-to article says "If Wallace is telling the truth, the FTC aggressively prosecuted a company based on bogus evidence."
The only way I can see the evidence being bogus is if Wallace exploited a position of trust granted to him by the target company, and not even necessarily then. Whatever the truth is, the report is not self-consistent. Apparently, rational analysis and critical thinking are not employed at CNN - but we suspected that, anyway.