If you are alleging that the wrench is only about 10% effective in the first place, sure. If you are being beaten with a wrench you are both under duress *AND* stress, so you still wouldn't be able to unlock the device for a person who is requesting it if it had such security measures installed.
It's almost a password equivalent to a dead-man's switch for disabling access to the device, except it is reversible in that one can potentially re-enable the device at a later time.
Actually, what would be an interesting passcode system would be one that integrates with some sort of wetware system, and which not only relies on biometric data and a secret key, but also analyzes the state of mind of the user requesting access, and denies entry, even via an authorized password and in the presence of authorized biometric data, when the user is under any kind of stress or duress. Obviously, on a device like a phone, critical emergency functions would still work without such authorization (as they already do anyways), but something like that would completely decimate the $5 wrench technique.... plus, they could not ever really detain a person for refusing to unlock their phone for some overzealous law enforcement person if they are so forced to unlock their phone, because they would literally be completely unable to while under such duress to do so, and the technology behind it would be well known enough for the claim that they cannot unlock it to be seen as true. Given that in the past, we've seen a few stories about some people being held in contempt of court and being imprisoned for an indefinite period for not surrendering passwords, or sometimes even claiming to have allegedly forgotten it somehow, I'm wondering how such a legal system would actually handle a case where the very fact that they are asking for something that the person doesn't *really* want to do is enough to make it *literally* impossible for that person to comply with the request.
I mean, are they going to throw you in jail for not wanting to comply with the law, even though you go through all the physical motions of doing so? I'm not sure what a law that incarcerates someone for something like that would look like on the books.
Ignore the fact that a passcode that one actually keeps secret is, in general, going to be far more secure than the usage of any kind of biometric data could ever hope to be. People are friggen lazy. Full stop.
I'm not saying that we can't reason logically about such a theoretical alien, only that we would not be capable of perceiving anything other than it appearing to follow the laws of physics even while it was actually manipulating them, because we define the laws of physics in terms of the things that the universe actually does, so when such a being were to manipulate some aspect of this reality, we just see the laws of physics in action because that's what we are looking for, and how we have chosen to define how reality works. If reality as we know it were actually sustained by the thoughts or design of some higher intelligence, however, then in truth, no such "laws" would have any real existence in governing our universe's operation, and at most would simply be nothing but our own reflections of how such a being happens to manipulate the reality that we experience.
The entire notion of "enabling to exist" for such a super-real alien intelligence implicitly suggests that there could have ever been any other possibility. This is an artificial projection of our experience of reality upon whatever might exist beyond it, and does not necessarily apply.
I would dare say that we are incapable of recognizing such intelligence for what it is unaided because of how tightly bound it is to what we understand as so-called physical laws.
Interesting point of fact about such an alien is that it would lack any capacity to lie, because its thughts are reflected directly by reality, which is all we ever perceive. We would see, if we could see it, a creature apparently following the laws physics even while it was actually manipulating them to its desire
I did not mean to suggest I was sure about the thing with Basic... the point about assembly remains, however. 0 based arrays make sense if you think of the array index as an offset, in units of the underlying data type, from the beginning of the array instead of an absolute position. This is, particularly coming from an assembly programmers point of view, a very intuitive concept
At the very least, there is some scientific basis for thinking that the universe had a beginning story some finite amount of time ago, so it is fair to question its origin. There is no such similar notion for god and so the question of about who or what created god need only arise if one baselessly presumes an origin for god in the first place.
Of course it is possible for the whole idea to be âoeturtles all the way downâ, but even if were true, that would be inconsequential for our purposes.
That presumes that said alien even exists in a domain where something like "physics" has any meaning.
It's sad to say that there is nothing in our existence to suggest that everything that we believe and experience to be entirely real is not actually simply part of some alien intelligence's imagination, existing on a level of higher reality than anything I dare say that anyone has even dreamed of. And the only reason that we might perceive any consistency or "rules" about how the universe seems to work at all is less of a manifestation that the universe's operation is *actually* governed by those rules, and more of a consequence of that being's choice, whether deliberate or unconscious, to happen to think in a consistent way.
