Take a look at this [wa.gov]. If $10,000 buys a Murray then the $100,000 contributed by the UFCW must mean that McGinn must be a mere puppet of the union. Yet there is no issue with the union contribution. I see an imbalance here.
Take a look at this. If $10,000 buys a McGinn' then the $100,000 contributed by the UFCW must mean that the incumbent must be a mere puppet of the union. Yet there is no issue with the union contribution. I see an imbalance here.
So, what you're saying is, Comcast and it's executive are morons, then? Or they just love throwing money away, perhaps?
Why does there have to be only extremes? Comcast contributed a reasonable sum to support a candidate who thinks like they do. Is it a sure bet? No. Is it a sure failure? no.
Now, are you saying if Comcast had contributed $122,800, then it'd be possible to call it a legal bribe and then disband Comcast?
I don't care about hypotheticals. Lets deal with what actually happened. Campaign contributions are there to support candidates and calling reasonable contributions "heavy" is an exaggeration.
To that end, I think $10,000 would probably be enough to buy the ear of most people, especially when they need "experts" in an area anyways.
Your opinion of most people is pretty low. It would take a lot more than $10,000 in campaign contributions that I can not personally spend to induce me to do something I did not agree with. There are also problems with the "buy the mayor" theory; 1. Council makes more decisions than the mayor. 2. Any mayor who was obviously biased would not get elected again.
My point is that $10,700 is not "heavily" for a company the size of Comcast. Can we have truth in reporting rather that op ed pieces disguised as reporting? Lets deal with facts rather than exaggeration designed to get advertisement views/clicks.
According to the numbers in the article a Comcat executive contributed $700 and the company contributed $10,000 to PACs. Sorry buit I doubt that $10,700 will buy an election. Look at all contribution to People for Ed Murray. The total contribution are $122,800 making Comcast's contribution 8.7%.
It is a tack on solution to solve and issue caused by a tack on problem.
Is there a an authentication protocol between the video card in your computer and the PCI bus, your mouse and the USB controller, your hard drive and the SATA bus? This is a similar situation. The point is that one needs to install hardware onto the bus to have access. The difference is that the internet is connected to millions of computers all over the world. A vehicle's network is self contained up until it is connected to the internet and that is where the security needs to be; at the connection point.
You are arguing from a position that any device which has the capability to display non-driving related information at undetermined times in drivers' field of vision no matter where they are looking must be banned.
FTFY
AM/FM radios, CD players, Tape decks, and any other entertainment system which allows the driver to operate it instead of driving the vehicle.
None of those items are in the field of vision of the driver at all times. The driver can chose to access those items when he feel safe to do so. That is not the case with Google Glass as it can pop up distracting information at any time. Those items are much less distracting than text popping up in your field of vision.
In certain states, mine included, you do not need to have a licensed rider with you.
What state is that? Another point is that motorcycles are a special case. To learn how to drive in traffic one has to drive in traffic and riding double on a motorcycle is difficult for a beginner. To allow the learning to take place the risk must be allowed or few people would ever get a license.
In addition, you could, like I did, get your learners permit, and immediately take your drivers exam.
The relevance of a waiting period is questionable at best. A rider could have driven for years off road or in a country where a license is not required but still have to get a learner's permit before a driver's license.
Looking to the side to check your mapquest printouts for your exit.
Which would fall under driving without due care.
Or reading one of those giant LED billboards.
Which is a choice and which are written to be short and less distracting.
You seem to think I operate some sort of device which pops up text messages. I don't
You may not but there is no way to verify that as Google Glass is a display for the phone and can pop up text messages. Laws are not written for individual situations but for the general public. For example, is it perfectly safe for a high performance sports car to drive at 100 mph on a deserted straight highway? Does that mean it is safe for every vehicle? If there was something hard wired into Google Glass that could accurately sense when someone is driving and disable the distracting function that would be ok. Manually disabling features is not good enough as many people will forget or just won't. Disabling while moving can not detect the difference between driver and passenger and therefore will not be acceptable by customers.
The vendor is charged a fee for every credit card transaction. Are you going to do that for every cash transaction too? Who is going to pay for the servers?
Nor is it necessary to validate every bit of cash you take in
Cashiers are trained to automatically validate billed by just looking at them. One can not hand over a blank piece of paper to a cashier and expect it to me accepted. Simple validation was done. Suspect bills are tested further. With your system, every bill would need to be validated because the bill can be easily duplicated and visual validation would be meaningless.
