Actually invasive species are not compostables so you would not get dinged with the fine. You may have to point that out if they ticket you but I doubt you would pay in the end.
He probably plugged into the device and sent it the startup ping. The bypass was not permanent.
Probably anyone familiar with vehicle electronics with a service manual could figure out where the device is in the system and devise a bypass circuit.
Which may be detectable and void the contract which may result in immediate repossession. There is probably a clause in the contract dealing with tampering.
The two warnings is the current law. Under the new law there is no provision for warnings;
C. Required Recycling of Food Waste and Compostable Paper.
1. As of January 1, 2015, all commercial establishments, including those hauling their own waste, shall separate food waste and compostable paper for recycling, and no food waste or compostable paper shall be deposited in garbage containers or drop boxes or disposed as garbage at the City's transfer stations. All commercial establishments that generate food waste or compostable paper shall subscribe to a composting service, process their food waste onsite or self-haul their food waste for processing. All building owners shall provide composting service for their tenants or provide space for tenants' own food waste containers. The Director of Seattle Public Utilities is authorized to promulgate rules, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Code, SMC Chapter 3.02, for purposes of interpreting and clarifying the requirements of this subsection.
2. Enforcement.
a. As of October 1, 2014, the Director of Seattle Public Utilities shall begin a program of customer outreach and assistance regarding these new recycling requirements.
b. As of January 1, 2015, the Director of Seattle Public Utilities shall monitor commercial containers and provide educational notices or tags for containers with significant amounts food waste and compostable paper.
c. As of July 1, 2015, any violation of this section shall result in an additional collection fee of $50 per collection.
That is the entire section pertaining to commercial establishments. I see no mention of warnings.
You try separating coffee grounds and potato peals from general garbage. Good luck.
Single stream leaves recyclables soiled by compostables and therefore non-recyclble. Otherwise you use massive amounts of water to wash the recyclables and lose the compostables in the process. Paper that has been soiled by compostables can not be recycled as paper products.
Stop being lazy and put the compostables in the separate bin provided for free by the city.
I'll grind them in my garbage disposal and wash them down my drain.
Seattle provides separate bins for compostables. The problem is that many people are just not using them and still putting compostables in the regular trash.
I can't imagine that food wastes comprise that large of a percentage of residential waste
According to this compostables are 30% of what is still in the garbage. Compostables in landfills also produce methane which is a greenhouse gas.
Personally, I wouldn't mind just dumping everything in one can like I do now and hire some folks to work at the recycling plant to separate it.
Just try to separate those coffee grounds from the rest of the garbage. Good luck. How about doing your part to reduce landfill size and throw your trash in the correct bin provided by the city.
Yeah, but I'm not opening that plastic bag full of sludge to separate it.
How about instead of putting everything in one can and separating it later you put it in 3 container, one for garbage, one for compost and one for recyclable, in the first place .
You miss the point that Seattle residents are supplied with a separate bin for the collection of compostable material. All the ordinance does is incentivise putting the biological material in the correct bin. The problem is that some people are still putting compostables in the incorrect bin.
I suspect that people will litter or put items in a neighbors trash to avoid penalties.
It is much easier to put it in the bin next to the trash bin that go through all that trouble.
Seattle collect compostable material from residents using a separate bin from the garbage bin. They in fact collect 3 kinds of bins; garbage, compostable, and recyclable.
they can provide funding to a transparent foundation / neutral party.
There is no such thing as a "transparent foundation / neutral party" once they accept funding from a party with interest in the outcome of the research. That is basic conflict of interest policy.
Since Google will have no control over the funding,
Google has control over the funding in that they could cut it off at any time. Going against your main funding source may mean you get no funding next year.
Could entity doing the external audit be influenced by the entity that funds them?
It is a conflict of interest issue if research is being funded by an entity that could be harmed by the research. Do you believe studies funded by the oil Industry?
The summary has an interesting slant that being Google's restriction on the use of their contributions limits academic freedom. The legal filing puts it in a different light as the restriction on the use of funding eliminates any possible conflict of interest in the privacy research as the funding can not come from Google who could be hurt by the research. (Look near the bottom of the document)
The definition from Wikipedia also says it usually looks like a human or animal, so those things and my toaster wouldn't count (though Wikipedia also include nanobots).
