I think it's a lot worse for her than you are presupposing. Tuft's is a school reasonably well connected politically. Cases that should be "open and shut" against politically well connected parties have a long history of often coming to extremely peculiar verdicts. I'm not sure that it's actually getting worse in recent years, or whether we're just hearing about more of them, but I seem to hear about several every month. (Of course, sometimes it's the same one repeatedly, but...)
Saying that someone already in debt should automatically hire a lawyer when being told of an on-going investigation that she doesn't know the details of strikes me as a bit absurd. When I was in school I *wasn't* in debt, and I would still have been extremely reluctant to hire a lawyer. I would expect that the "investigation" would find that I was innocent, so why should I burden myself with debt. I generally trusted the authorities to "do the right thing".
If you think she should have automatically hired a lawyer, that tells me you've never lived on limited finances. I admit this is a bit of a projection on my part, but I can't imagine a student who hasn't grown up in a rather wealthy family thinking that the first thing to do is hire a lawyer.
Actually, I'm not giving her version of events a great deal of credence. But I trust it over the word of an arbitrary bureaucracy that acted to prevent official records from happening. Even then, I'd only trust the result somewhat, as those "official records" seem to generally and unaccountably always favor the bureaucracy. They need to be open an verifiable, or sealed at the request of the accused, before I'll trust them.
You happen to be wrong. I have no (known) skin in that game. My source does, admittedly, but he's someone I trust a lot more than I trust any politician. Charles Stross. http://www.antipope.org/charli... You'll need to search back a ways to find the pages where he discusses his analysis, and the what and the why of it.
"Best interests of your constituency" or "What you promised to do to get elected"? And "best interests" in a larger context is always questionable, and never measurable in advance. So I prefer to leave that aspect out of my calculations. If you say you're going to do something, and try your best to do it, I can't call you corrupt, even if I think what you're doing is socially destructive. Other adjectives, however, might come to mind.
There were, as always, lies on both sides. There was, however, as far as my information says, a grossly unbalanced tilt with most of the lies, and most of the more outrageous lies, being on the side of "leave". OTOH, if the real reason that people voted "leave" was xenophobia, then the truth might have served equally well. And it could be. In times of economic stress there's a strong tendency to "blame the foreigner". AFAIKT it's a universal human tendency. (The alternative, which also happens, is "blame the ruler", and that's been the real reason for many civil wars.)
If I had points I'd rate you funny. Since I don't I'll just comment that they could both be correct. Cutting foreign trade is not a good recipe for a healthy economy. *Some* people and a few companies may do rather well off it, though. That's the way it's worked in the past. Strangely enough, the ones who promote the decision, and often the ones that make it, have strong economic ties to those particular companies. Just like arms-makers are usually in favor of a strong military program.
You can call it corruption, or you can call it "putting your money where your mouth is", and the difference is essentially how openly you do things, and sometimes the timing.
You're painting too black a picture. Still, cutting off foreign trade is a recipe for disaster for any small country, and wars stopped being profitable in the 1800's. They're too expensive, and the valuable stuff is so fragile that it gets destroyed during the conquest. It's been estimated that the US spent more wealth during the invasion of Iraq than all the remaining oil underground in the Middle East is worth. (Of course, that might have been hyperbole, and in any case the estimate is quite uncertain. But it gives an idea of how expensive modern wars are.)
That vote was advertised as advisory, and the campaign in favor of it was totally filled with lies. Proclaiming that as the "will of the people" says more about you than about the "will of the people". It may be the case that most people would have voted for it if they had understood what they voted for, but the proponents of the measure clearly didn't believe that. And the evidence, such as I know it, is that they still don't believe it.
What you are ignoring is that in prior years there was the CommonWealth, which would at least provide launching, landing, and tracking sites. That's pretty much gone now, though. If they already had a space industry, I might give them as much of a shot as India. I don't, however, believe that's true. Perhaps they'll be able to do a deal with Australia and Canada, and that could be workable. Otherwise...
You're assuming the default with be "don't kill without authorization", but the language used would be equally appropriate for a policy that said "kill if you think you should unless you are overridden".
FWIW, I don't find that language reassuring at all. It has multiple interpretations, some of which are extremely bad, and none of which are extremely good. "In the loop" is intentionally vague language, and could even mean "We can look at the tapes later and decide if it did right.".
Watching a fishing rod doesn't require correct evaluation of a complex rapidly changing situation within 5 seconds. Not comparable. You can space out frequently while watching a fishing rod and never have it cause a calamity.
IIRC, it was BSD Unix that was put on a toaster. I saw it at a West Coast Computer Faire. I thought it an impressive example of total worthlessness...of course, that was long before the IOT.
