Imagine you invent a device that pulls water out of the air for free (unlike anything cold, which will do it for $$$). Anywhere. Even in a desert. This is a great innovation. I have zero problem with you selling your patent to someone else. The problem I have is that right after you invent this, a horde of lawyers will storm the patent office and patent things like drinking water that came from your device. Watering a lawn with water that came from your device. Making beer with water that came from your device.
The problem is the ridiculous deluge of patents for trivial and obvious things. They litter the business landscape and make it impossible to solve any real problem without tripping over them as you solve 100 trivial problems in obvious ways along the way. Cuz you know, who ever would have thought that the optimal number of clicks to buy something in would be 1? That must have taken a talented team of web developer (singular) literally hours to do.
What you consider the actual trouble is the angry and helpless reaction of the weaker children, which then get punished for being angry and helpless.
Not at all. The powers that be generally act that way. I actually agree with you. We had a kid in my high school snap and smack someone with a chair. One of the heavy metal and stone-like plastic ones. HE wasn't a problem, he just got tired of being harassed day after day and no one else was doing anything about it. He was a very smart kid who, left to his own devices, never caused one bit of trouble with anyone.
This really isn't true. Students don't need to be able to ban everyone and anyone. Schools do need to kick out the small minority of incorrigible troublemakers who aren't there to learn anyway, and who ruin the learning environment for those who are.
That's a lot of why child society is the way it is. Schools tolerate it. I actually had another parent come to me because one of my kids was teasing one of hers. For months. To the point where her child didn't want to go to school. The school knew the whole time and didn't say a word to me. When I had a cow and pointed out their no-bullying policy, they said it didn't qualify. WTF?
We don't need draconian solutions, we just need to implement the actual solutions that are available right now. We used to call them discipline.
I don't like that this line of reasoning encourages people to demonstrably unsafe things on the theory that they can sue or prosecute people later, and that that might deter people from sniffing their traffic. Much better to just tell everyone to secure their communications. The alternative is much like saying the neighbors can go shout their secrets in the street and you are obligated not to listen. Yes, listening in on someone else's unsecured WiFi is harder than listening to a neighbor shout in the streets...but not by much.
I want to live forever. Or at least long enough that I don't want to anymore. The problem is, that's not an option. When I was young(er) and (more) naive, I believed that maybe we finally live in a time where technology and medicine would advance fast enough that I wouldn't have to suffer death, at least not for a long, long time. It's become apparent that that's not the case. Why not do something fantastic before the inevitable?
Really? Why? Every single one of us is going to die of something, someday. I didn't apply, but thinking about it now, it's tempting. Getting to stand on another planet? Maybe even breaking ground for those who will come later? Really, that's kind of awesome. It's fine to say that maybe someday the technology will exist to make this safer, or even routine, but I'm pretty certain to die of something else before that happens.
Wait, we're supposed to ask 9-year-olds what's appropriate for them rather than make decisions based on our own decades of experience, which, for the record, includes having been a 9-year-old once?
I've been doing this whole parenting thing all wrong!
The entire purpose of insurance is to pool risk, not price it. Pricing it is just part of the mechanics insurance companies have to go through to profitably allow us to pool risk. Let's say I have a 1% chance of getting in a car accident costing $100,000 this year. That would be ruinous for most folks, so we created companies that will take $1000 + some profit from everyone, every year and pay for the loss. We trade an unlikely horrible event for a guaranteed manageable one.
When we do it your way, it doesn't work at all. People who aren't going to need insurance will get it really cheap. People who do will be unable to afford it. The only way it works at all is either if you sign up before any risk assessments like this can be done, or you legislate boundaries into what insurance companies can use.
This is also not remotely a government problem. Government problems are and should be only those that can't be handled by the private sector. The private sector can handle this one just fine, we just need to tell them what data's off limits.
In our litigious society it just isn't practice to send civilians into deep space yet. I see the role of government as testing it out, astronauts are all basically test pilots. Once we have understood more of the ricks, and how to avoid them a company can make a profit by spending people into space, with less fear that their next of kin will sue them into bankruptcy.
If we can have things like living wills that grant other people the legal right to let you die when they could keep you alive, we can certainly have a legal construct that explains in clear English to the participants that they're going where no man has gone before, we have no idea what's going to happen to them, and they're quite likely (or certain) to die in the process. Heck, if you want to be super-paranoid, require that the next-of-kin sign, too.
IMO, this is one of the stupidest things we've done as a society. We strangle innovation out of fear someone's going to sue.
Nope, audit trails are absolutely a part of security. So says ISC2, so says NIST, and the list goes on. Even if you're just asserting that audit trails don't prevent compromise, you're not entirely right. Knowing you're going to be found out is a deterrent.
