Of course it's going to happen. Especially in crowded traffic. In those circumstances I'd much rather my life depend on something with a reaction time that will make the moving cars seem almost stationary.
Here's how this should play out:
1) Smart people with lots of money start developing these (happening now) 2) In real life trials, they work, and are statistically safer than human drivers (looks promising...) 3) In time, they're indisputably a lot safer than human drivers (we'll see, but I think this will happen).
Once you get to 3, not switching to driverless cars becomes rather dumb.
I don't want to give up my driving freedom. Having seen how the rest of you drive, though, I want all of you to give up your driving freedom because I swear, I'd drive better sleepy, drunk, and texting all at the same time than some of you.
Giving up driving is a price I'm willing to pay if I don't have to risk my life on your competence behind the wheel.
It's actually not a moronic study. It's a necessary study to get people to stop enacting moronic policies. If people didn't do stupid things, we wouldn't have to do studies like this to persuade them to stop.
Hah! Me! I said as much when my uni instituted a mandatory laptop policy in 1997 or 1998.
I do get your sarcasm, it just irritated me when they did it. Just yet another example of not having any concrete ideas of how to improve education, so let's throw technology/money at it, made worse because they weren't even throwing their own money. They just blanket made everyone buy a laptop they specified, whether or not they actually needed it, whether or not it actually improved the educational experience.
And of course, the latest silver bullet is tablets.
There are no valid technical reasons why this can't be made secure, other than either having no interest in doing it, or pandering to users who just want convenience.
Sure there is. It's hard. Or perhaps it's better to say, it has enough moving parts that it gets screwed up pretty frequently. For example, it's secure until your boss sends you AnnualReport.docx, which happens to contain a virus (and actually wasn't sent by your boss).
This is just a piss-poor implementation of security, and it's why I don't trust a browser to retain passwords for me, and never have.
I agree, I just extend that to pretty much all computer products. I hope that someday the plague of insecure software will end, but we're nowhere near that now.
Not every attack is "terrorism". Not every crime is terrorism.
IF this materializes, which who knows, it might, it will most likely be cyber-annoyance. You'll try to buy something on amazon and it'll be slow, so you'll do it later. Some web sites may be DDOSed off the net for a day or three. Life will go on.
That doesn't really work here, because a conventional speed trap is just measuring your location over points much closer together. Infinitesimally, I suppose, if we're talking doppler.
I wouldn't have any real objection to such a system if the collected data was purged once it was no longer useful for its intended purpose. In this case, once more time has elapsed than it takes you to cover 20 miles, though really I'd be fine with some frequent periodic purge like daily. The problem is that data, once collected, is often never deleted.
I suppose because the meaning of "assumption of (possible right)" has been corrupted.
The rules of society aren't handed down on stone tablets. Society works the way we decide it should. If a lot of people think, like you, that you shouldn't expect to be able to drive around anonymously and untracked in public, then you're right. There is no reasonable assumption of privacy while driving on a public road. If most people think we should expect to be able to travel unwatched, then perhaps we should, and people who infringe that right should be made to stop.
Personally, when I hop in my car and drive to work, I do tend to assume that nobody knows where I am from the moment I say bye to the wife and kids, to the moment I badge in at work. If most people agree with me, that argues my assumption is reasonable.
As someone who has actually driven to help search for someone's missing child more than once, yeah, I get this. Telling a bunch of people who are sleeping, nearly all of whom are not going to get up and go look for this car, that a child is missing somewhere in a large area (read: you're extremely unlikely to go outside and see this car) is stupid. Telling people things in stupid ways gets them ignored. You don't have to like it, but it's true, and it's what actually happened.
My kids' school does something similar. Every bleeping day they have 2-6 "important announcements" that they have to call my cell phone about. Every day I let them go to voice mail and delete it unheard, not because I don't care, but because I actually did listen to them in the beginning and they were never important announcements. It was often crap like grade so-and-so is having a fund raiser, or remember to send (thing) if your child is going on the field trip my kids weren't going on.
Attention is a precious commodity. Abuse it and lose it.
And here I was, about to tease you for saying something doesn't make sense while your sig refers to a bible verse. Not wanting to look a total fool, I looked it up first.
1) The NSA is so far advanced in cryptography that they were able to discover this prior to 2001 (when it got approved) and nobody else has.
NSA had DES modified in the early 1970s to make it resistant to differential cryptanalysis. The general public, meaning non-classified cryptographers, "discovered" differential cryptanalysis in the late 1980s. So yeah, the NSA is probably a lot better at cryptography than you think.
Your tax dollars don't pay for my healthcare. If and when they do, it won't be because I voted for it. So why do you get a right to decide what I eat again?
