Why does a license plate need to be dynamically changed? I bet it's not even legal in most jurisdictions to register more than one license plate to a vehicle (so you could envision wanting to legally change it every other day).
The only problem I see it solving is illegally impersonating someone else as you drive, say you want to run a red light camera, or avoiding an amber alert.
1) While it is possible to deduce some information from the traffic, it takes an order of magnitude or two more effort and processing power do so on HTTPS connections than it does on HTTP. 2) There are things which are prohibitively expensive/next to impossible to extract from https, such as your username. While you can tell I might be accessing an https server, it takes a lot for you to figure out what username I am using
What you are saying is akin to "Why bother securing a bank, you can drive a tank into it any time and take the money".
It's meant to secure the web. Two reasons: 1. Privacy, so that ISP's and other companies don't get to record which old files you access and when 2. So that a guy who sits next to you in a coffee shop with an infected laptop doesn't get to do a man-in-the middle attack when you go to access your old favorite version of minesweeper, and infect you
What would Google have to gain from pushing the web to https?
The problem is in the misinterpretation of the American dream, and the current social ideology that anyone having and using any kind of talent or gift is somehow wrong and discriminatory. If I wanted to be a super-model, there is no doubt in my mind no matter how hard I worked I would not succeed. Does that mean the American dream is dead for me? Of course not. Why did Elvis Presley make orders of magnitude more money than Einstein? Did he somehow contribute more to society or outsmart Einstein?
The American dream is that you have the opportunity to work hard and work smart. In order to make money, you have to do something that someone else is willing to pay for. Generally that falls into two categories - do something others are unable to do, or something they'd rather not do and therefore prefer to pay someone else to do. Given all that, pick that thing you do so that are competitive against others, and if they possess any attributes which help the profession and you don't, consider your chances of success. Trying to be a bouncer at a nightclub while weighing 80lb is like trying to be a supermodel weighing 300lb.
At some point there will be the "Animal loving nine" who have moral objections to advertising or providing directions to any restaurants serving meat or cheese. Google will be forced to remove all but strictest vegan restaurants from their maps and advertising platforms. I wonder how much will employees with their belief objections have to hurt the company bottom line before the company just fires anyone who doesn't agree.
Car logs bite both ways. Tesla sold 85KWH batteries, only to be uncovered to be 81KWH (77 usable). I guess 81 rounds to 85? They sold 691hp Model S P85D, only to eventually be forced by European courts to admit the car will never produce more than 463hp because of battery and other drivetrain limitations, but their marketing spun an excuse that they didn't lie because "motors are capable". The cars would require a 50% power boost to meet what Tesla sold people (they didn't admit the truth until after that model was discontinued). If Tesla stretches the truth that far, why are they surprised when competition does too?
The way things are going, Kaspersky will become the victim of "we can't prove it but they are evil" global campaign, eventually leaving the company very few options to survive. A natural shift would be to cyber-security offensive tools - a cyber weapon manufacturer if you will. While the US may balk at using Kaspersky as a defense tool, I don't think the FBI will blink if they can buy a better iPhone hacking tool from Kaspersky, or US or Chinese army if they can buy a better cyber-weapon. They'll rename it for security reasons I'm sure, so it won't be Kaspersky iPhone hacking or electrical grid crashing tool, it will be ACME Inc.
That's one way to create cyber-weapon manufacturers in today's world. No need to wait for someone to start it and get funding from investors with no scruples.
They could be embedding inaudible or maybe even audible sound bites into the background noise which can be detected locally on the phone, so the only bandwidth used would be sending GPS coordinates when a positive match is found. I'm not defending what they did, just giving you an alternative technical solution which doesn't require large bandwidth.
That actually is is a much bigger problem, and Google/Waymo and other researcher have concluded there is no safe way to implement a self driving car if humans have to supervise it and be able to take over in a split second (as per Tesla's fine print) when it does something wrong, such as try to kill you by driving into a concrete median: Robot Cars Can’t Count on Us in an Emergency https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Elon got it wrong, self driving is a separate problem and you can't get there incrementally by increasing the level of autonomy (think wanting to go to the moon - going farther and farther by car will never get you there): People who paid Tesla $3,000 for full self-driving might be out of luck https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...
