It is completely harmless *in the short term*. In the long term the local limits on pollution still very much have an impact on health of the population.
Corporations have an IT department and are in a much better position than private users to check and approve of browser updates, this does not need to take many days or even longer.
You said approve. That isn't a solution. What we have here is an update that changed a functionality delivered in a take it or leave it approach without central management and declining it results in security gaps.
Regardless of how competent your IT department is, the only way to win this game is not to play it with Mozilla.
Basically avast and co are doing a MITM attack to scan the content of https traffic :
And so do many corporations. How anyone didn't see this coming is beyond me. There's legitimate reasons to MITM something providing you have trust in that man who is in the middle.
Effectively, they're claiming that going 6mph faster is the equivalent of drunk driving. I call BS.
That website gives studies which were done in a variety of places. Specifically that one you're quoting came from Australia. You can call BS all you want, open up the studies and discuss those in detail rather than shooting the messenger.
This study indicates that exceeding the speed limit of 60 km/h by 5 km/h is comparable to the risk of a BAC of 0.05. The risk of exceeding the 60 km/h speed limit by 10 km/h is higher than driving with a BAC of 0.08.
Is that a surprise to you? For reference the former BAC is legal in most countries, the latter is legal in many too. At 0.05 your reaction is barely impaired. At 0.08 many people feel the effects on their abilities. Now a 10km/h increase in speed from 60-70km/h also represents a 25% increase in stopping distance (reaction + momentum) as published by the Australian government, sounds like 0.08BAC comparison is quite reasonable there.
That figure just doesn't pass the smell test
Why? A 3% relative change in accident rate is tiny for a small change in speed, and increases for larger and larger changes all else staying equal. It smells perfectly fine and is also the expected result given longer distances resulting in increased pressure on reaction times, and higher momentum resulting in decreased ability to control.
But hey how about some figures from before and after they related some Dutch Roads: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieu... (10.4% chance of fatality if you're in an accident on the same stretch of highway at 130km/h vs the 1.7% at 100km/h)
Or do you prefer something closer to home:
The Effects of the New 65 Mile-Per-Hour Speed Limit on Rural Highway Fatalities: A State-By-State Analysis CITATION: S. Graham, Garber J. D. , Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 22, No. 2, p. 7 137-149. ABSTRACT: This paper examines the effects of the new 65 mile-per-hour (mph) speed limit on U.S. rural highway fatality counts. Separate analyses are conducted for each of the 40 states that had adopted the new (higher) limit by mid-1988. Using monthly Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data from January 1976 through November 1988, time-series regression equations--including policy variables, seasonal variables, and surrogate exposure variables--are estimated for each state. The results suggest that the new laws have increased fatalities on both rural interstate and rural noninterstate highways in most states, but also that these effects differ substantially across the states. For rural interstate fatalities the estimates suggest a median (among the 40 states) effect of the increased speed limit of roughly 15 percent more fatalities; the median estimates for rural noninterstates suggest a 5 percent increase in fatalities due to the increased speed limits. Estimates such as those reported here should be revised as more information becomes available.
One thing is consistent across every study: No you don't win at faster speeds, you only get to your destination sooner... but in every case you're less likely to get there.
I disagree. Due to the actual attack vector executing random code won't get you much joy at all. Issuing *targeted* code for a specific machine which you know a lot about may net you something useful. As a result, the random desktop machine isn't really at risk at all. Virtual servers however are as by their nature you've given a customer a wide scope to execute code within their OS.
Do people seriously expect malware authors to tout: "Hey look, we just used Spectre successfully and extracted a thousand private keys from software that ran on the same physical cloud servers than our malware!"...?
No, people rely on the large security industry which analyses malware in detail to determine how it works and have identified that no known strains of Malware use this attack.
No surprise really either, it's not like this can be packaged in a general purpose attack. To pull this off in any meaningful way requires knowledge of the target detailed enough that there are easier attack vectors available.