But it sounds a lot simpler in practice to at least *provide* a method for cryptographic verification, even if nobody uses the system, than it is to spend increasingly large amounts of money trying to just print paper in a way that nobody else can easily duplicate.
Lets print money that is easy to duplicate and will be accepted because no one uses the system that could catch it./sarcasm
My phone only displays information to improve situational awareness.
Which is only true because you configured your phone to must things if you are moving. Do you do that if you are a passenger in a car, bus, train, etc? Others are not so conscientious and will allow their phones to respond to texts.
By your logic, we not only should have bans on cell phones, but in-car bluetooth, radios, eating, drinking, speaking to passengers, and anything else which a person might do which increases the risk in a vehicle.
The difference is that radios, eating, drinking and talking to the passengers is a choice of the driver. The driver initiates these actions and can decide when it is safe to do so. A text message popping into view is initiated by someone else and the sender has no idea what the driver is doing.
There already exists laws against distracted driving, or operating vehicles in a dangerous manner, and those are more than sufficient to pull over people who are actually behaving in a dangerous manner.
Most of these tickets are written after an accident has occurred and then it is too late.
It's like advocating for a 0.0 maximum BAC for driving. Sure, it sounds good on the surface, but it really does nothing to address the root causes of drunk driving, and probably would make the whole situation worse. For example: If 0.0 was the max legal BAC, and I just had a single beer, I would be breaking the law if I offered to be the driver for someone who just had 6 beers in an hour.
This is a perfect example of a point you seem to have missed. There is a line between safe and unsafe. It has been shown that people with a BAC below 0.08 are safe enough to drive. The line between safe and unsafe has been drawn there. Should someone who had had 4 beer in an hour drive the person who has had 6 beer in an hour? One is less drunk than the other but both are drunk. Another issue is that it is verifiable that the BAC line has been crossed. There is no way to verify that the Google Glass was being used inappropriately. Try to prove in court that someone was distracted by their Google Glass. I doubt it is possible.
The point being, these are devices which can be used in a responsible manner, and focusing your attention on device bans,
Many people are not responsible which is why we have rules that ban certain things. There is no way to know if someone is using their Google Glass responsibly while driving so it's use is banned.
without trying to address the root cause of the problem which is behavioral,
We can try to train behavior but it is no guarantee that people will follow that training.
just results in a ban on the device, loss of access to the beneficial features, and doesn't actually improve safety.
It had been shown many times that reading complex sentences takes a lot of thought. If a text message can pop into view at any time it will distract some drivers and cause accidents. People have driven without Google glass for decades and the risk due to distraction is too large. In the end, the risk/reward ratio is just to heavily toward risk.
That would require a server system that is up 24/7 to verify that the key was correct. and every validation device would need a connection to that service.
That method works great for obstacles that can not pass through the holes in the cage. What happens if the robot flies onto a stick end on? It will pass through the hole and may damage the inner workings. Sure the holes can be made smaller but then that increases weight and interferes with air flow.
I call BS. Your phone never rings? It never gets text messages? It does not have a browser? You have never forgotten to turn of those other apps when getting into the vehicle?You may only choose to use the app that displays the safe information but that does not mean the it can not display. The problem with Google Glass is that it can not tell when you are driving and when you are not.
But that's because I received education on how to be a safe driver. Not because everything unsafe was banned.
Good for you but not all drivers are so conscientious about their responsibilities. By that logic we should not have speed limits because a properly trained driver would know what speed is safe.
so I could have hopped right in a vehicle and been on the highway in less than 15 minutes.
A learners permit holder you are required to have a person with a valid license in the vehicle. Therefore you are in training. The theory is that the license holder would not give you control of a vehicle without training you in a safe area first as they probably don't want to get killed or damage the vehicle.
you won't have to worry as much about them using equipment in an unsafe manner.
Equipment that displays distracting information such as text messages can not be used in a safe manner hence the law against using such equipment. There is no way to safely drive down a road while reading unrelated complex text.
When you are not in mainland China or Taiwan what does it say? I doubt Chinese government would accept that as they have a problem with Taiwan being displayed as a separate country to anyone in the world.