Since 2016, anyone who paid Tesla for FSD got absolutely nothing over those who didn't. What feature will get rolled out in August is not publicly known, could be some trick the car can do that it couldn't before (e.g. warn you if it sees a stop sign or a red light, not guaranteed it will see one of course). Then again, given that Elon said the exact same thing in the past, "features rolling out starting December 2016", then "FSD coast-to-coast demo by end of 2017", and none of them came remotely true, I would not be holding my breath. Could be just a way to distract the media from NHTSA investigation results, or other news Elon wasn't thrilled to see.
Capping the prices above market does absolutely nothing - think about it, let's say we cap each ride share to one billion dollars, you think it would do anything to the market? Capping the price below market creates a shortage but when the price is purely supply limited. There are other reasons for prices to go up (monopolies, gauging, price-fixing, etc.) which are not supply driven (remember Enron?).
I for one hope it passes. I'm sure there are many people out there who can theorize what such a cap would do, but nothing beats real world data. So, if it passes, a few years from now if some other city tries to pass such a measure, there will be data to show what actually happened, so people won't end up being labeled as haters for arguing for or against such a law.
Robocalls make tons of calls, one after another or many in parallel. Once a phone company identifies the caller, why not cache that information, even just for 24hrs? One fee per phone company per day isn't going to make any robocallers rich.
Yea, you know that $1000 CPU you can buy for a shiny new gaming PC, that's $0.10 worth of raw materials, add some processing and labor and it cost maybe $50 to make. Why $1,000? Because very few parts that come out can run that fast (the slower ones sells for less, as little as $250) and there are customers willing to pay that. Also worth noting, the company that designed it spend a billion on engineering, but people don't want to hear about engineering or overhead costs.
I briefly ran a student painting company way back. We paid our employees $8/hr but we charged $35/hr. After all the insurance, benefits, advertising, and other costs we made just under $7/hr on each hour. Most people don'r realize that is costs money to run a business. There are many starving business owners out there who are perceived as "rich" because they own a business - nobody cares if they take money out of their own retirement to meet payroll. Of course when a business gets a lucrative contract, then all employees wants a bonus, but when a business has no sales nobody wants to take a pay cut.
Is it that people prefer to buy content made by men over women? Do they know ahead of time who created the content or is it that somehow the content created by men is chosen more often without the buyer being aware of the creators sex? Is it that maybe women chose to give more free content away? The numbers in the article can be interpreted in many different ways depending on what other assumptions you make.
I still don't get it. There will always be correlations you can use to determine persons age, religion, etc. If you attended a catholic high school, good chance you are catholic. If you got bad scores that increases the chance of coming from poor home. Your vocabulary can indicate your culture, race and/or where you were raised. So now, an "anti-bias" algorithm for university entrance as an example will pick students based purely on their randomly assigned ID number, and nothing else, no names, no scores, no schools they went to? Is that where the people advocating for this are trying to steer things? If we need a doctor at a hospital, we shouldn't look at who went to medical school because that absolutely correlates to income level of parents, so let's just pick a person at random and here we go, we have a new heart surgeon on staff?
It must either be really easy to steal or all those people moving in must have plenty of money. The article mentions 4.5% population increase. If water was not affordable (or easy to steel for free) then there would be no incentives for new people to move in, and there should be people looking for a way out.
I've been reading stories in removing bias from algorithms but still don't get it. What is an algorithm bias? If the results don't have perfectly flat distribution across sex, race, religion, and other protected groups?
It's almost never "suddenly" unless the workers put up artificial barriers like union contracts to preserve jobs which are becoming obsolete. Then yes, contract ends and you might have few thousand people looking for a new career. Those people knew for a while that their jobs are going away, but instead of planning for it, they chose to stick their heads in the sand, dig their heels in and not change until they become unemployed and they've exhausted all avenues to try to force some company to keep paying for the positions they no longer require.
Many people in the US put reserved because they thought they could get a $35K car with a $7.5K rebate, so in the market for $27.5K car. Since there are more people looking to buy cars in lower price range than higher, it stands to reason that more people will drop off than make new reservations, especially as competition moves in (e.g. VW with it's EV lineup and $2B charging network).
I don't think anyone is saying Tesla will fail because of this, just that the 500K reservations conversion rate is significantly affected by unavailability of SR and production delays (which are related to each other too).
If you are in the US, have you considered that your SR Model 3 might cost you almost as the LR if the $7,500 credit will expire by the time the SR comes out?
Slashdot Mirror
How would I know if it's a human or just Duplex++?
Why does a license plate need to be dynamically changed? I bet it's not even legal in most jurisdictions to register more than one license plate to a vehicle (so you could envision wanting to legally change it every other day).