It may be BS, but it suits Occams Razor quite well. It's a complicated attack requiring knowledge of the target so intimate that many countless easier attacks are available which could achieve a similar goal.
Tow operators are largely predatory businesses that are absolutely against consumer's interests.
Huh? Can someone clue me in on this? I thought tow trucks were just independent operators and that all new cars are sold with road-side assistance as standard included packages which among other things includes a certain towing distance regardless of which truck picks you up?
Of course you do. The higher stakes and the higher risk of an accident is actually straining your brain. You may feel more alert but in reality you're below break even in end result for your life and health.
There's been plenty of studies of this, mostly coming out of Europe where countries attempted to somewhat unify highway speed limits before realising what an impact it had. As a result countries like the Netherlands went from having 100km/h max to many highways with 120km/h and 130km/h.
The EC identified the following: Every 1km/h speed increase created an average 3% increase in accidents. Better still, the function fitted to fatalities related to speed is based on the 4th power of the ratio of speed increase. So doing 110km/h instead of 100km/h makes you just shy of 50% more likely to die should you have an accident.
I'm sure a few slow sleeping drivers waking up in hospital will be quite thankful for the lower speed limits.
Worse. It's like asking "How dead is Linux?" something that will give Slashdot gamma nazis a big stiffy since for once we actually have a real example of "Begging the Question".
This does not sound like something that required action by the police.
No it does require action by the police, just not the action that happened. Follow up, ask a question or two, actually exercise that wasted brain between the ears, realise that not every lead results in someone needing to be arrested, move on and thank the kid for his time.
Instead what they did do is further broke trust with the public and again establish that the police in the USA should be treated in the same way as a 3rd world shithole: One the take, out to get you, and to be avoided at all costs. It's a bad place to be in as a society.
And yet what you just said right there was that the authorities are self correcting when they get something wrong. Not sure about you but that makes them more trustworthy, and not less.
No I'm saying you're picking either a crappy source to get your weather forecast, or the source of your weather forecast is seriously deficient in your local area.
"Stunningly accurate" is definitely how I describe modern weather forecasts.
Normally when people look at a specific instance of something in a specific location to try and debunk a general comment the response is "Weather is not climate". Actually I'm at a loss what to say now.
For the next 12-24 hours, they are generally accurate. Beyond that - they suck. Bounce on to Weather Underground or some other site and look at the 10 day forecast and every day you'll see it change for more than 1-2 days out.
And? We are talking about a 5 day forecast, not a 10 day forecast. We are also talking about matching the 1980 for the 1 day forecast which back then used to change in the mornings too.
"Stunningly accurate" would be a whole different thing, like the forecast being able to tell me "rain will start to fall at my location from 10:34h to 11:27h tomorrow"
Oh? Interesting comment. Personally I have found the exact GPS location based astronomy apps which provide cloud cover information, including a breakdown of the type and height of clouds, precipitation type, precipitation chance, possible max precipitation level, as well as wind speed, direction, relative humidity, and temperature all with an accuracy of +/-minutes to be "stunningly accurate".
Slashdot Mirror
If you need a bigger penis why not just put a speaker in your trunk to make the useless broom broom noise?
it is completely harmless to healthy adults
It is completely harmless *in the short term*. In the long term the local limits on pollution still very much have an impact on health of the population.
Corporations have an IT department and are in a much better position than private users to check and approve of browser updates, this does not need to take many days or even longer.
You said approve. That isn't a solution. What we have here is an update that changed a functionality delivered in a take it or leave it approach without central management and declining it results in security gaps.
Regardless of how competent your IT department is, the only way to win this game is not to play it with Mozilla.
Basically avast and co are doing a MITM attack to scan the content of https traffic :
And so do many corporations. How anyone didn't see this coming is beyond me. There's legitimate reasons to MITM something providing you have trust in that man who is in the middle.