27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle. (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle: (1) A vehicle information display. (2) A global positioning display. (3) A mapping display. (4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle. (5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements: (A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive. (B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
The problem is that Google Glass can display a video signal but can't tell that someone is driving and therefore is not exempt from the law.
The point you seem to miss is that the original poster posited that since pilots use a HUD a vehicle driver should be able to use Google Glass. The big difference is training. I also thing that you may be putting too much emphasis on the term training. Training is the method of gaining knowledge. There are two type of training. Formal training which usually includes classes and books and informal training which is mainly experience based. What you described is informal training. The point is that someone who has not spent hours getting the experience driving around in a safe simulated environment with Google glass on their head is not safe to do that on the public roads.
A big difference is that an aircraft HUD does not pop up texts from your boss. HUDs display information directly related to the task at hand. While Google glass can do that too it can not be guaranteed to do only that. Other information can cause distraction which can cause accidents. If the driver's mind is reading that text that just popped into view it is no longer concentrating on driving. You may be looking in the same direction but you are no longer looking at the road.
If anything happened the box would be found and traced back to the mechanic that put it in. What stops a mechanic from installing a remotely controled valve on the brake line? It still requires phisical hardare attached to the vehicle and is very different from remote access without physical access.
At that point they can put authentication on the wireless access points and leave the rest of the physical bus unauthenticated. Until the time that unauthenticated wireless access points are installed this is a non-story and just hype.
I call BS. Car manufacturers are not liable for all the cars that fail emission testing. Manufacturers are liable up until the vehicle is initially sold. After that the liability shifts to the owner.
The evidence of tampering would be the hardware physically attached to the diagnostics port. Nowhere do they talk about modifying the system and having it go off later. If you read the paper they link to with the folowing text you will see that it too required physical access to the diagnostics port.
Other researchers have accessed car networks via bluetooth and developed ways to compromise autos through firmware.
They seem to be hoping we will take their word for what the paper says or didn't read it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Opps that should have been;
Take a look at this [wa.gov]. If $10,000 buys a Murray then the $100,000 contributed by the UFCW must mean that McGinn must be a mere puppet of the union. Yet there is no issue with the union contribution. I see an imbalance here.
Take a look at this. If $10,000 buys a McGinn' then the $100,000 contributed by the UFCW must mean that the incumbent must be a mere puppet of the union. Yet there is no issue with the union contribution. I see an imbalance here.
Putting words in people's mouths is unreasonable.
So, what you're saying is, Comcast and it's executive are morons, then? Or they just love throwing money away, perhaps?
Why does there have to be only extremes? Comcast contributed a reasonable sum to support a candidate who thinks like they do. Is it a sure bet? No. Is it a sure failure? no.
Now, are you saying if Comcast had contributed $122,800, then it'd be possible to call it a legal bribe and then disband Comcast?
I don't care about hypotheticals. Lets deal with what actually happened. Campaign contributions are there to support candidates and calling reasonable contributions "heavy" is an exaggeration.
To that end, I think $10,000 would probably be enough to buy the ear of most people, especially when they need "experts" in an area anyways.
Your opinion of most people is pretty low. It would take a lot more than $10,000 in campaign contributions that I can not personally spend to induce me to do something I did not agree with.
There are also problems with the "buy the mayor" theory;
1. Council makes more decisions than the mayor.
2. Any mayor who was obviously biased would not get elected again.
My point is that $10,700 is not "heavily" for a company the size of Comcast. Can we have truth in reporting rather that op ed pieces disguised as reporting? Lets deal with facts rather than exaggeration designed to get advertisement views/clicks.
According to the numbers in the article a Comcat executive contributed $700 and the company contributed $10,000 to PACs. Sorry buit I doubt that $10,700 will buy an election.
Look at all contribution to People for Ed Murray. The total contribution are $122,800 making Comcast's contribution 8.7%.
It is a tack on solution to solve and issue caused by a tack on problem.
Is there a an authentication protocol between the video card in your computer and the PCI bus, your mouse and the USB controller, your hard drive and the SATA bus? This is a similar situation. The point is that one needs to install hardware onto the bus to have access. The difference is that the internet is connected to millions of computers all over the world. A vehicle's network is self contained up until it is connected to the internet and that is where the security needs to be; at the connection point.