This isn't brilliance, this is just poor security. This is systems that had a vulnerable audit trail, or didn't bother auditing enough, or created records no one ever looked at. Surely user snowden su-ing to some top official throws a red flag somewhere, right? If not, why not?
Not a bad idea, IMO. I recall reading one CRA CEO claiming the scoring algorithm couldn't be reverse engineered. Wait a minute. If it's truly a formula based on my credit history, it should absolutely be able to be reverse engineered. It should fall to simple statistical analysis. If it doesn't, then it isn't what it claims to be.
You think a company like Google, that sends cars down every road taking pictures every 10n feet or so where n is small, is relying on your maps, do you?
My interest in science and technology was sparked by the college textbooks the prior generation left lying around. I'm not really opposed to ditching dead trees for digital, but I either want my access to the content to be permanent, just like a book, or I want the price to be WAY less than 1/2 the cost of buying the books.
A little, maybe. I'm only going there, though, if and when self-driving cars are provably safer than human drivers. It's not like gun control because that actually removes your ability to protect yourself. This would be like gun control but everyone now has an armed bodyguard. It's not at all like abortion because that one hinges on whether a fetus is a person or not and there already is no liberty to kill persons, aside from self defense.
Well, that depends. Is this happening more or less frequently than deaths by traffic accident in human-driven cars? If we cut 80,000 deaths from human error and a terrorist kills 10 or even 100, we win.
Those things mostly don't go where I need to. When they do (buses), they take 3x as long because they're taking a herd of other people different places along the way. When they do, they don't take me to the actual destination, just to the nearest bus stop. I'd actually like to take public transportation, but it's so time-inefficient that I can't afford to.
Exactly. My willingness to give up the keys is a reflection that those other incompetent drivers probably feel the same way about me, and they might even be right. Truth be told, I was a horrible driver when I was young. Of course, I thought I was excellent.
1) not having to deal with others who are loud, smelly, or otherwise not decent company 2) going wherever you want, whenever you want 3) presumably, self driving cars will be better at driving than we are. If they aren't, we shouldn't adopt the technology and the whole argument is moot.
Slashdot Mirror
And truly, if you are diluting yourself, you ARE the solution.
The problem is junk patents.
Imagine you invent a device that pulls water out of the air for free (unlike anything cold, which will do it for $$$). Anywhere. Even in a desert. This is a great innovation. I have zero problem with you selling your patent to someone else. The problem I have is that right after you invent this, a horde of lawyers will storm the patent office and patent things like drinking water that came from your device. Watering a lawn with water that came from your device. Making beer with water that came from your device.
The problem is the ridiculous deluge of patents for trivial and obvious things. They litter the business landscape and make it impossible to solve any real problem without tripping over them as you solve 100 trivial problems in obvious ways along the way. Cuz you know, who ever would have thought that the optimal number of clicks to buy something in would be 1? That must have taken a talented team of web developer (singular) literally hours to do.
As a lawyer buddy reminded me, we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. That explains a lot.
Not at all. The powers that be generally act that way. I actually agree with you. We had a kid in my high school snap and smack someone with a chair. One of the heavy metal and stone-like plastic ones. HE wasn't a problem, he just got tired of being harassed day after day and no one else was doing anything about it. He was a very smart kid who, left to his own devices, never caused one bit of trouble with anyone.
This really isn't true. Students don't need to be able to ban everyone and anyone. Schools do need to kick out the small minority of incorrigible troublemakers who aren't there to learn anyway, and who ruin the learning environment for those who are.
That's a lot of why child society is the way it is. Schools tolerate it. I actually had another parent come to me because one of my kids was teasing one of hers. For months. To the point where her child didn't want to go to school. The school knew the whole time and didn't say a word to me. When I had a cow and pointed out their no-bullying policy, they said it didn't qualify. WTF?
We don't need draconian solutions, we just need to implement the actual solutions that are available right now. We used to call them discipline.
I don't like that this line of reasoning encourages people to demonstrably unsafe things on the theory that they can sue or prosecute people later, and that that might deter people from sniffing their traffic. Much better to just tell everyone to secure their communications. The alternative is much like saying the neighbors can go shout their secrets in the street and you are obligated not to listen. Yes, listening in on someone else's unsecured WiFi is harder than listening to a neighbor shout in the streets...but not by much.
*eyeroll*
I shouldn't waste my time replying, but not having studied a particular discipline doesn't imply an inability to understand it.
This is interesting. Is there a link you could share or something for us non RNG designers to understand why?
Why? People die doing things all the time now. Climbing mountains. Racing cars. Swimming. Running. Sleeping.
