My understanding is the so-called "backdoor" is inherent to the way the cryptography works --- it's not so much a backdoor, as it is a disclosure that if all the servers keys become known, a third party could break the privacy; "backdoor" is just a consequence of the design that is also what causes the performance improvement, and knowing what the "backdoor" is does not allow it to be removed (without you having to design a new protocol and altogether new system).
I would say look to his straight-up crypto work/research as useful/interesting, and he did much useful work there, but I think in terms of proposing technology for Consumer usage / addressing political issues I think he was out of his league.... E.g. Digicash failure.
Not having the good sense to recognize that people concerned enough about privacy to encrypt their messages want end to end security of communications, not a backdoored communications network.
I think there is a reason these auto makers go for a "coast to coast" first. It's all highways, and easy driving.
Well, I think the large distance between origin and destination is supposed to show a high endurance.
Perhaps they should say coast to coast, with a special caveat, that the trip has to be done both in the rainy season, and in the dead of winter when there is heavy snow en route, original should be in a suburban area requiring some heavy city travel to get away from the origin, final destination should be in one of the wilderness areas in Washington state accessible only by dirt roads, And also, a special routing constraint is added that no more than 50% of the East-West distance can be taken by interstate hwy travel.
I want a car that will drop me off at the store or the movies, go park itself
At this point.... why not just have a service provider with autonomous cars strategically parked throughout the city, and when you want a car, you push a button, and a self-driving car comes and gets you in a few minutes for a low monthly subscription+mileage fuel charge?
Then we reduce car ownership, and consequently, the amount of parking spaces required, as well, by an order of magnitude.
Well, on the highways that the Feds pay for... Yes, you do. These things will never be certifiable, as they're bragging about machine learning which is non-deterministic and therefore no responsible certifying body will approve it for life safety critical applications.
Sure they will be certifiable. There are no standards that will prevent it.
NHTSA issues the FMVSS, which establish minimum performance requirements for safety systems; anything not required by a FMVSS standard is outside NHTSA's jurisdiction, in regards to manufacture and import of vehicles, So no issue there, since there is no current law requiring certification of the Autonomous Vehicle Machine-Learning software; there is no requirement that operation be provably deterministic.
Difference between a web services API when the web service is the service provider; the service provider governs the use of the API to access their service.
This is different from claiming copyright ownership on an API itself.
If a developer were using the API, AND they had modified the client to not use Google.com resources, then Google would have no ToS violation claim.
ToS violation is just a pretext for shutting down their app expeditiously; they can still shutdown the API access without a literal ToS violation, as it's within Google's discretion, so
it probably doesn't really matter.
The ToS violation is just a way for Google to save face, I guess; if they want to kill the app they'll kill it either way.
I said then, and many times since then, that building a business totally reliant on some other service's "free" API is a huge mistake and a recipe for disaster.
It could be. Twitter has cut off apps such as Meerkat
for being a competitor with future Twitter-owned services.
You can base a company off of providing a service on top of a Free Api, But you better be prepared to have a backup plan or a new plan on standby for the day that your access gets cut off.
This probably works in cases of copyright infringement or even in cases where you're claiming damages but I doubt it will work well when you're actively consuming their resources.
The problem is to invoke Laches, you need to be the defendant in a civil case.
Sounds like Google is just deactivating their API access within 14 days: not filing a lawsuit against them.
Google has no obligation to contract with them to provide services, unless of course, they have a claim of an antitrust violation of some sort.
Governments should provide these in a open standard format, to the public for free.
They provide information; it's not all in a standard format and freely available in convenient form.
If they are selling this information to companies, in order that they can sell it back to us, is just wrong.
I suspect companies are able to arrange for copies of data through records requests, involving the company paying, and they do the work of disseminating, aggregating, and translating the information to standardize and clean data for their systems.
One possible backup plan is to have an "alternate access method" pre-coded that Scrapes the provider's website, preferably in a manner that is either disruptive or less-efficient usage of the provider's resources than their API and does it in a manner that they will not be able to block the access.
The case described does not have a proper procedure. This is a traffic design failing, not a civil liability.
The roadways are designed for human use, and vehicles which are operated by humans at all time: the public roads are not provided for just any possible use that people are able to imagine. Human-operated vehicles handle these situations just fine, therefore, if the machine does not, and the manufacturer encourages its operation unattended, then the machine (or its human operator who made it operate without being behind the wheel) has liability.
shows the manufacturers are in case of trouble already handing control back to the driver.
Except cruise control is not an "automatic pilot" system; with cruise, the driver is always in full control the whole time and still has to steer, etc; obviously the driver is still a captive audience and still has to monitor all the vehicle operation even when using cruise.
Also, dropping out the cruise control is a "safe" response, even if the driver is not paying attention and does not notice they are decelerating.