As for the idea of it being "turtles all the way down", I'm reminded of a short story I once read wherein a couple of the characters therein are debating over who was the author of the the book that the author of their own book was written in. I wish I could remember what it was called.
It was rhetorical... the answer is that you can't. If somebody you contracted for work wants to hang onto his own phone in the hopes that he'll get a call and you'll have more work for him to do when you have never asked of him to do so is doing so entirely on his own time. Not yours.
Some of the biggest reasons why Uber drivers would be considered independent contractors, in no particular order, are as follows:
Drivers use their own equipment to perform the work, and are not compensated in any way for its use.
Drivers set their own work schedule, and are not expected to be available at specific times dictated by the company. Uber might discourage drivers from not being available at certain times by not offering them as many jobs when they do make themselves available, but in reality, this is not any different that somebody who is looking at a history of several independent contractors that they might have to choose from for a job and tending to offer the job to someone they find the most reliable rather than someone who has frequently not been available at times when they could have really used him.
Uber drivers burden all of the costs associated with taking on jobs for Uber, and the driver takes on jobs for Uber at their own risk.
The fencepost error you are talking about was hardly invented with C. It existed in assembly, which C largely imitated, and for high level languages, I seem to recall that Basic had 0-based arrays as well, which itself was invented over half a decade before C.
Or, you could use the lowest 7 bits of an initial byte to represent length, and use the high bit in a length byte to indicate that there is an additional length byte after this one. There is no upper limit on length in this case, just as with a null terminated string, and as an absolute worst case, it takes only one more byte to represent a given length than the number of bytes that a binary representation of that length would ordinarily fit into, but even for string lengths of 128 to 255, which is where it has the overall worst impact, this is still only a 1% increase in storage overhead.
Of course, even this tiny overhead may not be worth it for the additional benefit of just being able to store a null character inside of string. You have to weigh the needs of the application against this.
There's no such thing as unrestricted human performance because human performance is always limited by what is actually physiologically possible in our biological framework. AI is restricted only by what is physically possible, which is a far broader domain.
Or, perhaps, people should not choose to be working for Uber at all if they are not satisfied with the amount Uber is willing to offer. As an independent contractor you can try and negotiate your pay all you want but if the person who is going to be paying for your services doesnâ(TM)t want to pay you that much, and never promised or even suggested that they would, then not being paid what you want for working for them is your own fault for agreeing to work for them in the first place for less than your desired pay grade. If they arenâ(TM)t willing to negotiate, you either accept what the person contracting you has offered or wait for something else to come along.
... negotiate with passengers because the passengers are not who is contracting the drivers in the first place. The passengers are Uber's clients, not the driver's.
Uber is the one contracting the drivers. The drivers are using their own equipment, at their own cost, and setting their own work schedule.
The drivers no more get to negotiate prices with their passengers than an independent contractor that's hired by a construction firm gets to negotiate their prices with the construction firm's clients.
At lower speeds, or while stopped, the software should be using a larger following distance than what might otherwise be considered normal and safe while behind a vehicle that is physically larger than the automated one, to accommodate for decreased visibility that the truck driver is likely to have of the automated vehicle.
The shuttle came to a stop immediately as soon as it saw that the truck was backing up, which was fine, but I think that it's also likely that it was using a general rule about trailing distances at such speeds, and not giving the truck a larger following distance to accommodate for the decreased visibility that the truck driver had. The truck driver was still entirely at fault here, but it's still possible that a human driver in the same situation may have handled the situation differently by not being so close to the truck in the first place, which would have lessened the chance of there being a collision, even though such an event would still have been entirely the fault of the truck driver. It's very much of a defensive driving practice kind of thing.
Also, after stopping, as soon as the truck got too close, it could have also issued a horn beep (but not rudely so) to function as a proximity alert. Giving it a wider berth than is normal would also allow for an increased amount of time to issue such a proximity alert, if it became necessary.
Good point... although interestingly, this is also something that should be fairly easy to program, and ought to be possible for the programmers of this system to mitigate from being likely to occur again.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are alleging that the wrench is only about 10% effective in the first place, sure. If you are being beaten with a wrench you are both under duress *AND* stress, so you still wouldn't be able to unlock the device for a person who is requesting it if it had such security measures installed.