Effectively, they're claiming that going 6mph faster is the equivalent of drunk driving. I call BS.
That website gives studies which were done in a variety of places. Specifically that one you're quoting came from Australia. You can call BS all you want, open up the studies and discuss those in detail rather than shooting the messenger.
This study indicates that exceeding the speed limit of 60 km/h by 5 km/h is comparable to the risk of a BAC of 0.05. The risk of exceeding the 60 km/h speed limit by 10 km/h is higher than driving with a BAC of 0.08.
Is that a surprise to you? For reference the former BAC is legal in most countries, the latter is legal in many too. At 0.05 your reaction is barely impaired. At 0.08 many people feel the effects on their abilities. Now a 10km/h increase in speed from 60-70km/h also represents a 25% increase in stopping distance (reaction + momentum) as published by the Australian government, sounds like 0.08BAC comparison is quite reasonable there.
That figure just doesn't pass the smell test
Why? A 3% relative change in accident rate is tiny for a small change in speed, and increases for larger and larger changes all else staying equal. It smells perfectly fine and is also the expected result given longer distances resulting in increased pressure on reaction times, and higher momentum resulting in decreased ability to control.
But hey how about some figures from before and after they related some Dutch Roads: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieu... (10.4% chance of fatality if you're in an accident on the same stretch of highway at 130km/h vs the 1.7% at 100km/h)
Or do you prefer something closer to home:
The Effects of the New 65 Mile-Per-Hour Speed Limit on Rural Highway Fatalities:
A State-By-State Analysis
CITATION: S. Graham, Garber J. D. , Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 22, No. 2, p.
7
137-149.
ABSTRACT: This paper examines the effects of the new 65 mile-per-hour (mph) speed
limit on U.S. rural highway fatality counts. Separate analyses are conducted for each of
the 40 states that had adopted the new (higher) limit by mid-1988. Using monthly Fatal
Accident Reporting System (FARS) data from January 1976 through November 1988,
time-series regression equations--including policy variables, seasonal variables, and
surrogate exposure variables--are estimated for each state. The results suggest that the
new laws have increased fatalities on both rural interstate and rural noninterstate
highways in most states, but also that these effects differ substantially across the states.
For rural interstate fatalities the estimates suggest a median (among the 40 states) effect
of the increased speed limit of roughly 15 percent more fatalities; the median estimates
for rural noninterstates suggest a 5 percent increase in fatalities due to the increased
speed limits. Estimates such as those reported here should be revised as more information
becomes available.
One thing is consistent across every study: No you don't win at faster speeds, you only get to your destination sooner... but in every case you're less likely to get there.
I disagree. Due to the actual attack vector executing random code won't get you much joy at all. Issuing *targeted* code for a specific machine which you know a lot about may net you something useful. As a result, the random desktop machine isn't really at risk at all. Virtual servers however are as by their nature you've given a customer a wide scope to execute code within their OS.
Trip change for saying no on site = $75
Is this a thing that they do? I mean I've never called a tow truck in the USA, but certainly that isn't a charge in any other country.
Your Shop = $75 + $2mile
If I have a nice new car the answer to that equation is $0 + $0mile for the first 50miles all nicely covered while the vehicle is under warranty.
An Apple Watch may not be cheap, but having one hardly makes anyone rich. We really have a strange way of measuring wealth in this country.
Is an Apple watch someone people buy on their own? I've never seen an Apple watch that wasn't paired with a top of the line smartphone.
A "poor" kid wears a pair of $349 Nikes.
If your kid paid $349 for Nikes he's not poor, he's incredibly dumb.
Posted while wearing a set of Nikes that cost 1/3rd of that.
False equivalency. There are other mitigation available that avoid Spectre and Meltdown, such as not letting people run code on your computer.
Do people seriously expect malware authors to tout: "Hey look, we just used Spectre successfully and extracted a thousand private keys from software that ran on the same physical cloud servers than our malware!"...?