You are arguing from a position that any device which has the capability to display non-driving related information at undetermined times in drivers' field of vision no matter where they are looking must be banned.
FTFY
AM/FM radios, CD players, Tape decks, and any other entertainment system which allows the driver to operate it instead of driving the vehicle.
None of those items are in the field of vision of the driver at all times. The driver can chose to access those items when he feel safe to do so. That is not the case with Google Glass as it can pop up distracting information at any time. Those items are much less distracting than text popping up in your field of vision.
In certain states, mine included, you do not need to have a licensed rider with you.
What state is that? Another point is that motorcycles are a special case. To learn how to drive in traffic one has to drive in traffic and riding double on a motorcycle is difficult for a beginner. To allow the learning to take place the risk must be allowed or few people would ever get a license.
In addition, you could, like I did, get your learners permit, and immediately take your drivers exam.
The relevance of a waiting period is questionable at best. A rider could have driven for years off road or in a country where a license is not required but still have to get a learner's permit before a driver's license.
Looking to the side to check your mapquest printouts for your exit.
Which would fall under driving without due care.
Or reading one of those giant LED billboards.
Which is a choice and which are written to be short and less distracting.
You seem to think I operate some sort of device which pops up text messages. I don't
You may not but there is no way to verify that as Google Glass is a display for the phone and can pop up text messages. Laws are not written for individual situations but for the general public. For example, is it perfectly safe for a high performance sports car to drive at 100 mph on a deserted straight highway? Does that mean it is safe for every vehicle? If there was something hard wired into Google Glass that could accurately sense when someone is driving and disable the distracting function that would be ok. Manually disabling features is not good enough as many people will forget or just won't. Disabling while moving can not detect the difference between driver and passenger and therefore will not be acceptable by customers.
Two words: credit cards.
The vendor is charged a fee for every credit card transaction. Are you going to do that for every cash transaction too? Who is going to pay for the servers?
Nor is it necessary to validate every bit of cash you take in
Cashiers are trained to automatically validate billed by just looking at them. One can not hand over a blank piece of paper to a cashier and expect it to me accepted. Simple validation was done. Suspect bills are tested further. With your system, every bill would need to be validated because the bill can be easily duplicated and visual validation would be meaningless.
But it sounds a lot simpler in practice to at least *provide* a method for cryptographic verification, even if nobody uses the system, than it is to spend increasingly large amounts of money trying to just print paper in a way that nobody else can easily duplicate.
Lets print money that is easy to duplicate and will be accepted because no one uses the system that could catch it. /sarcasm
In your original post you said;
My phone only displays information to improve situational awareness.
Which is only true because you configured your phone to must things if you are moving. Do you do that if you are a passenger in a car, bus, train, etc? Others are not so conscientious and will allow their phones to respond to texts.
By your logic, we not only should have bans on cell phones, but in-car bluetooth, radios, eating, drinking, speaking to passengers, and anything else which a person might do which increases the risk in a vehicle.
The difference is that radios, eating, drinking and talking to the passengers is a choice of the driver. The driver initiates these actions and can decide when it is safe to do so. A text message popping into view is initiated by someone else and the sender has no idea what the driver is doing.
There already exists laws against distracted driving, or operating vehicles in a dangerous manner, and those are more than sufficient to pull over people who are actually behaving in a dangerous manner.
Most of these tickets are written after an accident has occurred and then it is too late.
It's like advocating for a 0.0 maximum BAC for driving. Sure, it sounds good on the surface, but it really does nothing to address the root causes of drunk driving, and probably would make the whole situation worse. For example: If 0.0 was the max legal BAC, and I just had a single beer, I would be breaking the law if I offered to be the driver for someone who just had 6 beers in an hour.
This is a perfect example of a point you seem to have missed. There is a line between safe and unsafe. It has been shown that people with a BAC below 0.08 are safe enough to drive. The line between safe and unsafe has been drawn there. Should someone who had had 4 beer in an hour drive the person who has had 6 beer in an hour? One is less drunk than the other but both are drunk. Another issue is that it is verifiable that the BAC line has been crossed. There is no way to verify that the Google Glass was being used inappropriately. Try to prove in court that someone was distracted by their Google Glass. I doubt it is possible.