It's almost a password equivalent to a dead-man's switch for disabling access to the device, except it is reversible in that one can potentially re-enable the device at a later time.
Actually, what would be an interesting passcode system would be one that integrates with some sort of wetware system, and which not only relies on biometric data and a secret key, but also analyzes the state of mind of the user requesting access, and denies entry, even via an authorized password and in the presence of authorized biometric data, when the user is under any kind of stress or duress. Obviously, on a device like a phone, critical emergency functions would still work without such authorization (as they already do anyways), but something like that would completely decimate the $5 wrench technique.... plus, they could not ever really detain a person for refusing to unlock their phone for some overzealous law enforcement person if they are so forced to unlock their phone, because they would literally be completely unable to while under such duress to do so, and the technology behind it would be well known enough for the claim that they cannot unlock it to be seen as true. Given that in the past, we've seen a few stories about some people being held in contempt of court and being imprisoned for an indefinite period for not surrendering passwords, or sometimes even claiming to have allegedly forgotten it somehow, I'm wondering how such a legal system would actually handle a case where the very fact that they are asking for something that the person doesn't *really* want to do is enough to make it *literally* impossible for that person to comply with the request.
I mean, are they going to throw you in jail for not wanting to comply with the law, even though you go through all the physical motions of doing so? I'm not sure what a law that incarcerates someone for something like that would look like on the books.
Isn't it obvious? It requires more effort.
Ignore the fact that a passcode that one actually keeps secret is, in general, going to be far more secure than the usage of any kind of biometric data could ever hope to be. People are friggen lazy. Full stop.
I'm not saying that we can't reason logically about such a theoretical alien, only that we would not be capable of perceiving anything other than it appearing to follow the laws of physics even while it was actually manipulating them, because we define the laws of physics in terms of the things that the universe actually does, so when such a being were to manipulate some aspect of this reality, we just see the laws of physics in action because that's what we are looking for, and how we have chosen to define how reality works. If reality as we know it were actually sustained by the thoughts or design of some higher intelligence, however, then in truth, no such "laws" would have any real existence in governing our universe's operation, and at most would simply be nothing but our own reflections of how such a being happens to manipulate the reality that we experience.
The entire notion of "enabling to exist" for such a super-real alien intelligence implicitly suggests that there could have ever been any other possibility. This is an artificial projection of our experience of reality upon whatever might exist beyond it, and does not necessarily apply.
I would dare say that we are incapable of recognizing such intelligence for what it is unaided because of how tightly bound it is to what we understand as so-called physical laws.
Interesting point of fact about such an alien is that it would lack any capacity to lie, because its thughts are reflected directly by reality, which is all we ever perceive. We would see, if we could see it, a creature apparently following the laws physics even while it was actually manipulating them to its desire
I did not mean to suggest I was sure about the thing with Basic... the point about assembly remains, however. 0 based arrays make sense if you think of the array index as an offset, in units of the underlying data type, from the beginning of the array instead of an absolute position. This is, particularly coming from an assembly programmers point of view, a very intuitive concept
At the very least, there is some scientific basis for thinking that the universe had a beginning story some finite amount of time ago, so it is fair to question its origin. There is no such similar notion for god and so the question of about who or what created god need only arise if one baselessly presumes an origin for god in the first place.
Of course it is possible for the whole idea to be âoeturtles all the way downâ, but even if were true, that would be inconsequential for our purposes.
That presumes that said alien even exists in a domain where something like "physics" has any meaning.
It's sad to say that there is nothing in our existence to suggest that everything that we believe and experience to be entirely real is not actually simply part of some alien intelligence's imagination, existing on a level of higher reality than anything I dare say that anyone has even dreamed of. And the only reason that we might perceive any consistency or "rules" about how the universe seems to work at all is less of a manifestation that the universe's operation is *actually* governed by those rules, and more of a consequence of that being's choice, whether deliberate or unconscious, to happen to think in a consistent way.