The only problem I see it solving is illegally impersonating someone else as you drive, say you want to run a red light camera, or avoiding an amber alert.
1) While it is possible to deduce some information from the traffic, it takes an order of magnitude or two more effort and processing power do so on HTTPS connections than it does on HTTP.
2) There are things which are prohibitively expensive/next to impossible to extract from https, such as your username. While you can tell I might be accessing an https server, it takes a lot for you to figure out what username I am using
What you are saying is akin to "Why bother securing a bank, you can drive a tank into it any time and take the money".
It's meant to secure the web. Two reasons:
1. Privacy, so that ISP's and other companies don't get to record which old files you access and when
2. So that a guy who sits next to you in a coffee shop with an infected laptop doesn't get to do a man-in-the middle attack when you go to access your old favorite version of minesweeper, and infect you
What would Google have to gain from pushing the web to https?
The problem is in the misinterpretation of the American dream, and the current social ideology that anyone having and using any kind of talent or gift is somehow wrong and discriminatory. If I wanted to be a super-model, there is no doubt in my mind no matter how hard I worked I would not succeed. Does that mean the American dream is dead for me? Of course not. Why did Elvis Presley make orders of magnitude more money than Einstein? Did he somehow contribute more to society or outsmart Einstein?
The American dream is that you have the opportunity to work hard and work smart. In order to make money, you have to do something that someone else is willing to pay for. Generally that falls into two categories - do something others are unable to do, or something they'd rather not do and therefore prefer to pay someone else to do. Given all that, pick that thing you do so that are competitive against others, and if they possess any attributes which help the profession and you don't, consider your chances of success. Trying to be a bouncer at a nightclub while weighing 80lb is like trying to be a supermodel weighing 300lb.
At some point there will be the "Animal loving nine" who have moral objections to advertising or providing directions to any restaurants serving meat or cheese. Google will be forced to remove all but strictest vegan restaurants from their maps and advertising platforms. I wonder how much will employees with their belief objections have to hurt the company bottom line before the company just fires anyone who doesn't agree.
Car logs bite both ways. Tesla sold 85KWH batteries, only to be uncovered to be 81KWH (77 usable). I guess 81 rounds to 85? They sold 691hp Model S P85D, only to eventually be forced by European courts to admit the car will never produce more than 463hp because of battery and other drivetrain limitations, but their marketing spun an excuse that they didn't lie because "motors are capable". The cars would require a 50% power boost to meet what Tesla sold people (they didn't admit the truth until after that model was discontinued). If Tesla stretches the truth that far, why are they surprised when competition does too?
The way things are going, Kaspersky will become the victim of "we can't prove it but they are evil" global campaign, eventually leaving the company very few options to survive. A natural shift would be to cyber-security offensive tools - a cyber weapon manufacturer if you will. While the US may balk at using Kaspersky as a defense tool, I don't think the FBI will blink if they can buy a better iPhone hacking tool from Kaspersky, or US or Chinese army if they can buy a better cyber-weapon. They'll rename it for security reasons I'm sure, so it won't be Kaspersky iPhone hacking or electrical grid crashing tool, it will be ACME Inc.
That's one way to create cyber-weapon manufacturers in today's world. No need to wait for someone to start it and get funding from investors with no scruples.
You mean like most modern currencies, US dollar, Euro, etc? None of them are backed by anything tangible and most of their supply (85%+) is virtual.
They could be embedding inaudible or maybe even audible sound bites into the background noise which can be detected locally on the phone, so the only bandwidth used would be sending GPS coordinates when a positive match is found. I'm not defending what they did, just giving you an alternative technical solution which doesn't require large bandwidth.
That actually is is a much bigger problem, and Google/Waymo and other researcher have concluded there is no safe way to implement a self driving car if humans have to supervise it and be able to take over in a split second (as per Tesla's fine print) when it does something wrong, such as try to kill you by driving into a concrete median:
Robot Cars Can’t Count on Us in an Emergency https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Elon got it wrong, self driving is a separate problem and you can't get there incrementally by increasing the level of autonomy (think wanting to go to the moon - going farther and farther by car will never get you there):
People who paid Tesla $3,000 for full self-driving might be out of luck https://arstechnica.com/cars/2...