But that "safety monitor" had a job that is impossible to successfully execute if needed. Sorry, but "impossible" is the correct term unless there are at least 5 seconds available for task switch-over. (Probably more. The lab experiments were rather idealized.)
Uber knew, or had reason to know, that the job asked of the "backup driver" was impossible. Perhaps the "backup driver" or "mission specialist" is *also* to blame, but the primary blame should be on Uber. He is merely an accomplice before the fact.
FWIW, there is evidence that the footage was tampered with to reduce contract and make everything look darker. "Tampered with" may be wrong, since I don't know that the actual details, as opposed to the visual display of them, were actually hidden. But other cameras recording the same scene didn't show it as that dark at all. They weren't good enough to record the necessary detail, but they did record the general level of illumination.
So I guess it's possible that Uber was just using a grossly substandard camera rather than dicking with the display of the evidence. But the prior analysis I read indicated that the guy doing the analysis believed the scene was intentionally displayed at a lower level of illumination that was accurate. He was working off the released video, however, not off the original recordings.
That's correct. You should blame every company that relies on a "backup driver" approach. That is an approach guaranteed to fail. Well, guaranteed to fail unless you can always guarantee at least a 5 second switch-over time period. The cars that pull over and stop are doing it reasonably. Any approach that relies on a human "driver" maintaining attention and readiness to take over while not exercising any control is guaranteed to fail. Even rested drivers in a boring environment are subject to "highway hypnosis", and that's when their life is on the line and they know it.
I think all technical experts in the field have decided that the backup driver idea is a non-starter. But this is not always accepted by management. (I'm not an expert in that field, but public reports have been pretty convincing.)
And the threat of "vehicular manslaughter" charges?
The "backup driver" is in a totally impossible position. No one except an experienced meditator of certain varieties (some kinds of zen, some kinds of "awareness" meditation) could maintain attention in that kind of situation. And there aren't many of those. (In fact, I'm just assuming that those people could maintain awareness. It could be hype.) Most people in that kind of extremely boring position will space out in one way or another. Many of the ways, admittedly, less open to external observation that watching a movie. But people have killed themselves under "highway hypnosis", and that was while actually driving, not just watching the road.
Some lab tests have shown that in less extreme circumstances it can take a person about 5 seconds to decide to take control, evaluate what they should do, and start doing it. So "backup driver" is a concept flawed from the very beginning.
It's already past that point. But the simpler chips aren't manufactured with modern techniques.
The better approach would be massively multi-processor chips with drastically simpler CPUs. Say something similar to the M68000, only also with 64 bit words. You'd need to add a few instructions to facilitate passing immutable messages between the CPUs on the chip. (Is CPU even the correct term?) And each CPU would need it's own cache. A couple of the CPUs would be processed for I/O handling (PPUs?).
Unfortunately, this approach would require redesigning most software. Whoops!
Sorry, but I must disagree. Inherent in the concept of speculative execution on a CPU is a more complex CPU design, and this means that the chance of design error is vastly increased. Now consider just how difficult it is to write a bug-free program, and how much more difficult it becomes as the complexity of the program increases. Then consider that you can't really do an exhaustive test of a CPU within the lifespan of the universe.
All that said, either these "bugs" are intentional, or Intel have been exceedingly careless, and since there are a lot more "bugs" revealing information that producing erroneous results I know which way I lean.
While your quote is correct, the Grandparent's point was that Intel has been more heavily studied than AMD or ARM, and thus it may be that different attacks of equivalent severity exist for those architectures.
And he's right, but they sure aren't known to exist. Where attacks are known to exist, Intel is either equally vulnerable, more vulnerable, or the only one vulnerable. (Well, OK, I overstate the point. Sorry. Yes, there have been a few attacks specific to the AMD or ARM.)
The Republicans being different from the Democrats doesn't mean that if one is bad the other is good. They represent different power blocks. Neither represents the citizenry, because elections are too expensive. The House is more representative than the Senate, because it's cheaper to run for Representative. (Except in places like Rhode Island and Vermont, where the state's small. *THEN* it becomes a timeliness factor.)
Don't be too quick to jump given just the title of the law. Those are often highly deceptive, and even the summary says that the proposed text of the law (even before any amendments) is not available for review.
I *HOPE* it will be a decent law. That's not the same as saying I expect it to be a decent law. And evaluation has to await someone who can understand legalese interpreting it. The devil is in the details.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's a lot worse for her than you are presupposing. Tuft's is a school reasonably well connected politically. Cases that should be "open and shut" against politically well connected parties have a long history of often coming to extremely peculiar verdicts. I'm not sure that it's actually getting worse in recent years, or whether we're just hearing about more of them, but I seem to hear about several every month. (Of course, sometimes it's the same one repeatedly, but...)
