Oooh! Anecdotal evidence! Remind me to base my entire philosophy of life one what some AC posts on/. And, I would ask your wife, but you're immature, and probably don't have one, and then there's that whole AC thing......
1. The summary doesn't say anything about these supertaskers being able to text and drive safely, just talk and drive, making your argument moot.
2. The idiot who's looking down at his phone, or anywhere other than the road, isn't a supertasker. If I have to do anything while driving, my eyes don't leave the road. If I can't find the radio volume control without looking, I don't touch it. If I can't pick up and answer my phone, hands free or not, without looking, I don't do it.
With the GPL, individual contributors would still own their own patches, features, etc. Oracle couldn't just take all that contributed code and close it up, as it doesn't belong to them.
Unless, of course, the patch contributors signed something to state that all copyrights were turned over to MySQL/Sun/Oracle, in which case those contributors are boneheads. The point of the GPL is that you give away your code, and get a bunch of code back in return. When you sign your rights to your own code away like that, you're just giving away your code, with nothing coming back to you.
That's a big part of the reason why the Linux kernel is unlikely to ever be released under GPL 3. Every contributor of every piece of code that didn't come from Linus himself would have to agree to the licence change.
So yes, the GPL can certainly prevent a commercial entity from taking their ball and going home.
The main problem with holding a phone while you drive is that you only have one hand free to hold the steering wheel, change gear, use your indicators, or whatever.
So? I have the same situation when I'm holding my beer, and that's never caused me any problems.
(Just ignore that dented fender and missing headlight, OK?)
I don't think the Mythbusters episode didn't say that driving while phoning isn't dangerous.
It said that the difference in danger between a handheld phone and a handsfree phone is statistically insignificant.
Everybody trying to pass, or supporting handsfree laws to improve road safety doesn't get it. The only way to improve road safety from cellphones in cars is to outright ban drivers from using them, handsfree or not.
There are already laws against distracted driving, and have been for years. Cell phone use falls under these laws.
Governments decided to pretend to solve the idiot driver problem by passing redundant cell phone laws, rather than actually reducing the problem, and also reducing their tax revenue by taking the idiots completely off the road.
We did something about road safety decades ago, but instead of enforcing laws we have, politicians seem to know of nothing other than passing more laws.
The "pressure" (actually it's a vacuum, but you can think of it as negative pressure) is stored in a reservoir. There will be enough to stop the car even with the engine off.
You want to fix driving errors, you need to address the core issue-the driver. Anything else is not addressing the problem, except for DUI which can affect even the best driver. Make the test include cell phone use and prove they can drive safely with it. Make it include eating a sandwich while driving. Make it include two screaming kids in the back seat and an arguing spouse. Make them either retake the test if they fail those parts or chip the driver's license to not allow those things.
THANK YOU!!! Somebody else realizes the problem!
For years I've thought that the average driver's test could be passed by a small shell script. They're basically pushbutton tests. Turn here. Change lanes here. Do this.. do that... They specifically state that they won't ask you to do anything illegal or dangerous. My first thought to that is, why the hell not?! If you ask them to do something illegal, and they do it, instant fail. How else is the examiner going to know if they know not to go the wrong way down a one way street, or turn left from the right hand lane, or whatever? There's no need to think at all for a driver's test. As long as you can follow instructions, you pass. I think it should include a component of "Look at this map. This is where we are. Get us to this intersection here." Then the examiner shuts up, and sees what the driver does on their own.
That being said, there are people who can properly prioritize tasks in their head. There are people that can't. The people that can should be able to talk on a cell phone. The people that can't shouldn't. Simple as that. Yes, it makes road law enforcement a little more difficult, as what's illegal for one car isn't illegal for the car behind them, but that's what we pay the police for.
So basically, without an airbag, if you're too stupid to wear a seatbelt, then running head on into something will cause your chest to be injured on the steering column, which is specifically designed to collapse on impact, causing you to probably die.
So....an airbag can save the life of someone too moronic to use the safety features already built into cars for 50 years.
Actually, any good sold is required by law to be "fit for purpose" in the US.
I can't remember the actual law, as I've only had to look it up once, being that I don't live in the US, but I purchased an electric starter from a US company for a B&S snowblower engine, sold as new, but with no warranty. Damn thing burned out the first time I used it, so I looked up US warranty laws. Turns out that there's a defacto legal warranty on everything, and it is as long as whatever product should reasonably be expected to last before breakdown.
Even if it's sold as is.