Since 2016, anyone who paid Tesla for FSD got absolutely nothing over those who didn't. What feature will get rolled out in August is not publicly known, could be some trick the car can do that it couldn't before (e.g. warn you if it sees a stop sign or a red light, not guaranteed it will see one of course). Then again, given that Elon said the exact same thing in the past, "features rolling out starting December 2016", then "FSD coast-to-coast demo by end of 2017", and none of them came remotely true, I would not be holding my breath. Could be just a way to distract the media from NHTSA investigation results, or other news Elon wasn't thrilled to see.
Capping the prices above market does absolutely nothing - think about it, let's say we cap each ride share to one billion dollars, you think it would do anything to the market? Capping the price below market creates a shortage but when the price is purely supply limited. There are other reasons for prices to go up (monopolies, gauging, price-fixing, etc.) which are not supply driven (remember Enron?).
I for one hope it passes. I'm sure there are many people out there who can theorize what such a cap would do, but nothing beats real world data. So, if it passes, a few years from now if some other city tries to pass such a measure, there will be data to show what actually happened, so people won't end up being labeled as haters for arguing for or against such a law.
Robocalls make tons of calls, one after another or many in parallel. Once a phone company identifies the caller, why not cache that information, even just for 24hrs? One fee per phone company per day isn't going to make any robocallers rich.
Yea, you know that $1000 CPU you can buy for a shiny new gaming PC, that's $0.10 worth of raw materials, add some processing and labor and it cost maybe $50 to make. Why $1,000? Because very few parts that come out can run that fast (the slower ones sells for less, as little as $250) and there are customers willing to pay that. Also worth noting, the company that designed it spend a billion on engineering, but people don't want to hear about engineering or overhead costs.
I briefly ran a student painting company way back. We paid our employees $8/hr but we charged $35/hr. After all the insurance, benefits, advertising, and other costs we made just under $7/hr on each hour. Most people don'r realize that is costs money to run a business. There are many starving business owners out there who are perceived as "rich" because they own a business - nobody cares if they take money out of their own retirement to meet payroll. Of course when a business gets a lucrative contract, then all employees wants a bonus, but when a business has no sales nobody wants to take a pay cut.
Including in-game content the article talks about?
Is it that people prefer to buy content made by men over women? Do they know ahead of time who created the content or is it that somehow the content created by men is chosen more often without the buyer being aware of the creators sex? Is it that maybe women chose to give more free content away? The numbers in the article can be interpreted in many different ways depending on what other assumptions you make.
I still don't get it. There will always be correlations you can use to determine persons age, religion, etc. If you attended a catholic high school, good chance you are catholic. If you got bad scores that increases the chance of coming from poor home. Your vocabulary can indicate your culture, race and/or where you were raised. So now, an "anti-bias" algorithm for university entrance as an example will pick students based purely on their randomly assigned ID number, and nothing else, no names, no scores, no schools they went to? Is that where the people advocating for this are trying to steer things? If we need a doctor at a hospital, we shouldn't look at who went to medical school because that absolutely correlates to income level of parents, so let's just pick a person at random and here we go, we have a new heart surgeon on staff?
There is a great use for defunct bitcoin miners. "Bit-monds are forever!"
It must either be really easy to steal or all those people moving in must have plenty of money. The article mentions 4.5% population increase. If water was not affordable (or easy to steel for free) then there would be no incentives for new people to move in, and there should be people looking for a way out.
I've been reading stories in removing bias from algorithms but still don't get it. What is an algorithm bias? If the results don't have perfectly flat distribution across sex, race, religion, and other protected groups?
It's almost never "suddenly" unless the workers put up artificial barriers like union contracts to preserve jobs which are becoming obsolete. Then yes, contract ends and you might have few thousand people looking for a new career. Those people knew for a while that their jobs are going away, but instead of planning for it, they chose to stick their heads in the sand, dig their heels in and not change until they become unemployed and they've exhausted all avenues to try to force some company to keep paying for the positions they no longer require.
Many people in the US put reserved because they thought they could get a $35K car with a $7.5K rebate, so in the market for $27.5K car. Since there are more people looking to buy cars in lower price range than higher, it stands to reason that more people will drop off than make new reservations, especially as competition moves in (e.g. VW with it's EV lineup and $2B charging network).
I don't think anyone is saying Tesla will fail because of this, just that the 500K reservations conversion rate is significantly affected by unavailability of SR and production delays (which are related to each other too).
If you are in the US, have you considered that your SR Model 3 might cost you almost as the LR if the $7,500 credit will expire by the time the SR comes out?