Saying that someone already in debt should automatically hire a lawyer when being told of an on-going investigation that she doesn't know the details of strikes me as a bit absurd. When I was in school I *wasn't* in debt, and I would still have been extremely reluctant to hire a lawyer. I would expect that the "investigation" would find that I was innocent, so why should I burden myself with debt. I generally trusted the authorities to "do the right thing".
If you think she should have automatically hired a lawyer, that tells me you've never lived on limited finances. I admit this is a bit of a projection on my part, but I can't imagine a student who hasn't grown up in a rather wealthy family thinking that the first thing to do is hire a lawyer.
Actually, I'm not giving her version of events a great deal of credence. But I trust it over the word of an arbitrary bureaucracy that acted to prevent official records from happening. Even then, I'd only trust the result somewhat, as those "official records" seem to generally and unaccountably always favor the bureaucracy. They need to be open an verifiable, or sealed at the request of the accused, before I'll trust them.
It's their country, so they can have their own laws. I happen to think this particular one, or perhaps just their implementation of it, is brain dead.
You happen to be wrong. I have no (known) skin in that game. My source does, admittedly, but he's someone I trust a lot more than I trust any politician. Charles Stross. http://www.antipope.org/charli... You'll need to search back a ways to find the pages where he discusses his analysis, and the what and the why of it.
"Best interests of your constituency" or "What you promised to do to get elected"? And "best interests" in a larger context is always questionable, and never measurable in advance. So I prefer to leave that aspect out of my calculations. If you say you're going to do something, and try your best to do it, I can't call you corrupt, even if I think what you're doing is socially destructive. Other adjectives, however, might come to mind.
There were, as always, lies on both sides. There was, however, as far as my information says, a grossly unbalanced tilt with most of the lies, and most of the more outrageous lies, being on the side of "leave". OTOH, if the real reason that people voted "leave" was xenophobia, then the truth might have served equally well. And it could be. In times of economic stress there's a strong tendency to "blame the foreigner". AFAIKT it's a universal human tendency. (The alternative, which also happens, is "blame the ruler", and that's been the real reason for many civil wars.)
If I had points I'd rate you funny. Since I don't I'll just comment that they could both be correct. Cutting foreign trade is not a good recipe for a healthy economy. *Some* people and a few companies may do rather well off it, though. That's the way it's worked in the past. Strangely enough, the ones who promote the decision, and often the ones that make it, have strong economic ties to those particular companies. Just like arms-makers are usually in favor of a strong military program.
You can call it corruption, or you can call it "putting your money where your mouth is", and the difference is essentially how openly you do things, and sometimes the timing.
You're painting too black a picture. Still, cutting off foreign trade is a recipe for disaster for any small country, and wars stopped being profitable in the 1800's. They're too expensive, and the valuable stuff is so fragile that it gets destroyed during the conquest. It's been estimated that the US spent more wealth during the invasion of Iraq than all the remaining oil underground in the Middle East is worth. (Of course, that might have been hyperbole, and in any case the estimate is quite uncertain. But it gives an idea of how expensive modern wars are.)
That vote was advertised as advisory, and the campaign in favor of it was totally filled with lies. Proclaiming that as the "will of the people" says more about you than about the "will of the people". It may be the case that most people would have voted for it if they had understood what they voted for, but the proponents of the measure clearly didn't believe that. And the evidence, such as I know it, is that they still don't believe it.
What you are ignoring is that in prior years there was the CommonWealth, which would at least provide launching, landing, and tracking sites. That's pretty much gone now, though. If they already had a space industry, I might give them as much of a shot as India. I don't, however, believe that's true. Perhaps they'll be able to do a deal with Australia and Canada, and that could be workable. Otherwise...
You're assuming the default with be "don't kill without authorization", but the language used would be equally appropriate for a policy that said "kill if you think you should unless you are overridden".
FWIW, I don't find that language reassuring at all. It has multiple interpretations, some of which are extremely bad, and none of which are extremely good. "In the loop" is intentionally vague language, and could even mean "We can look at the tapes later and decide if it did right.".
Watching a fishing rod doesn't require correct evaluation of a complex rapidly changing situation within 5 seconds. Not comparable. You can space out frequently while watching a fishing rod and never have it cause a calamity.
IIRC, it was BSD Unix that was put on a toaster. I saw it at a West Coast Computer Faire. I thought it an impressive example of total worthlessness...of course, that was long before the IOT.
