Correct, greater risk because of value of the car, not because of previous accidents that were not my fault.
Given your position, I can only presume you are not the same AC as the one above, who found the notion that my premiums would not rise on account of accidents that were not my fault to be laughable (although as I said... I don't discount the possibility that any person having an accident could end up affecting everyone's premiums, but that is not the same as saying that accidents I am in which aren't even my fault will still have a direct impact on my own personal premiums, which I know, with as much certainty as I can ever know anything, is not the case).
Okay... but that would still entail that, right now and without any further patching, it would be possible for a person to obtain that code from them illicitly. I'm not saying that vulnerability doesn't exist, but that vulnerability would *NEED* to exist right now for them to claim that.
I didn't say they don't deteriorate... I said they don't deteriorate like lithium batteries. A carbon fibre supercapacitor in a car would, unless damaged, last about as many years as the car itself.
No, my premiums are not adjusted because of accidents that are not my fault. I've been in an accident with an uninsured motorist before, and my insurance premiums were not affected at all. Although I don't discount the possibility that they might get adjusted to same the extent that everyone's premiums may get adjusted at the time of renewal just because of an accident that one person had, but I've never actually seen premiums go up on the same car... they usually go down, in fact, as the value of my vehicle depreciates over time, only going back up when I buy a newer car.
It doesn't matter if the other person is uninsured or not... if I am not at fault in a collision, I do not pay any deductible, and my premiums are not adjusted because of it.
I didn't say that they don't pose *ANY*... I said that they don't pose *THAT KIND OF*.
The fire hazard that exists in lithium batteries exists because of a potential for a chemical reaction between the lithium and any nearby moisture. Carbon fibre batteries pose no such danger at all.
That said, if sufficiently damaged, the result with a carbon fibre battery is approximately the same as when a capacitor gets damaged. It is shorted out and becomes useless. The energy is released in an instant when the short occurs, just like a static spark... but since pure carbon is not especially flammable (eg: diamonds) a fire is still not terribly likely (still theoretically possible, but unlikely).
Which is fine.... as long as they can point to a specific vulnerability fix that would have otherwise enabled a hacker to easily access content within the firewall without record, and can provide reasonable cause to suggest that said fix was only recently installed (ie, the fix just came out last week or some such thing). Of course, if stuff was taken without record, then they would also have had no way to know about it, and therefore no reason to report it stolen until it is actually discovered, existing in the wild. Given the nature of the court order, I would expect that they have no business even trying to look for something like their software that was made by other people, so they would not have any specific cause to suspect it was stolen until it was explicitly pointed out to them by another party.
It's worth pointing out that what they've already done could constitute indirectly facilitating or enabling other people to do something similar, since it's also probably possible for somebody else to reverse engineer what they already did.
Hmm.... didn't catch that bit. Kinda weird that a court would permanently ban you from publishing facts that anyone else who does the exact same research could also discover.
I haven't been repeating myself to make what I say as true. I've been repeating myself because I haven't had anything new to add...and yet one cannot help but notice that you've been tenaciously responding to me on ever retort as if you have had something new or important to say as well. Yet neither of us has changed the other's opinion or views.
... I just read the court order and there's nothing I could see in there that suppresses the defendants' ability to freely pass along the ideas that were contained in the code.
In other words, they don't need to openly publish the source code to release it... they can just openly publish the methods that were utilized, and let other developers write their own bots in the language of their own choosing.
I would think that if Blizzard could really detect it on their end, they would have been banning the users of the software themselves instead of telling this company to deactivate any existing licenses.
If it were... particularly now, they'd probably have to prove that it was actually stolen with official records of a break in or whatnot... if they were unable to or unwilling to supply such records, it would probably be assumed that they were complicit in the alleged "theft".
Operative words: "pursuit of..." not necessarily guaranteed to have.
But one does not have to be guaranteed privacy from the government in order to attain happiness anyways, since there is nothing prohibiting you from doing your own part to try to keep yours. If there were, I'd agree with you.
I think that you''ll find the notion that privacy is just an illusion which is created primarily by however uninteresting our lives might be to the people or organizations around us to be far more liberating than clinging tightly to the belief that organizations such as the government owe you any.
Although I'm sure that what you believe is probably making you happy... and I guess that's what's really important.
Invasion of privacy technically amounts to what is simply a matter of information or knowledge which already exists and that pertains to one party being transferred to another, where the former party does not place trust in the latter party to utilize such knowledge or information responsibly.
Except, as I said... that information or knowledge already exists. And just because it pertains to a person, does not mean that it should somehow be that person's personal property. Facts can't be copyrighted, after all.
Now, as civil human beings, we may respect others' privacy for two primary reasons: The first is so that others will respect our own, but this is highly individualistic, and probably wouldn't generally apply to an organization like a government. The second reason, which is particularly important for companies or entities that are not composed of a single individual, is so that other people will trust them. The government is not an individual, so it does not generally need the first reason. And because many Americans don't actually vote for the candidate that they really trust, but rather they instead vote for the "other guy", almost always trying to choose what they personally feel may be the lesser of two evils, in general, the US government does not really need the second reason as incentive to respect people's privacy either. They may give people *some* privacy... but only to the extent that they feel that the information or knowledge that they might acquire is not liable to be, in *THEIR* perception, somehow critically important to them.
Because in the end, the only privacy that you and I or anyone really has is a product of the extent to which we may go to try and keep our privacy, with however uninteresting our lives might happen to be to others.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct, greater risk because of value of the car, not because of previous accidents that were not my fault.
Given your position, I can only presume you are not the same AC as the one above, who found the notion that my premiums would not rise on account of accidents that were not my fault to be laughable (although as I said... I don't discount the possibility that any person having an accident could end up affecting everyone's premiums, but that is not the same as saying that accidents I am in which aren't even my fault will still have a direct impact on my own personal premiums, which I know, with as much certainty as I can ever know anything, is not the case).