Since they use the word "usually" it implies that sometimes robots do not look like humans or animal so toasters, etc do count.
As I said, it's a broad term that's not well defined
... by Wikipedia. FTFY There are many other definitions that are much less broad.
a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks a mechanism guided by automatic controls
That device can not do repetitive tasks and has no controls (automatic or otherwise). It is a projectile not a robot.
Taking a couple of sentences from a Wiki article does not make a complete definition. The only relevant part of your quote is "[a] robot is an automatic mechanical device". By that definition any self powered mechanical device that that does something after being initiated is a robot. That is not true.
You actually have ten different one that can be rotated. Replicating a good enough fingerprint for TouchID is not easy. The cracker would not know if the fingerprint reproduction was faulty or the wrong finger was used. Since TouchID is disabled after a few tries it is not a bad choice for a device with the security need of a cell phone. It is a balance between convenience and security. As the submitter said, only a few people can do it and the chance of failure is high. Not everything needs top level security.
If biometrics is not the answer for this level of security, what is?
So actually, if you're the head of a large productive work group, it's possible to achieve such a publication rate doing "thorough, factual research".
I would call that overseeing "thorough, factual research". This is along the same line as many of the Edison patents. Though he paid for the work to be done he didn't do the work.
Slashdot Mirror
So if you could figure out what signal is being sent for the ping and duplicate it, all good right?
So if the ping contained a hash that changes and you don't know the hash algorithm you may be out of luck.
Actually invasive species are not compostables so you would not get dinged with the fine. You may have to point that out if they ticket you but I doubt you would pay in the end.
He probably plugged into the device and sent it the startup ping. The bypass was not permanent.
Probably anyone familiar with vehicle electronics with a service manual could figure out where the device is in the system and devise a bypass circuit.
Which may be detectable and void the contract which may result in immediate repossession. There is probably a clause in the contract dealing with tampering.
It appeared that you were agreeing with the original poster.
do it at a station, don't put that work on residents.
It's easier, faster, more accurate, and doesn't piss people off.
I may have been clearer if you said something like te following;
It's really not hard to separate compostable stuff from the rest at the source. It's easier than separating recyclables at the station
.
Would that make up more than 10% of your trash?
Try separating coffee grounds and vegetable parts from garbage especially after they have had time to partially turn to slime. Good luck.
The two warnings is the current law. Under the new law there is no provision for warnings;
C. Required Recycling of Food Waste and Compostable Paper.
1. As of January 1, 2015, all commercial establishments, including those hauling their own waste, shall separate food waste and compostable paper for recycling, and no food waste or compostable paper shall be deposited in garbage containers or drop boxes or disposed as garbage at the City's transfer stations. All commercial establishments that generate food waste or compostable paper shall subscribe to a composting service, process their food waste onsite or self-haul their food waste for processing. All building owners shall provide composting service for their tenants or provide space for tenants' own food waste containers. The Director of Seattle Public Utilities is authorized to promulgate rules, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Code, SMC Chapter 3.02, for purposes of interpreting and clarifying the requirements of this subsection.
2. Enforcement.
a. As of October 1, 2014, the Director of Seattle Public Utilities shall begin a program of customer outreach and assistance regarding these new recycling requirements.
b. As of January 1, 2015, the Director of Seattle Public Utilities shall monitor commercial containers and provide educational notices or tags for containers with significant amounts food waste and compostable paper.
c. As of July 1, 2015, any violation of this section shall result in an additional collection fee of $50 per collection.
That is the entire section pertaining to commercial establishments. I see no mention of warnings.
You try separating coffee grounds and potato peals from general garbage. Good luck.
Single stream leaves recyclables soiled by compostables and therefore non-recyclble. Otherwise you use massive amounts of water to wash the recyclables and lose the compostables in the process. Paper that has been soiled by compostables can not be recycled as paper products.