On the other hand, if the car is steering for the operator as well, then the driver could be relying entirely on their car, they might literally be dozing off, or have lost complete situational awareness regarding what is going on -- while their car drives itself: therefore, there is NOT enough time for the human to get up to speed, even if you sound an alarm and wake them up or something, Therefore: just disabling the automatic steering control to hand control back to the driver could be an extremely dangerous response.
I guess it will ALWAYS be in Beta then.... kind of like a Google product. The potential cost of declaring it out of Beta would not justify the additional prestige value, And besides, when their target customer realizes the coolness of the feature, they won't mind to buy it, just because it's beta.
Stopping you from reading/recording a video stream necessarily stops you from altering it.
Except the content providers WANT to alter it in real-time, in order to change out their ads, and taylor them to specific viewers, and gather tracking statistics.
If they would just include the AD in the actual video content, instead of making it a separate object: then the Ad-Blocking software would be a non-issue, as the software wouldn't be able to filter out content from the video stream due to the enormous amount of processing that would take.
Well, the answer is you list multiple contacts on the domain registration.
ONE of the contacts' e-mail address should be on a domain that is NOT the same as the domain being registered; However, the E-mail account should be documented, owned and controlled by the company.
Yeah.... I don't understand. You do not need a registrant's consent to pay for a domain renewal.
One of their fans should just pay the bill on his behalf.
Also, unless they have gone out of their way to set a registry-level lock on the domain clientRenewProhibited,
then most likely ANY domain registrar could technically send an EPP request to renew the domain for 1yr, and just pay the bill.
Why would anyone cancel a lifetime membership in this, or anything for that matter?
You decided it was worthless, so you want your $299.95 back... suppose you are 25 years old, and you bought a lifetime membership with an expectency of living 75 more years, so you purchased approximately 900 months of service, and you want to cancel after 24 months.... That should get you a refund of $291
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is the so-called "backdoor" is inherent to the way the cryptography works --- it's not so much a backdoor, as it is a disclosure that if all the servers keys become known, a third party could break the privacy; "backdoor" is just a consequence of the design that is also what causes the performance improvement, and knowing what the "backdoor" is does not allow it to be removed (without you having to design a new protocol and altogether new system).
I would say look to his straight-up crypto work/research as useful/interesting, and he did much useful work there, but I think in terms of proposing technology for Consumer usage / addressing political issues I think he was out of his league.... E.g. Digicash failure.
Not having the good sense to recognize that people concerned enough about privacy to encrypt their messages want end to end security of communications, not a backdoored communications network.
One of the first things law enforcement is going to do is order that the councils' secret keys be handed over.
Or they'll surreptitiously get them all, and put them in the same place for easy access.
GPS will be spotty if it is working at all through heavy cloud. No lines, no visual cues.
Humans cannot navigate in these conditions either. It's not safe or acceptable to be out there driving under such conditions.
I think there is a reason these auto makers go for a "coast to coast" first. It's all highways, and easy driving.
Well, I think the large distance between origin and destination is supposed to show a high endurance.
Perhaps they should say coast to coast, with a special caveat, that the trip has to be done both in the rainy season, and in the dead of winter when there is heavy snow en route, original should be in a suburban area requiring some heavy city travel to get away from the origin, final destination should be in one of the wilderness areas in Washington state accessible only by dirt roads, And also, a special routing constraint is added that no more than 50% of the East-West distance can be taken by interstate hwy travel.
I want a car that will drop me off at the store or the movies, go park itself
At this point.... why not just have a service provider with autonomous cars strategically parked throughout the city, and when you want a car, you push a button, and a self-driving car comes and gets you in a few minutes for a low monthly subscription+mileage fuel charge?
Then we reduce car ownership, and consequently, the amount of parking spaces required, as well, by an order of magnitude.
Well, on the highways that the Feds pay for ... Yes, you do. These things will never be certifiable, as they're bragging about machine learning which is non-deterministic and therefore no responsible certifying body will approve it for life safety critical applications.
Sure they will be certifiable. There are no standards that will prevent it.
NHTSA issues the FMVSS, which establish minimum performance requirements for safety systems; anything not required by a FMVSS standard is outside NHTSA's jurisdiction, in regards to manufacture and import of vehicles, So no issue there, since there is no current law requiring certification of the Autonomous Vehicle Machine-Learning software; there is no requirement that operation be provably deterministic.
Difference between a web services API when the web service is the service provider; the service provider governs the use of the API to access their service.
This is different from claiming copyright ownership on an API itself.
If a developer were using the API, AND they had modified the client to not use Google.com resources, then Google would have no ToS violation claim.
ToS violation is just a pretext for shutting down their app expeditiously; they can still shutdown the API access without a literal ToS violation, as it's within Google's discretion, so it probably doesn't really matter.
The ToS violation is just a way for Google to save face, I guess; if they want to kill the app they'll kill it either way.
I said then, and many times since then, that building a business totally reliant on some other service's "free" API is a huge mistake and a recipe for disaster.