As for the idea of it being "turtles all the way down", I'm reminded of a short story I once read wherein a couple of the characters therein are debating over who was the author of the the book that the author of their own book was written in. I wish I could remember what it was called.
It was rhetorical... the answer is that you can't. If somebody you contracted for work wants to hang onto his own phone in the hopes that he'll get a call and you'll have more work for him to do when you have never asked of him to do so is doing so entirely on his own time. Not yours.
Some of the biggest reasons why Uber drivers would be considered independent contractors, in no particular order, are as follows:
Argh.... I hate you for using that analogy.
Now I have that annoying song going through me head about there being "A hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza..."
Damn you.
The fencepost error you are talking about was hardly invented with C. It existed in assembly, which C largely imitated, and for high level languages, I seem to recall that Basic had 0-based arrays as well, which itself was invented over half a decade before C.
Or, you could use the lowest 7 bits of an initial byte to represent length, and use the high bit in a length byte to indicate that there is an additional length byte after this one. There is no upper limit on length in this case, just as with a null terminated string, and as an absolute worst case, it takes only one more byte to represent a given length than the number of bytes that a binary representation of that length would ordinarily fit into, but even for string lengths of 128 to 255, which is where it has the overall worst impact, this is still only a 1% increase in storage overhead.
Of course, even this tiny overhead may not be worth it for the additional benefit of just being able to store a null character inside of string. You have to weigh the needs of the application against this.
Uh... no. Not even close. The occasional benchmark might be faster, but definitely *NOT* most. Box and whisker plot comparing several languages, highlighting Rust
There's no such thing as unrestricted human performance because human performance is always limited by what is actually physiologically possible in our biological framework. AI is restricted only by what is physically possible, which is a far broader domain.
There was a time when what were once called horseless carriages was slower than using a horse,.
Give it time.
Or, perhaps, people should not choose to be working for Uber at all if they are not satisfied with the amount Uber is willing to offer. As an independent contractor you can try and negotiate your pay all you want but if the person who is going to be paying for your services doesnâ(TM)t want to pay you that much, and never promised or even suggested that they would, then not being paid what you want for working for them is your own fault for agreeing to work for them in the first place for less than your desired pay grade. If they arenâ(TM)t willing to negotiate, you either accept what the person contracting you has offered or wait for something else to come along.
How do you âoenot let them lingerâ if they are working from home in the first place?
A professional escort is not generally obligated to lie to others about who they are.
Of course, but if you decide to not go home and wait to see if any work will come up fior you to do, thatâ(TM)s in your own time, not your bossâ(TM)s
Uber is the one contracting the drivers. The drivers are using their own equipment, at their own cost, and setting their own work schedule.
The drivers no more get to negotiate prices with their passengers than an independent contractor that's hired by a construction firm gets to negotiate their prices with the construction firm's clients.
At lower speeds, or while stopped, the software should be using a larger following distance than what might otherwise be considered normal and safe while behind a vehicle that is physically larger than the automated one, to accommodate for decreased visibility that the truck driver is likely to have of the automated vehicle.
The shuttle came to a stop immediately as soon as it saw that the truck was backing up, which was fine, but I think that it's also likely that it was using a general rule about trailing distances at such speeds, and not giving the truck a larger following distance to accommodate for the decreased visibility that the truck driver had. The truck driver was still entirely at fault here, but it's still possible that a human driver in the same situation may have handled the situation differently by not being so close to the truck in the first place, which would have lessened the chance of there being a collision, even though such an event would still have been entirely the fault of the truck driver. It's very much of a defensive driving practice kind of thing.
Also, after stopping, as soon as the truck got too close, it could have also issued a horn beep (but not rudely so) to function as a proximity alert. Giving it a wider berth than is normal would also allow for an increased amount of time to issue such a proximity alert, if it became necessary.
Nope. Thatâ(TM)s a mouse.
They should know not to.
That is only true when there is a sense by the company that they need to be competitive on price. Apple doesn't feel that way.
And the fact that people buy it despite the high markups proves that they are right.
Good point... although interestingly, this is also something that should be fairly easy to program, and ought to be possible for the programmers of this system to mitigate from being likely to occur again.