It has to be specifically advertised as non-functional or already wearing out to get around that, as a reasonable person would then expect the product to be crap.
Since software doesn't wear out in the traditional sense, it could be argued that the warranty should last forever.
Are all these Millions inept and don't have major updated anti-virus on these machines ? or is this saying that anti-virus mostly doesn't work? I'd really like to hear educated answers to this question
Yes.
Probably 75% of the machines I clean up for clients don't have antivirus. Most of them didn't realize they didn't, and they never would have noticed, if their machine didn't start sending spam to their email contacts, popping up porn ads, or some other such thing.
The other 25% have functional, updated antivirus software, but got infected anyway, because modern antivirus is just a small step away from useless. I've been saying for years that current antivirus methods are going to collapse, and now other experts are saying the same thing, and we can see it happening.
Most infected files I get from those 25% of machines with A/V, when uploaded to virustotal, are detected by less than a third of their scanners. I've even had some from a machine that I cleaned up and sent back, then got to checking out a backup of the infected files that I'd kept. Over 2 months after I saw the infection on the customer's machine, virustotal scan results were up to about a 52% detection rate. The scanners that caught the infection were mostly the small, relatively unknown ones. The big companies that computer neophytes have heard of completely missed it.
But those 90% of incompetents are voters, and vote themselves on.
That's because each and every one of those 90% that are incompetent thinks that there's actually 90% - 1 that are incompetent.
Either that, or they're so boneheaded that they don't realize that _anybody's_ actually incompetent.
That's usually my test for incompetence. If I can't see that 90% of the people trying to do "Activity A" are incompetent, then I have no clue what I'm doing, because I must be one of those 90%.
So, you act based on what he did. I have no problem with that.
"This guy needs to be punished because he's an idiot, broke the law, was negligent, and indirectly caused the death of a child." That's fine. Nail his ass to the wall.
But I've got a big problem with "This guy needs to be punished so nobody else tries this." I've heard judges say things like "We need to make an example of the defendant so others see they can't get away with this."
In my opinion, that should be grounds for removal from the bench.
The law is the deterrent, and the "signal to society," as you said. If it's not deterring, then there's something wrong with the law, not society. And you never, EVER punish a defendant to send a signal to someone else.
But cars became so easy that any Joe Public could drive them
And I have a bridge to sell you.
Any Joe Public can drive a car, yes. But they certainly can't do it safely, which is why traffic accidents is probably the single biggest killer of otherwise healthy people. It even beats out a lot of diseases for mortality rates.
It takes a trained expert to drive safely (meaning - accident free), and it takes a trained expert to use a computer safely, too.
Is it the answer people are going to give? Some of them, probably. Is it the right answer? An unequivocal NO.
Not that I'm suggesting Windows is more secure than Linux or OSX. I'm not.
The correct answer for security issues like this is:
Get rid of your "checklist mentality" for security. As soon as you say "I've done A, B, and C, so I'm safe," you've already lost.
From your post:
We thought we have taken precautions against infection, such as firewall and anti-viral programs, but for some reasons we have failed. Is there any list of precautionary steps available?
Not only are you currently using a checklist of "firewall and antiviral programs," but you're even asking for another list, because your first one didn't work.
Here's a small fact for you:
NO list will EVER work.
The bad guys know what your lists are, and they're looking for new stuff that isn't on them. It doesn't matter how many check marks you've put on your security checklist, the only one they care about is the one that you haven't done.
Read security news sites. Learn how to use cracking tools. Pen test your own network. Better yet, hire someone to do it for you. Start thinking like someone who wants to break in, rather than someone who wants to secure the network.
Until you change your entire mindset, you'll never be safe.
For those of us who don't know, what is wrong with a short SSID(i.e. 5 digits) if a strong encryption(WPA) is used?
Nothing. The SSID is used as salt for the hashing function of WPA/WPA2, but this is designed to defeat rainbow tables, not to be a secret part of the encryption. Broadcasting it in public by design seems to verify that it doesn't need to be secret.:)
Regardless of how long/short the SSID is, as long as it's not one of the top 1000 used, (which have already been rainbow tabled) or probably the next 1000, it really doesn't matter how long it is.
Having said that, the shorter it is, the greater the chance that somebody, somewhere, has generated rainbow tables just for kicks, as a brute force method.
It's hard to claim "email is private" in the face of such an admission from Microsoft.
I sometimes receive postal mail for somebody on my street with a pair of digits in the house number reversed. Does that mean because postal mail sometimes accidentally goes to the wrong address, then all mail is open to unwarranted government inspection?