Stop being lazy and put the compostables in the separate bin provided for free by the city.
I'll grind them in my garbage disposal and wash them down my drain.
Seattle provides separate bins for compostables. The problem is that many people are just not using them and still putting compostables in the regular trash.
I can't imagine that food wastes comprise that large of a percentage of residential waste
According to this compostables are 30% of what is still in the garbage. Compostables in landfills also produce methane which is a greenhouse gas.
How about you dispose of in the compostables bin provided for free by the city? You can put as much food in that bin as you want.
Personally, I wouldn't mind just dumping everything in one can like I do now and hire some folks to work at the recycling plant to separate it.
Just try to separate those coffee grounds from the rest of the garbage. Good luck. How about doing your part to reduce landfill size and throw your trash in the correct bin provided by the city.
Yeah, but I'm not opening that plastic bag full of sludge to separate it.
How about instead of putting everything in one can and separating it later you put it in 3 container, one for garbage, one for compost and one for recyclable, in the first place .
You miss the point that Seattle residents are supplied with a separate bin for the collection of compostable material. All the ordinance does is incentivise putting the biological material in the correct bin. The problem is that some people are still putting compostables in the incorrect bin.
I suspect that people will litter or put items in a neighbors trash to avoid penalties.
It is much easier to put it in the bin next to the trash bin that go through all that trouble.
Exactly, funding implies bias either way.
Seattle collect compostable material from residents using a separate bin from the garbage bin. They in fact collect 3 kinds of bins; garbage, compostable, and recyclable.
they can provide funding to a transparent foundation / neutral party.
There is no such thing as a "transparent foundation / neutral party" once they accept funding from a party with interest in the outcome of the research. That is basic conflict of interest policy.
Since Google will have no control over the funding,
Google has control over the funding in that they could cut it off at any time. Going against your main funding source may mean you get no funding next year.
If only bad results are believed how is that academic freedom?
Apple would have the same conflict of interest issue in funding research when Apple could be hurt by that research.
Could entity doing the external audit be influenced by the entity that funds them?
It is a conflict of interest issue if research is being funded by an entity that could be harmed by the research. Do you believe studies funded by the oil Industry?
The summary has an interesting slant that being Google's restriction on the use of their contributions limits academic freedom. The legal filing puts it in a different light as the restriction on the use of funding eliminates any possible conflict of interest in the privacy research as the funding can not come from Google who could be hurt by the research. (Look near the bottom of the document)
The definition from Wikipedia also says it usually looks like a human or animal, so those things and my toaster wouldn't count (though Wikipedia also include nanobots).
Since they use the word "usually" it implies that sometimes robots do not look like humans or animal so toasters, etc do count.
As I said, it's a broad term that's not well defined
... by Wikipedia. FTFY There are many other definitions that are much less broad.
a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
a mechanism guided by automatic controls
That device can not do repetitive tasks and has no controls (automatic or otherwise). It is a projectile not a robot.
Taking a couple of sentences from a Wiki article does not make a complete definition. The only relevant part of your quote is "[a] robot is an automatic mechanical device". By that definition any self powered mechanical device that that does something after being initiated is a robot. That is not true.
How about this definition;
a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
a mechanism guided by automatic controls
The device can neither perform repetitive tasks and has no automatic controls or any controls for that matter. It is a projectile not a robot.
and could never be changed
You actually have ten different one that can be rotated. Replicating a good enough fingerprint for TouchID is not easy. The cracker would not know if the fingerprint reproduction was faulty or the wrong finger was used. Since TouchID is disabled after a few tries it is not a bad choice for a device with the security need of a cell phone. It is a balance between convenience and security. As the submitter said, only a few people can do it and the chance of failure is high. Not everything needs top level security.
If biometrics is not the answer for this level of security, what is?
So actually, if you're the head of a large productive work group, it's possible to achieve such a publication rate doing "thorough, factual research".
I would call that overseeing "thorough, factual research". This is along the same line as many of the Edison patents. Though he paid for the work to be done he didn't do the work.
I do not use double negatives when I am not certain I use them correctly.
The use of double negatives at any time is poor English.