No, people rely on the large security industry which analyses malware in detail to determine how it works and have identified that no known strains of Malware use this attack.
No surprise really either, it's not like this can be packaged in a general purpose attack. To pull this off in any meaningful way requires knowledge of the target detailed enough that there are easier attack vectors available.
You may be laughing, but no one else is.
but the claim it's never been used may be bs
It may be BS, but it suits Occams Razor quite well. It's a complicated attack requiring knowledge of the target so intimate that many countless easier attacks are available which could achieve a similar goal.
-1K - you divided by 0.
Pffft, Quantum Physics laughs at your division by zero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your car should not have authority to spend your money (hire tow truck) without your consent.
Clue me in here, do cars get sold in America without free roadside assistance included as a standard up until the warranty expires?
Tow operators are largely predatory businesses that are absolutely against consumer's interests.
Huh? Can someone clue me in on this? I thought tow trucks were just independent operators and that all new cars are sold with road-side assistance as standard included packages which among other things includes a certain towing distance regardless of which truck picks you up?
Is this not the case in America?
To prevent people going to independent repair shops
Huh? Since when has a tow-truck ever forced you to go to one and only one repair shop? Normally they ask you where you want to be towed to.
I feel more alert
Of course you do. The higher stakes and the higher risk of an accident is actually straining your brain. You may feel more alert but in reality you're below break even in end result for your life and health.
There's been plenty of studies of this, mostly coming out of Europe where countries attempted to somewhat unify highway speed limits before realising what an impact it had. As a result countries like the Netherlands went from having 100km/h max to many highways with 120km/h and 130km/h.
The EC identified the following:
Every 1km/h speed increase created an average 3% increase in accidents.
Better still, the function fitted to fatalities related to speed is based on the 4th power of the ratio of speed increase. So doing 110km/h instead of 100km/h makes you just shy of 50% more likely to die should you have an accident.
I'm sure a few slow sleeping drivers waking up in hospital will be quite thankful for the lower speed limits.
That's a little bit like asking "is Linux dead?"
Worse. It's like asking "How dead is Linux?" something that will give Slashdot gamma nazis a big stiffy since for once we actually have a real example of "Begging the Question".
This does not sound like something that required action by the police.
No it does require action by the police, just not the action that happened. Follow up, ask a question or two, actually exercise that wasted brain between the ears, realise that not every lead results in someone needing to be arrested, move on and thank the kid for his time.
Instead what they did do is further broke trust with the public and again establish that the police in the USA should be treated in the same way as a 3rd world shithole: One the take, out to get you, and to be avoided at all costs. It's a bad place to be in as a society.
And yet what you just said right there was that the authorities are self correcting when they get something wrong. Not sure about you but that makes them more trustworthy, and not less.
No I'm saying you're picking either a crappy source to get your weather forecast, or the source of your weather forecast is seriously deficient in your local area.
"Stunningly accurate" is definitely how I describe modern weather forecasts.
How leading was the question in the headline?
Normally when people look at a specific instance of something in a specific location to try and debunk a general comment the response is "Weather is not climate". Actually I'm at a loss what to say now.
For the next 12-24 hours, they are generally accurate. Beyond that - they suck. Bounce on to Weather Underground or some other site and look at the 10 day forecast and every day you'll see it change for more than 1-2 days out.
And? We are talking about a 5 day forecast, not a 10 day forecast. We are also talking about matching the 1980 for the 1 day forecast which back then used to change in the mornings too.
"Stunningly accurate" would be a whole different thing, like the forecast being able to tell me "rain will start to fall at my location from 10:34h to 11:27h tomorrow"
Oh? Interesting comment. Personally I have found the exact GPS location based astronomy apps which provide cloud cover information, including a breakdown of the type and height of clouds, precipitation type, precipitation chance, possible max precipitation level, as well as wind speed, direction, relative humidity, and temperature all with an accuracy of +/-minutes to be "stunningly accurate".