This will never fly. Wilderness areas like that are considered public property and as such the government cannot prohibit people from taking pictures.
This is not unprecedented.
L.A. already has similar rules if you want to take pictures from any of their public parks,
forests, or other public property, you need a permit for each day from FilmLA, costing several thousand $$$.
In particular you need a permit to take pictures of the Hollywood sign, in addition
you have to pay a license for trademark rights, if you want to use any of the images
in a publication.
Or it plugs into the CAN bus and prevents the computer allowing the engine to crank.
That design may be possible, but it would be expensive and just as easy to bypass.
More likely than not, the interruptor is doing something much simpler involving opening a circuit or
shorting some inputs.
All good until they come to your house or place of work and tow it away anyway.
In many states, they cannot do this without a judgement in hand from a court of law, unless there has been a payment default for a minimum of at least 30 days.
I think the issue with this remote immob. crap is they are deactivating cars whose payment is a few days late.
Then Yes... they might try to steal the car in that manner. However, you may keep it in a closed locked garage at home, and at work you may keep your vehicle in a secure area, where there is no access to it.
You might also park in one of the higher floors in a large private parking garage in an area where there is low clearance and no truck access -- back into your space; close enough to the wall that nobody can get behind the vehicle or see the plates.
Cover up all locations where the VIN# or other vehicle id numbers may be displayed visible from outside the vehicle, by laying a map, or some papers over it, so that definitive identification would be impossible without breaking and entering.
Attach an anti-theft wheel clamp to all four tires.
Remove any visible logos or dealership names on the vehicle and repaint the vehicle yourself, without providing information about new color.
Rekey the lock cylinders on all 4 doors with something non-standard, to ensure no master keys will work.
Which may be detectable and void the contract which may result in immediate repossession.
You don't need to tamper with the device to render it ineffective; just change the wiring of your vehicle so that the device's output has no effect anyways, although there may be a location tracking / other privacy violation in there as well, so you might also consider removing the bit of wiring from your vehicle's electrical system bringing power to the device.
Neither of which your CEO, President, VP(s), Sr. VPs, or Directors want to do or learn, nor should they have to.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I am in network operations.
The CEO/President/VPs/etc, don't ask for such reports from logging/monitoring systems.
I am not sure what they would want to do with the data anyways.....
the kind of information that can be gathered by monitoring is mostly only actionable by IT management.
It's not like they're going to turn to page 36 of some report, and start asking us what's the deal about latency increasing from 5 milliseconds to 10 milliseconds.
they had to send a technician to get the car to start, and be able to drive out of the garage.
There's at LEAST one person who can bypass it. Now just find and make friends with one of these technicians who may take a $20 bribe to bypass it.
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.
Dashboards & online reports are great when you have access to them. But what if the dashboard isn't available, or you need to provide the data to someone who doesn't have access to the dashboard?
Open the dashboard in a web browser, take a screenshot, export it to JPEG, and send it as an e-mail attachment.
They can make it not possible to have a serious event by restricting and limiting the amount of fissile material,
and ensuring the containment procedures will be massively excessive.
It's different from commercial applications, where the reactor needs to operate at scale and produce electricity at a profit, and the level of safeguards can't be scaled up as efficiently as the resulting impact of an incident would increase.
And just what do you propose that Canadians do if or when they withdraw their services from Canada entirely because they do not want to comply with Canadian law?
Well, they could claim they have some sort of regulatory nexus over Google/Netflix for the next 5 or 10 years, just because they ever had a service offered in Canada, and withdrawing services today doesn't change the fact that the regulations will still apply to them related to the past activity and for the next 5 to 10 years.
You already have customers in Canada. It doesn't matter if you announce today that you are turning off all these services.
As long as you still exist as a company, and you still provide these video streaming services anywhere, you already created your presence here, and are subject to regulatory enforcement actions.
Also... blah blah.... we acknowledge that Geolocation is widely circumvented, and you will still be providing these services in Canada to users who are using proxies or tunnels in other countries and appear to be connecting from a different country.
As long as there is network neutrality along the last mile and through to the edge of the customer's ISP,
this is a bandwidth issue, not a limited content selection issue.
The MPAA would fight something like that tooth and nail.
They wouldn't. It's still transmission and performance of copyrighted work.
If it's not broadcasting, then the MPAA has more control over it,
e.g. no possibility of compulsary licensing being required to allow retransmission.
There is therefore every reason for Google not to fund privacy research; people will believe only bad results if they fund it.
There is an alternative option.... they can provide funding to a transparent foundation / neutral party.
The neutral party can then choose what privacy research projects to fund.
Since Google will have no control over the funding, the researchers won't be beholden to Google; their funds have already been secured,
and Google is just a contributor of funding to the neutral party.
Do you believe studies funded by the oil Industry?
If they publish findings that are extremely bad for the oil industry, then yes, I will believe those.
If they seem to publish only findings that are favorable to the oil industry, then no.
If they are suspiciously silent on certain issues and seem to avoid researching certain topics, then it's not a matter of having studies you don't believe ---- it's a matter of not having studies even undertaken, due to bias.