Where the hell did I ignore the fact that a little girl died? Where the hell did I say he shouldn't be punished for that?
Stop putting words in my mouth, and read what I replied to, and what I said.
Yes, he should be punished for being a stupid ass with the gun, and he should never be allowed to own them again. I never denied this.
But the parent I responded to said he should be punished solely to deter others, as he would already be feeling bad enough about it to be punishment enough.
That's bullshit. He should be punished for what _he_ did, not what some other idiot in another state may or may not do at some unknown point in the future.
So, I'm not "an amazingly selfish fuck." You're just an amazingly illiterate fuck who wants to put words in my mouth that I never said.
But I must say....for someone who can't comprehend what they read, you can certainly type a lot.:-/
This is an issue of deterrence. The person involved in this case is already suffering enough , but the other people who dont think about gun safety need to know that carelessness leads to accidents leads to severe punishment.
They implied he shouldn't be punished for causing the death, as he's already feeling bad enough. But we should punish him so that others don't do the same thing.
Hence, punish him for something that someone else might do.
I think this is bullshit, regardless of whether I think he should be punished for what he did, or not.
Up here, most people tend to think of guns as things psychopaths have. My brother and sister-in-law are both FAC (basically a firearms licence) holders, and she's a champion target shooter. I heard a conversation between my brother and a non-gun owner about going to the shooting range for a competition. The non-gun owner said they'd never do that, as it's not remotely safe, because they said "There's going to be bullets flying all over the place." Apparently they thought anybody with a gun is just going to be randomly pointing and pulling the trigger.
But, I still think punishing someone to send a signal to society is BS.
Slashdot Mirror
Oooh! Anecdotal evidence! Remind me to base my entire philosophy of life one what some AC posts on /.
And, I would ask your wife, but you're immature, and probably don't have one, and then there's that whole AC thing......
1. The summary doesn't say anything about these supertaskers being able to text and drive safely, just talk and drive, making your argument moot.
2. The idiot who's looking down at his phone, or anywhere other than the road, isn't a supertasker. If I have to do anything while driving, my eyes don't leave the road. If I can't find the radio volume control without looking, I don't touch it. If I can't pick up and answer my phone, hands free or not, without looking, I don't do it.
With the GPL, individual contributors would still own their own patches, features, etc. Oracle couldn't just take all that contributed code and close it up, as it doesn't belong to them.
Unless, of course, the patch contributors signed something to state that all copyrights were turned over to MySQL/Sun/Oracle, in which case those contributors are boneheads. The point of the GPL is that you give away your code, and get a bunch of code back in return. When you sign your rights to your own code away like that, you're just giving away your code, with nothing coming back to you.
That's a big part of the reason why the Linux kernel is unlikely to ever be released under GPL 3. Every contributor of every piece of code that didn't come from Linus himself would have to agree to the licence change.
So yes, the GPL can certainly prevent a commercial entity from taking their ball and going home.
The main problem with holding a phone while you drive is that you only have one hand free to hold the steering wheel, change gear, use your indicators, or whatever.
So? I have the same situation when I'm holding my beer, and that's never caused me any problems.
(Just ignore that dented fender and missing headlight, OK?)
I don't think the Mythbusters episode didn't say that driving while phoning isn't dangerous.
It said that the difference in danger between a handheld phone and a handsfree phone is statistically insignificant.
Everybody trying to pass, or supporting handsfree laws to improve road safety doesn't get it. The only way to improve road safety from cellphones in cars is to outright ban drivers from using them, handsfree or not.
Strawman.
There are already laws against distracted driving, and have been for years. Cell phone use falls under these laws.
Governments decided to pretend to solve the idiot driver problem by passing redundant cell phone laws, rather than actually reducing the problem, and also reducing their tax revenue by taking the idiots completely off the road.
We did something about road safety decades ago, but instead of enforcing laws we have, politicians seem to know of nothing other than passing more laws.
However, I believe people holding a phone are much less likely to, for example, use their directionals while taking a turn.
How can anybody have a lower likelihood than zero of doing anything?
The "pressure" (actually it's a vacuum, but you can think of it as negative pressure) is stored in a reservoir. There will be enough to stop the car even with the engine off.
Not if you're driving a diesel.
You want to fix driving errors, you need to address the core issue-the driver. Anything else is not addressing the problem, except for DUI which can affect even the best driver. Make the test include cell phone use and prove they can drive safely with it. Make it include eating a sandwich while driving. Make it include two screaming kids in the back seat and an arguing spouse. Make them either retake the test if they fail those parts or chip the driver's license to not allow those things.