It could be. Twitter has cut off apps such as Meerkat for being a competitor with future Twitter-owned services.
You can base a company off of providing a service on top of a Free Api, But you better be prepared to have a backup plan or a new plan on standby for the day that your access gets cut off.
This probably works in cases of copyright infringement or even in cases where you're claiming damages but I doubt it will work well when you're actively consuming their resources.
The problem is to invoke Laches, you need to be the defendant in a civil case.
Sounds like Google is just deactivating their API access within 14 days: not filing a lawsuit against them.
Google has no obligation to contract with them to provide services, unless of course, they have a claim of an antitrust violation of some sort.
Governments should provide these in a open standard format, to the public for free.
They provide information; it's not all in a standard format and freely available in convenient form.
If they are selling this information to companies, in order that they can sell it back to us, is just wrong.
I suspect companies are able to arrange for copies of data through records requests, involving the company paying, and they do the work of disseminating, aggregating, and translating the information to standardize and clean data for their systems.
One possible backup plan is to have an "alternate access method" pre-coded that Scrapes the provider's website, preferably in a manner that is either disruptive or less-efficient usage of the provider's resources than their API and does it in a manner that they will not be able to block the access.
It sounds like Google's not suing them, however, so Laches would be a defense in court, but it won't help them.
Google can still cite the ToS and shut off their access to the API.
Then it would be up to RouteBuilder to file the lawsuit, if they think there is a legal reason Google cannot block their usage.
Or (more productively), they'll find another source for the data that the Google Maps API exposes.
The case described does not have a proper procedure. This is a traffic design failing, not a civil liability.
The roadways are designed for human use, and vehicles which are operated by humans at all time: the public roads are not provided for just any possible use that people are able to imagine. Human-operated vehicles handle these situations just fine, therefore, if the machine does not, and the manufacturer encourages its operation unattended, then the machine (or its human operator who made it operate without being behind the wheel) has liability.
Except that in the US it's exceedingly rare to have bidirectional 1 lane thoroughfares
The rarity of these types of roadways makes it even more likely that the devices do not properly handle them.
signal the immediate need to clean up these niche cases.
Or involvement of traffic authorities and citation of drivers, if their equipment hinders the roadway.
Well, it sounds like they'd have to be within 39 feet of the car.
By the time it reaches the location of the first summon, they'll be 39 more feet away, and repeating the Summon.
The bugs are introduced after the linking phase of compilation with the above program.
shows the manufacturers are in case of trouble already handing control back to the driver.
Except cruise control is not an "automatic pilot" system; with cruise, the driver is always in full control the whole time and still has to steer, etc; obviously the driver is still a captive audience and still has to monitor all the vehicle operation even when using cruise.
Also, dropping out the cruise control is a "safe" response, even if the driver is not paying attention and does not notice they are decelerating.
On the other hand, if the car is steering for the operator as well, then the driver could be relying entirely on their car, they might literally be dozing off, or have lost complete situational awareness regarding what is going on -- while their car drives itself: therefore, there is NOT enough time for the human to get up to speed, even if you sound an alarm and wake them up or something, Therefore: just disabling the automatic steering control to hand control back to the driver could be an extremely dangerous response.
I guess it will ALWAYS be in Beta then.... kind of like a Google product. The potential cost of declaring it out of Beta would not justify the additional prestige value, And besides, when their target customer realizes the coolness of the feature, they won't mind to buy it, just because it's beta.
Stopping you from reading/recording a video stream necessarily stops you from altering it.
Except the content providers WANT to alter it in real-time, in order to change out their ads, and taylor them to specific viewers, and gather tracking statistics.
If they would just include the AD in the actual video content, instead of making it a separate object: then the Ad-Blocking software would be a non-issue, as the software wouldn't be able to filter out content from the video stream due to the enormous amount of processing that would take.
Well, the answer is you list multiple contacts on the domain registration.
ONE of the contacts' e-mail address should be on a domain that is NOT the same as the domain being registered; However, the E-mail account should be documented, owned and controlled by the company.
I was about to ask what the difference between Illoyalty and Disloyalty is.
Do they have a word for someone who pretends to be loyal, and then later abandons their loyalty and does something horrible?
Oh wait.... that's Treason isn't it?
Yeah.... I don't understand. You do not need a registrant's consent to pay for a domain renewal.
One of their fans should just pay the bill on his behalf.
Also, unless they have gone out of their way to set a registry-level lock on the domain clientRenewProhibited, then most likely ANY domain registrar could technically send an EPP request to renew the domain for 1yr, and just pay the bill.
Why would anyone cancel a lifetime membership in this, or anything for that matter?
You decided it was worthless, so you want your $299.95 back... suppose you are 25 years old, and you bought a lifetime membership with an expectency of living 75 more years, so you purchased approximately 900 months of service, and you want to cancel after 24 months.... That should get you a refund of $291