I don't know, I think I'd be chuckling to myself thinking yep, I'm dying, just like every one of you schlubs will. But I'm doing it on Mars.
I want to live forever. Or at least long enough that I don't want to anymore. The problem is, that's not an option. When I was young(er) and (more) naive, I believed that maybe we finally live in a time where technology and medicine would advance fast enough that I wouldn't have to suffer death, at least not for a long, long time. It's become apparent that that's not the case. Why not do something fantastic before the inevitable?
Really? Why? Every single one of us is going to die of something, someday. I didn't apply, but thinking about it now, it's tempting. Getting to stand on another planet? Maybe even breaking ground for those who will come later? Really, that's kind of awesome. It's fine to say that maybe someday the technology will exist to make this safer, or even routine, but I'm pretty certain to die of something else before that happens.
Wait, we're supposed to ask 9-year-olds what's appropriate for them rather than make decisions based on our own decades of experience, which, for the record, includes having been a 9-year-old once?
I've been doing this whole parenting thing all wrong!
Good lord, this is horribly wrong.
The entire purpose of insurance is to pool risk, not price it. Pricing it is just part of the mechanics insurance companies have to go through to profitably allow us to pool risk. Let's say I have a 1% chance of getting in a car accident costing $100,000 this year. That would be ruinous for most folks, so we created companies that will take $1000 + some profit from everyone, every year and pay for the loss. We trade an unlikely horrible event for a guaranteed manageable one.
When we do it your way, it doesn't work at all. People who aren't going to need insurance will get it really cheap. People who do will be unable to afford it. The only way it works at all is either if you sign up before any risk assessments like this can be done, or you legislate boundaries into what insurance companies can use.
This is also not remotely a government problem. Government problems are and should be only those that can't be handled by the private sector. The private sector can handle this one just fine, we just need to tell them what data's off limits.
Shame they didn't quantify them. You know, like "There be 3 dragons." Totally safe, then.
If we can have things like living wills that grant other people the legal right to let you die when they could keep you alive, we can certainly have a legal construct that explains in clear English to the participants that they're going where no man has gone before, we have no idea what's going to happen to them, and they're quite likely (or certain) to die in the process. Heck, if you want to be super-paranoid, require that the next-of-kin sign, too.
IMO, this is one of the stupidest things we've done as a society. We strangle innovation out of fear someone's going to sue.
Nope, audit trails are absolutely a part of security. So says ISC2, so says NIST, and the list goes on. Even if you're just asserting that audit trails don't prevent compromise, you're not entirely right. Knowing you're going to be found out is a deterrent.
This isn't brilliance, this is just poor security. This is systems that had a vulnerable audit trail, or didn't bother auditing enough, or created records no one ever looked at. Surely user snowden su-ing to some top official throws a red flag somewhere, right? If not, why not?
Not a bad idea, IMO. I recall reading one CRA CEO claiming the scoring algorithm couldn't be reverse engineered. Wait a minute. If it's truly a formula based on my credit history, it should absolutely be able to be reverse engineered. It should fall to simple statistical analysis. If it doesn't, then it isn't what it claims to be.
You think a company like Google, that sends cars down every road taking pictures every 10n feet or so where n is small, is relying on your maps, do you?
I don't.
My interest in science and technology was sparked by the college textbooks the prior generation left lying around. I'm not really opposed to ditching dead trees for digital, but I either want my access to the content to be permanent, just like a book, or I want the price to be WAY less than 1/2 the cost of buying the books.
A little, maybe. I'm only going there, though, if and when self-driving cars are provably safer than human drivers. It's not like gun control because that actually removes your ability to protect yourself. This would be like gun control but everyone now has an armed bodyguard. It's not at all like abortion because that one hinges on whether a fetus is a person or not and there already is no liberty to kill persons, aside from self defense.
Well, that depends. Is this happening more or less frequently than deaths by traffic accident in human-driven cars? If we cut 80,000 deaths from human error and a terrorist kills 10 or even 100, we win.
Those things mostly don't go where I need to. When they do (buses), they take 3x as long because they're taking a herd of other people different places along the way. When they do, they don't take me to the actual destination, just to the nearest bus stop. I'd actually like to take public transportation, but it's so time-inefficient that I can't afford to.
Exactly. My willingness to give up the keys is a reflection that those other incompetent drivers probably feel the same way about me, and they might even be right. Truth be told, I was a horrible driver when I was young. Of course, I thought I was excellent.
1) not having to deal with others who are loud, smelly, or otherwise not decent company
2) going wherever you want, whenever you want
3) presumably, self driving cars will be better at driving than we are. If they aren't, we shouldn't adopt the technology and the whole argument is moot.