THANK YOU!!!
Somebody else realizes the problem!
For years I've thought that the average driver's test could be passed by a small shell script. They're basically pushbutton tests. Turn here. Change lanes here. Do this.. do that...
They specifically state that they won't ask you to do anything illegal or dangerous. My first thought to that is, why the hell not?! If you ask them to do something illegal, and they do it, instant fail. How else is the examiner going to know if they know not to go the wrong way down a one way street, or turn left from the right hand lane, or whatever?
There's no need to think at all for a driver's test. As long as you can follow instructions, you pass.
I think it should include a component of "Look at this map. This is where we are. Get us to this intersection here."
Then the examiner shuts up, and sees what the driver does on their own.
That being said, there are people who can properly prioritize tasks in their head. There are people that can't. The people that can should be able to talk on a cell phone. The people that can't shouldn't. Simple as that. Yes, it makes road law enforcement a little more difficult, as what's illegal for one car isn't illegal for the car behind them, but that's what we pay the police for.
So basically, without an airbag, if you're too stupid to wear a seatbelt, then running head on into something will cause your chest to be injured on the steering column, which is specifically designed to collapse on impact, causing you to probably die.
So....an airbag can save the life of someone too moronic to use the safety features already built into cars for 50 years.
I'm surprised since I thought her songs had achieved higher popularity than that, considering how much I heard them played on the radio.
Yes. Ironic, isn't it? :P
Actually, any good sold is required by law to be "fit for purpose" in the US.
I can't remember the actual law, as I've only had to look it up once, being that I don't live in the US, but I purchased an electric starter from a US company for a B&S snowblower engine, sold as new, but with no warranty.
Damn thing burned out the first time I used it, so I looked up US warranty laws.
Turns out that there's a defacto legal warranty on everything, and it is as long as whatever product should reasonably be expected to last before breakdown.
Even if it's sold as is.
It has to be specifically advertised as non-functional or already wearing out to get around that, as a reasonable person would then expect the product to be crap.
Since software doesn't wear out in the traditional sense, it could be argued that the warranty should last forever.
At a place that legally sells illegally obtained resources.
So, a government auction? :)
Here's a really simple question,
Are all these Millions inept and don't have major updated anti-virus on these machines ? or is this saying that anti-virus mostly doesn't work? I'd really like to hear educated answers to this question
Yes.
Probably 75% of the machines I clean up for clients don't have antivirus. Most of them didn't realize they didn't, and they never would have noticed, if their machine didn't start sending spam to their email contacts, popping up porn ads, or some other such thing.
The other 25% have functional, updated antivirus software, but got infected anyway, because modern antivirus is just a small step away from useless. I've been saying for years that current antivirus methods are going to collapse, and now other experts are saying the same thing, and we can see it happening.
Most infected files I get from those 25% of machines with A/V, when uploaded to virustotal, are detected by less than a third of their scanners. I've even had some from a machine that I cleaned up and sent back, then got to checking out a backup of the infected files that I'd kept. Over 2 months after I saw the infection on the customer's machine, virustotal scan results were up to about a 52% detection rate. The scanners that caught the infection were mostly the small, relatively unknown ones. The big companies that computer neophytes have heard of completely missed it.
But those 90% of incompetents are voters, and vote themselves on.
That's because each and every one of those 90% that are incompetent thinks that there's actually 90% - 1 that are incompetent.
Either that, or they're so boneheaded that they don't realize that _anybody's_ actually incompetent.
That's usually my test for incompetence. If I can't see that 90% of the people trying to do "Activity A" are incompetent, then I have no clue what I'm doing, because I must be one of those 90%.
So, you act based on what he did. I have no problem with that.
"This guy needs to be punished because he's an idiot, broke the law, was negligent, and indirectly caused the death of a child." That's fine. Nail his ass to the wall.
But I've got a big problem with "This guy needs to be punished so nobody else tries this."
I've heard judges say things like "We need to make an example of the defendant so others see they can't get away with this."
In my opinion, that should be grounds for removal from the bench.
The law is the deterrent, and the "signal to society," as you said. If it's not deterring, then there's something wrong with the law, not society. And you never, EVER punish a defendant to send a signal to someone else.
But cars became so easy that any Joe Public could drive them
And I have a bridge to sell you.
Any Joe Public can drive a car, yes. But they certainly can't do it safely, which is why traffic accidents is probably the single biggest killer of otherwise healthy people. It even beats out a lot of diseases for mortality rates.