Both Stanford and Google say the change in funding was unrelated to the previous research.
They can say that as much as they like, but it just is not credible.
More evidence that Google has not only gone away from trying to not be evil, but is actually
taking steps to become actively evil.
Like funding research and claiming it is for the benefit of society, but only if the research suits Google ----
therefore, the funding from Google helps reduce funding others might otherwise provide towards research that doesn't suit Google.
Regular finance account reporting of how the money is being used should be required. If you can't handle it, don't ask for money.
Such production of reporting and auditing of reports has costs and could consume significant amount of project funds.
It should be up to the backers and an agreement with the backers made in advance, regarding what will be required, not up to some random third party to decide what reporting will be imposed on them both.
Why don't we separate the configuration interface from the init system?
Patch upstart to include the ability to read in the configuration items of a Systemd system and
either run these services in a compatibility mode or automatically generate its own configurations from the
Systemd configurations.
Hint: one of them terminates init. The other restarts it. A highly consequential distinction.
It's not possible for a user process to kill -9 on init. The kernel will pass only SIGHUP or SIGINT.
"kill -9 -1" effectively kills all processes except init. Traditionally.... init would then respawn all processes in the init tab marked as respawn for the current runlevel, so it would bring the local VTY gettys back online, but not daemons such as inetd and SSHD which are started through scripts that do not have respawn lines in the inittab
Personally; I always thought this was quaint... this is one of the reasons why I like Solaris SMF --- the possibility of automatic self-healing applies to ALL services, not just the gettys.
Kill -1 is like an emergency "Oh Shit"; and you're going to need to do some serious manual repair efforts
and probably reboot shortly after, as only things managed by an init respawn will automatically restart.
I think the answer is to fork Redhat EL6, and not accept the choice in RH7 of moving from Upstart to SystemD.
Upstart and Udev in RH6 is just great....
Good news, everyone... just like with Agile I have 10 years experience with reactive methodologies....
we just called them something else back then, now that we have a name for reactive methodology,
we can claim it:)
Then comes people with missing one arm/hand bashing that idea. Making that configurable to be used with one hand kind of defeats the purpose, no?
If someone with just one hand/arm gets convicted of texting while driving holding the phone with ZERO hands available to put on the wheel, then that is so much more dangerous and unsafe, that they should just be forced to undergo the standard punishment; or give up driving or having a cellphone altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
This will never fly. Wilderness areas like that are considered public property and as such the government cannot prohibit people from taking pictures.
This is not unprecedented. L.A. already has similar rules if you want to take pictures from any of their public parks, forests, or other public property, you need a permit for each day from FilmLA, costing several thousand $$$.
In particular you need a permit to take pictures of the Hollywood sign, in addition you have to pay a license for trademark rights, if you want to use any of the images in a publication.
Or it plugs into the CAN bus and prevents the computer allowing the engine to crank.
That design may be possible, but it would be expensive and just as easy to bypass. More likely than not, the interruptor is doing something much simpler involving opening a circuit or shorting some inputs.
All good until they come to your house or place of work and tow it away anyway.
In many states, they cannot do this without a judgement in hand from a court of law, unless there has been a payment default for a minimum of at least 30 days. I think the issue with this remote immob. crap is they are deactivating cars whose payment is a few days late.
Then Yes... they might try to steal the car in that manner. However, you may keep it in a closed locked garage at home, and at work you may keep your vehicle in a secure area, where there is no access to it.
You might also park in one of the higher floors in a large private parking garage in an area where there is low clearance and no truck access -- back into your space; close enough to the wall that nobody can get behind the vehicle or see the plates.
Cover up all locations where the VIN# or other vehicle id numbers may be displayed visible from outside the vehicle, by laying a map, or some papers over it, so that definitive identification would be impossible without breaking and entering.
Attach an anti-theft wheel clamp to all four tires.
Remove any visible logos or dealership names on the vehicle and repaint the vehicle yourself, without providing information about new color. Rekey the lock cylinders on all 4 doors with something non-standard, to ensure no master keys will work.
Which may be detectable and void the contract which may result in immediate repossession.
You don't need to tamper with the device to render it ineffective; just change the wiring of your vehicle so that the device's output has no effect anyways, although there may be a location tracking / other privacy violation in there as well, so you might also consider removing the bit of wiring from your vehicle's electrical system bringing power to the device.
I repeat. It's 3D PRINTING FOR LIFE EXTENSION
Next up.... the singularity.
That's true.... I wouldn't worry about it, however... it's just an aesthetic issue :)
Neither of which your CEO, President, VP(s), Sr. VPs, or Directors want to do or learn, nor should they have to.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I am in network operations. The CEO/President/VPs/etc, don't ask for such reports from logging/monitoring systems.
I am not sure what they would want to do with the data anyways..... the kind of information that can be gathered by monitoring is mostly only actionable by IT management.
It's not like they're going to turn to page 36 of some report, and start asking us what's the deal about latency increasing from 5 milliseconds to 10 milliseconds.
they had to send a technician to get the car to start, and be able to drive out of the garage.
There's at LEAST one person who can bypass it. Now just find and make friends with one of these technicians who may take a $20 bribe to bypass it.