But that "safety monitor" had a job that is impossible to successfully execute if needed. Sorry, but "impossible" is the correct term unless there are at least 5 seconds available for task switch-over. (Probably more. The lab experiments were rather idealized.)
Uber knew, or had reason to know, that the job asked of the "backup driver" was impossible. Perhaps the "backup driver" or "mission specialist" is *also* to blame, but the primary blame should be on Uber. He is merely an accomplice before the fact.
FWIW, there is evidence that the footage was tampered with to reduce contract and make everything look darker. "Tampered with" may be wrong, since I don't know that the actual details, as opposed to the visual display of them, were actually hidden. But other cameras recording the same scene didn't show it as that dark at all. They weren't good enough to record the necessary detail, but they did record the general level of illumination.
So I guess it's possible that Uber was just using a grossly substandard camera rather than dicking with the display of the evidence. But the prior analysis I read indicated that the guy doing the analysis believed the scene was intentionally displayed at a lower level of illumination that was accurate. He was working off the released video, however, not off the original recordings.
That's correct. You should blame every company that relies on a "backup driver" approach. That is an approach guaranteed to fail. Well, guaranteed to fail unless you can always guarantee at least a 5 second switch-over time period. The cars that pull over and stop are doing it reasonably. Any approach that relies on a human "driver" maintaining attention and readiness to take over while not exercising any control is guaranteed to fail. Even rested drivers in a boring environment are subject to "highway hypnosis", and that's when their life is on the line and they know it.
I think all technical experts in the field have decided that the backup driver idea is a non-starter. But this is not always accepted by management. (I'm not an expert in that field, but public reports have been pretty convincing.)
And the threat of "vehicular manslaughter" charges?
The "backup driver" is in a totally impossible position. No one except an experienced meditator of certain varieties (some kinds of zen, some kinds of "awareness" meditation) could maintain attention in that kind of situation. And there aren't many of those. (In fact, I'm just assuming that those people could maintain awareness. It could be hype.) Most people in that kind of extremely boring position will space out in one way or another. Many of the ways, admittedly, less open to external observation that watching a movie. But people have killed themselves under "highway hypnosis", and that was while actually driving, not just watching the road.
Some lab tests have shown that in less extreme circumstances it can take a person about 5 seconds to decide to take control, evaluate what they should do, and start doing it. So "backup driver" is a concept flawed from the very beginning.
It's already past that point. But the simpler chips aren't manufactured with modern techniques.
The better approach would be massively multi-processor chips with drastically simpler CPUs. Say something similar to the M68000, only also with 64 bit words. You'd need to add a few instructions to facilitate passing immutable messages between the CPUs on the chip. (Is CPU even the correct term?) And each CPU would need it's own cache. A couple of the CPUs would be processed for I/O handling (PPUs?).
Unfortunately, this approach would require redesigning most software. Whoops!
No. They suffer from SOME Spectre errors. Not most. And the ones they suffer from are more difficult to implement.
Most of the errors, and especially most of the ones that are (relatively) easy to implement, are Intel specific.
That said, AMD has it's own "management engine". Not good.
Sorry, but I must disagree. Inherent in the concept of speculative execution on a CPU is a more complex CPU design, and this means that the chance of design error is vastly increased. Now consider just how difficult it is to write a bug-free program, and how much more difficult it becomes as the complexity of the program increases. Then consider that you can't really do an exhaustive test of a CPU within the lifespan of the universe.
All that said, either these "bugs" are intentional, or Intel have been exceedingly careless, and since there are a lot more "bugs" revealing information that producing erroneous results I know which way I lean.
While your quote is correct, the Grandparent's point was that Intel has been more heavily studied than AMD or ARM, and thus it may be that different attacks of equivalent severity exist for those architectures.
And he's right, but they sure aren't known to exist. Where attacks are known to exist, Intel is either equally vulnerable, more vulnerable, or the only one vulnerable. (Well, OK, I overstate the point. Sorry. Yes, there have been a few attacks specific to the AMD or ARM.)
The Republicans being different from the Democrats doesn't mean that if one is bad the other is good. They represent different power blocks. Neither represents the citizenry, because elections are too expensive. The House is more representative than the Senate, because it's cheaper to run for Representative. (Except in places like Rhode Island and Vermont, where the state's small. *THEN* it becomes a timeliness factor.)
Don't be too quick to jump given just the title of the law. Those are often highly deceptive, and even the summary says that the proposed text of the law (even before any amendments) is not available for review.
I *HOPE* it will be a decent law. That's not the same as saying I expect it to be a decent law. And evaluation has to await someone who can understand legalese interpreting it. The devil is in the details.