It takes a trained expert to drive safely (meaning - accident free), and it takes a trained expert to use a computer safely, too.
Is it the answer people are going to give? Some of them, probably.
Is it the right answer?
An unequivocal NO.
Not that I'm suggesting Windows is more secure than Linux or OSX. I'm not.
The correct answer for security issues like this is:
Get rid of your "checklist mentality" for security. As soon as you say "I've done A, B, and C, so I'm safe," you've already lost.
From your post:
We thought we have taken precautions against infection, such as firewall and anti-viral programs, but for some reasons we have failed. Is there any list of precautionary steps available?
Not only are you currently using a checklist of "firewall and antiviral programs," but you're even asking for another list, because your first one didn't work.
Here's a small fact for you:
NO list will EVER work.
The bad guys know what your lists are, and they're looking for new stuff that isn't on them. It doesn't matter how many check marks you've put on your security checklist, the only one they care about is the one that you haven't done.
Read security news sites. Learn how to use cracking tools. Pen test your own network. Better yet, hire someone to do it for you. Start thinking like someone who wants to break in, rather than someone who wants to secure the network.
Until you change your entire mindset, you'll never be safe.
Never seen anybody connect, sure, but all your traffic is out there in cleartext.
A passive monitor will pick it all up without any notice in the router logs.
For those of us who don't know, what is wrong with a short SSID(i.e. 5 digits) if a strong encryption(WPA) is used?
Nothing. The SSID is used as salt for the hashing function of WPA/WPA2, but this is designed to defeat rainbow tables, not to be a secret part of the encryption. Broadcasting it in public by design seems to verify that it doesn't need to be secret. :)
Regardless of how long/short the SSID is, as long as it's not one of the top 1000 used, (which have already been rainbow tabled) or probably the next 1000, it really doesn't matter how long it is.
Having said that, the shorter it is, the greater the chance that somebody, somewhere, has generated rainbow tables just for kicks, as a brute force method.
I'M NOT ALWAYS YELLING ON THE INTERNET!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!
lameness filter workaroundlameness filter workaroundlameness filter workaround
lameness filter workaroundlameness filter workaround
lameness filter workaround
lameness filter workaround
lameness filter workaround
lameness filter workaround
lameness filter workaround
lameness filter workaroundlameness filter workaroundlameness filter workaround
lameness filter workaround
It's hard to claim "email is private" in the face of such an admission from Microsoft.
I sometimes receive postal mail for somebody on my street with a pair of digits in the house number reversed. Does that mean because postal mail sometimes accidentally goes to the wrong address, then all mail is open to unwarranted government inspection?
It doesn't help to further your point. Just makes you look immature.
You must be new here. Welcome to /.
Where the hell did I ignore the fact that a little girl died? Where the hell did I say he shouldn't be punished for that?
Stop putting words in my mouth, and read what I replied to, and what I said.
Yes, he should be punished for being a stupid ass with the gun, and he should never be allowed to own them again. I never denied this.
But the parent I responded to said he should be punished solely to deter others, as he would already be feeling bad enough about it to be punishment enough.
That's bullshit. He should be punished for what _he_ did, not what some other idiot in another state may or may not do at some unknown point in the future.
So, I'm not "an amazingly selfish fuck." You're just an amazingly illiterate fuck who wants to put words in my mouth that I never said.
But I must say....for someone who can't comprehend what they read, you can certainly type a lot. :-/
You're an ass. A strawman arguing ass, at that.
I never said he shouldn't be punished.
The parent post I responded to was:
This is an issue of deterrence. The person involved in this case is already suffering enough , but the other people who dont think about gun safety need to know that carelessness leads to accidents leads to severe punishment.
They implied he shouldn't be punished for causing the death, as he's already feeling bad enough. But we should punish him so that others don't do the same thing.
Hence, punish him for something that someone else might do.
I think this is bullshit, regardless of whether I think he should be punished for what he did, or not.
What makes you think I'm in the US?
I'm not.
I'm Canadian.
Up here, most people tend to think of guns as things psychopaths have. My brother and sister-in-law are both FAC (basically a firearms licence) holders, and she's a champion target shooter. I heard a conversation between my brother and a non-gun owner about going to the shooting range for a competition. The non-gun owner said they'd never do that, as it's not remotely safe, because they said "There's going to be bullets flying all over the place."
Apparently they thought anybody with a gun is just going to be randomly pointing and pulling the trigger.
But, I still think punishing someone to send a signal to society is BS.