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.
A screenshot of a report is a poor substitute for an Excel or PDF report where you can copy and paste the data.
This is where picatext or other OCR software comes in handy.
Also... in principle, you could make or use screenshot software which also captures the text from the window shown.
Dashboards & online reports are great when you have access to them. But what if the dashboard isn't available, or you need to provide the data to someone who doesn't have access to the dashboard?
Open the dashboard in a web browser, take a screenshot, export it to JPEG, and send it as an e-mail attachment.
They can make it not possible to have a serious event by restricting and limiting the amount of fissile material, and ensuring the containment procedures will be massively excessive.
It's different from commercial applications, where the reactor needs to operate at scale and produce electricity at a profit, and the level of safeguards can't be scaled up as efficiently as the resulting impact of an incident would increase.
And just what do you propose that Canadians do if or when they withdraw their services from Canada entirely because they do not want to comply with Canadian law?
Well, they could claim they have some sort of regulatory nexus over Google/Netflix for the next 5 or 10 years, just because they ever had a service offered in Canada, and withdrawing services today doesn't change the fact that the regulations will still apply to them related to the past activity and for the next 5 to 10 years.
You already have customers in Canada. It doesn't matter if you announce today that you are turning off all these services. As long as you still exist as a company, and you still provide these video streaming services anywhere, you already created your presence here, and are subject to regulatory enforcement actions.
Also... blah blah.... we acknowledge that Geolocation is widely circumvented, and you will still be providing these services in Canada to users who are using proxies or tunnels in other countries and appear to be connecting from a different country.
The ISPs have exclusive rights to the last mile.
As long as there is network neutrality along the last mile and through to the edge of the customer's ISP, this is a bandwidth issue, not a limited content selection issue.
The MPAA would fight something like that tooth and nail.
They wouldn't. It's still transmission and performance of copyrighted work. If it's not broadcasting, then the MPAA has more control over it, e.g. no possibility of compulsary licensing being required to allow retransmission.
There is therefore every reason for Google not to fund privacy research; people will believe only bad results if they fund it.
There is an alternative option.... they can provide funding to a transparent foundation / neutral party. The neutral party can then choose what privacy research projects to fund.
Since Google will have no control over the funding, the researchers won't be beholden to Google; their funds have already been secured, and Google is just a contributor of funding to the neutral party.
Do you believe studies funded by the oil Industry?
If they publish findings that are extremely bad for the oil industry, then yes, I will believe those.
If they seem to publish only findings that are favorable to the oil industry, then no. If they are suspiciously silent on certain issues and seem to avoid researching certain topics, then it's not a matter of having studies you don't believe ---- it's a matter of not having studies even undertaken, due to bias.
Both Stanford and Google say the change in funding was unrelated to the previous research.
They can say that as much as they like, but it just is not credible. More evidence that Google has not only gone away from trying to not be evil, but is actually taking steps to become actively evil.
Like funding research and claiming it is for the benefit of society, but only if the research suits Google ---- therefore, the funding from Google helps reduce funding others might otherwise provide towards research that doesn't suit Google.
Regular finance account reporting of how the money is being used should be required. If you can't handle it, don't ask for money.
Such production of reporting and auditing of reports has costs and could consume significant amount of project funds.
It should be up to the backers and an agreement with the backers made in advance, regarding what will be required, not up to some random third party to decide what reporting will be imposed on them both.
Why don't we separate the configuration interface from the init system?
Patch upstart to include the ability to read in the configuration items of a Systemd system and either run these services in a compatibility mode or automatically generate its own configurations from the Systemd configurations.
Hint: one of them terminates init. The other restarts it. A highly consequential distinction.
It's not possible for a user process to kill -9 on init. The kernel will pass only SIGHUP or SIGINT. "kill -9 -1" effectively kills all processes except init. Traditionally.... init would then respawn all processes in the init tab marked as respawn for the current runlevel, so it would bring the local VTY gettys back online, but not daemons such as inetd and SSHD which are started through scripts that do not have respawn lines in the inittab
Personally; I always thought this was quaint... this is one of the reasons why I like Solaris SMF --- the possibility of automatic self-healing applies to ALL services, not just the gettys.
Kill -1 is like an emergency "Oh Shit"; and you're going to need to do some serious manual repair efforts and probably reboot shortly after, as only things managed by an init respawn will automatically restart.
Really? You don't reboot after a kernel security update?
One word: KernelCare
I think the answer is to fork Redhat EL6, and not accept the choice in RH7 of moving from Upstart to SystemD. Upstart and Udev in RH6 is just great....
Good news, everyone... just like with Agile I have 10 years experience with reactive methodologies.... we just called them something else back then, now that we have a name for reactive methodology, we can claim it :)
Then comes people with missing one arm/hand bashing that idea. Making that configurable to be used with one hand kind of defeats the purpose, no?
If someone with just one hand/arm gets convicted of texting while driving holding the phone with ZERO hands available to put on the wheel, then that is so much more dangerous and unsafe, that they should just be forced to undergo the standard punishment; or give up driving or having a cellphone altogether.