The point being, these are devices which can be used in a responsible manner, and focusing your attention on device bans,
Many people are not responsible which is why we have rules that ban certain things. There is no way to know if someone is using their Google Glass responsibly while driving so it's use is banned.
without trying to address the root cause of the problem which is behavioral,
We can try to train behavior but it is no guarantee that people will follow that training.
just results in a ban on the device, loss of access to the beneficial features, and doesn't actually improve safety.
It had been shown many times that reading complex sentences takes a lot of thought. If a text message can pop into view at any time it will distract some drivers and cause accidents. People have driven without Google glass for decades and the risk due to distraction is too large. In the end, the risk/reward ratio is just to heavily toward risk.
That would require a server system that is up 24/7 to verify that the key was correct. and every validation device would need a connection to that service.
That method works great for obstacles that can not pass through the holes in the cage. What happens if the robot flies onto a stick end on? It will pass through the hole and may damage the inner workings. Sure the holes can be made smaller but then that increases weight and interferes with air flow.
I call BS. Your phone never rings? It never gets text messages? It does not have a browser? You have never forgotten to turn of those other apps when getting into the vehicle?You may only choose to use the app that displays the safe information but that does not mean the it can not display. The problem with Google Glass is that it can not tell when you are driving and when you are not.
But that's because I received education on how to be a safe driver. Not because everything unsafe was banned.
Good for you but not all drivers are so conscientious about their responsibilities. By that logic we should not have speed limits because a properly trained driver would know what speed is safe.
From the quoted article;
The test failure does not result from misuse of the vehicle or a failure to follow the manufacturers’ written maintenance instructions;
People hacking around the system could easilly be seen as "misuse".
so I could have hopped right in a vehicle and been on the highway in less than 15 minutes.
A learners permit holder you are required to have a person with a valid license in the vehicle. Therefore you are in training. The theory is that the license holder would not give you control of a vehicle without training you in a safe area first as they probably don't want to get killed or damage the vehicle.
you won't have to worry as much about them using equipment in an unsafe manner.
Equipment that displays distracting information such as text messages can not be used in a safe manner hence the law against using such equipment. There is no way to safely drive down a road while reading unrelated complex text.
It is also the position of 22 nations that Taiwan is a separate country.
Taiwan is recognized by 22 countries. Many other countries have trade offices.
Taiwan is demanding Apple revise its map data
FTFY. There is a difference between data and software and we should understand that.
When you are not in mainland China or Taiwan what does it say? I doubt Chinese government would accept that as they have a problem with Taiwan being displayed as a separate country to anyone in the world.
Not of it only displays vehicle information.
27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:
(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.
The problem is that Google Glass can display a video signal but can't tell that someone is driving and therefore is not exempt from the law.
The point you seem to miss is that the original poster posited that since pilots use a HUD a vehicle driver should be able to use Google Glass. The big difference is training. I also thing that you may be putting too much emphasis on the term training. Training is the method of gaining knowledge. There are two type of training. Formal training which usually includes classes and books and informal training which is mainly experience based. What you described is informal training. The point is that someone who has not spent hours getting the experience driving around in a safe simulated environment with Google glass on their head is not safe to do that on the public roads.
A big difference is that an aircraft HUD does not pop up texts from your boss. HUDs display information directly related to the task at hand. While Google glass can do that too it can not be guaranteed to do only that. Other information can cause distraction which can cause accidents. If the driver's mind is reading that text that just popped into view it is no longer concentrating on driving. You may be looking in the same direction but you are no longer looking at the road.
If anything happened the box would be found and traced back to the mechanic that put it in. What stops a mechanic from installing a remotely controled valve on the brake line? It still requires phisical hardare attached to the vehicle and is very different from remote access without physical access.
At that point they can put authentication on the wireless access points and leave the rest of the physical bus unauthenticated. Until the time that unauthenticated wireless access points are installed this is a non-story and just hype.
I call BS. Car manufacturers are not liable for all the cars that fail emission testing. Manufacturers are liable up until the vehicle is initially sold. After that the liability shifts to the owner.
The evidence of tampering would be the hardware physically attached to the diagnostics port. Nowhere do they talk about modifying the system and having it go off later. If you read the paper they link to with the folowing text you will see that it too required physical access to the diagnostics port.
Other researchers have accessed car networks via bluetooth and developed ways to compromise autos through firmware.
They seem to be hoping we will take their word for what the paper says or didn't read it themselves.