Okay... but that would still entail that, right now and without any further patching, it would be possible for a person to obtain that code from them illicitly. I'm not saying that vulnerability doesn't exist, but that vulnerability would *NEED* to exist right now for them to claim that.
I didn't say they don't deteriorate... I said they don't deteriorate like lithium batteries. A carbon fibre supercapacitor in a car would, unless damaged, last about as many years as the car itself.
No, my premiums are not adjusted because of accidents that are not my fault. I've been in an accident with an uninsured motorist before, and my insurance premiums were not affected at all. Although I don't discount the possibility that they might get adjusted to same the extent that everyone's premiums may get adjusted at the time of renewal just because of an accident that one person had, but I've never actually seen premiums go up on the same car... they usually go down, in fact, as the value of my vehicle depreciates over time, only going back up when I buy a newer car.
It doesn't matter if the other person is uninsured or not... if I am not at fault in a collision, I do not pay any deductible, and my premiums are not adjusted because of it.
Only if I was at fault in the collision.
I didn't say that they don't pose *ANY*... I said that they don't pose *THAT KIND OF*.
The fire hazard that exists in lithium batteries exists because of a potential for a chemical reaction between the lithium and any nearby moisture. Carbon fibre batteries pose no such danger at all.
That said, if sufficiently damaged, the result with a carbon fibre battery is approximately the same as when a capacitor gets damaged. It is shorted out and becomes useless. The energy is released in an instant when the short occurs, just like a static spark... but since pure carbon is not especially flammable (eg: diamonds) a fire is still not terribly likely (still theoretically possible, but unlikely).
1. That's what insurance is for.
2. Carbon fibre batteries don't deteriorate in capacity like lithium batteries do.
To my understanding, it burns about as well as, and under similar conditions to that of a diamond.
Carbon fibre batteries don't pose that kind of fire risk.
Only if the density of solar energy available were actually sufficient.
It isn't,
Which is fine.... as long as they can point to a specific vulnerability fix that would have otherwise enabled a hacker to easily access content within the firewall without record, and can provide reasonable cause to suggest that said fix was only recently installed (ie, the fix just came out last week or some such thing). Of course, if stuff was taken without record, then they would also have had no way to know about it, and therefore no reason to report it stolen until it is actually discovered, existing in the wild. Given the nature of the court order, I would expect that they have no business even trying to look for something like their software that was made by other people, so they would not have any specific cause to suspect it was stolen until it was explicitly pointed out to them by another party.
I'd be willing to bet that if they were to claim that, they'd have to work pretty damn hard to show that they weren't complicit to said "hacking".
It's worth pointing out that what they've already done could constitute indirectly facilitating or enabling other people to do something similar, since it's also probably possible for somebody else to reverse engineer what they already did.
Hmm.... didn't catch that bit. Kinda weird that a court would permanently ban you from publishing facts that anyone else who does the exact same research could also discover.
Although I allowed them unsupervised but still monitored access to the internet at age 12. Before age 12, they were always supervised.
I haven't been repeating myself to make what I say as true. I've been repeating myself because I haven't had anything new to add...and yet one cannot help but notice that you've been tenaciously responding to me on ever retort as if you have had something new or important to say as well. Yet neither of us has changed the other's opinion or views.
So perhaps that makes us both insane.
In other words, they don't need to openly publish the source code to release it... they can just openly publish the methods that were utilized, and let other developers write their own bots in the language of their own choosing.
I would think that if Blizzard could really detect it on their end, they would have been banning the users of the software themselves instead of telling this company to deactivate any existing licenses.
If it were... particularly now, they'd probably have to prove that it was actually stolen with official records of a break in or whatnot... if they were unable to or unwilling to supply such records, it would probably be assumed that they were complicit in the alleged "theft".
How do you propose that blizzard go about stopping open source software that is distributed from outside the USA from being used inside it, exactly?
Operative words: "pursuit of..." not necessarily guaranteed to have.
But one does not have to be guaranteed privacy from the government in order to attain happiness anyways, since there is nothing prohibiting you from doing your own part to try to keep yours. If there were, I'd agree with you.
I think that you''ll find the notion that privacy is just an illusion which is created primarily by however uninteresting our lives might be to the people or organizations around us to be far more liberating than clinging tightly to the belief that organizations such as the government owe you any.
Although I'm sure that what you believe is probably making you happy... and I guess that's what's really important.
Firefox isn't a working browser?
Invasion of privacy technically amounts to what is simply a matter of information or knowledge which already exists and that pertains to one party being transferred to another, where the former party does not place trust in the latter party to utilize such knowledge or information responsibly.
Except, as I said... that information or knowledge already exists. And just because it pertains to a person, does not mean that it should somehow be that person's personal property. Facts can't be copyrighted, after all.
Now, as civil human beings, we may respect others' privacy for two primary reasons: The first is so that others will respect our own, but this is highly individualistic, and probably wouldn't generally apply to an organization like a government. The second reason, which is particularly important for companies or entities that are not composed of a single individual, is so that other people will trust them. The government is not an individual, so it does not generally need the first reason. And because many Americans don't actually vote for the candidate that they really trust, but rather they instead vote for the "other guy", almost always trying to choose what they personally feel may be the lesser of two evils, in general, the US government does not really need the second reason as incentive to respect people's privacy either. They may give people *some* privacy... but only to the extent that they feel that the information or knowledge that they might acquire is not liable to be, in *THEIR* perception, somehow critically important to them.
Because in the end, the only privacy that you and I or anyone really has is a product of the extent to which we may go to try and keep our privacy, with however uninteresting our lives might happen to be to others.