I fired my last insurance company for erroneously cancelling my homeowner's policy twice. Sort of. The first time, I confess, I erred and forgot to send the payment on my car insurance in a timely manner. They did the irrational thing, and took the money from the paid-in-full homeowner's policy, and paid the auto policy. No, sorry idjits, you don't get to unpay my bills. This would have bothered me less if they hadn't sent me and my mortgage company a cancellation notice when they did it. Before someone jumps in about how it's all my fault, they themselves agreed they screwed up, and they fixed it.
The second time, I called in to cancel my auto insurance, having already procured coverage from another company. I decided not to renew after the first screw up. In true screw up fashion, I got a letter a few days later confirming cancellation of my homeowner's policy. Yes, these morons, when told to cancel my auto policy, cancelled my homeowner's policy AND sent a letter to my mortgage holder to that effect, who promptly sent me an invoice for just shy of $2,000 for replacement coverage. Fine, ya morons. After successfully demanding AGAIN that they fix the mess they made, I bought homeowner's insurance through another company and cancelled coverage. They had the nerve to send me my refund with the reason for my cancellation being "coverage too expensive". No, company too $%&@*^$ stupid to put up with anymore.
Depending on the size of your organization, "orders" can come from very high up and bringing it to the attention of management at a level that can actually change it is just plain not gonna happen.
Sometimes we've also already told management we disagree with a particular policy for @REASONS. Sometimes that doesn't get the policy changed, and we're still charged with enforcing it. Sorry. We're no happier about it than you are.
It doesn't say they're putting a permanent human colony on a different planet.
It says establish a program to develop. All they actually have to do is establish a program that's intended to develop such a program that will theoretically result in such a colony way off in the nebulous future. I can see that being done on not much money. Actually succeeding, of course, will require that enormous expense.
No, they don't. Read the PMBOK*, or do a thought experiment - sometimes you need to perform a project in order to meet regulatory requirements. I've done this myself. We spent half a million dollars for no financial benefit except that it meant we wouldn't be shut down by the federal regulators.
You don't view not being shut down as a financial benefit? Or a savings of money? Unless you're a loss-making enterprise, continuing in operation is usually an important thing.
Private contractor with a security clearance, which implies he did make some promise to protect the information he was given. Whether the words "enemies, foreign and domestic" are part of that set of promises, I have no idea.
All agencies use contractors. It's very likely not because NSA employees aren't supposed to be doing the work. It's just the way the government gets work done.
1) Information like this tends to be used for other things. Sometimes those other things are objectionable to the point where you wouldn't consent to give up the information if you knew what it was going to be used for later. 2) It's wasteful of taxpayer money. 3) It conditions these kids to obey questionable directions from people in positions of authority, even when those directions reach beyond their authority. 4) It's not clear what actual problem they're solving. Older kids have been getting on buses forever and do fine. Younger kids should be under the direct supervision of an adult. 5) Solving such non-problems often goes hand-in-hand with not solving actual problems. I can't speak for FL, but in my neck of the woods it's common for kids, even in elementary schools, to have bus stops on roads with significant traffic and high (40 and up) speed limits. Every year there are news reports of kids hit and killed, but hey, the school district saves a little money by not driving into subdivisions. I'm sure these schools have something more useful they could do with the time, money, and attention that went into doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's going to happen. Especially in crowded traffic. In those circumstances I'd much rather my life depend on something with a reaction time that will make the moving cars seem almost stationary.
Here's how this should play out:
1) Smart people with lots of money start developing these (happening now)
2) In real life trials, they work, and are statistically safer than human drivers (looks promising...)
3) In time, they're indisputably a lot safer than human drivers (we'll see, but I think this will happen).
Once you get to 3, not switching to driverless cars becomes rather dumb.
I don't want to give up my driving freedom. Having seen how the rest of you drive, though, I want all of you to give up your driving freedom because I swear, I'd drive better sleepy, drunk, and texting all at the same time than some of you.
Giving up driving is a price I'm willing to pay if I don't have to risk my life on your competence behind the wheel.
It's actually not a moronic study. It's a necessary study to get people to stop enacting moronic policies. If people didn't do stupid things, we wouldn't have to do studies like this to persuade them to stop.
Hah! Me! I said as much when my uni instituted a mandatory laptop policy in 1997 or 1998.
I do get your sarcasm, it just irritated me when they did it. Just yet another example of not having any concrete ideas of how to improve education, so let's throw technology/money at it, made worse because they weren't even throwing their own money. They just blanket made everyone buy a laptop they specified, whether or not they actually needed it, whether or not it actually improved the educational experience.
And of course, the latest silver bullet is tablets.
You should accept that language evolves and that you're on the losing side of this one. Decide if you want to be understood, or be "right".
Sure there is. It's hard. Or perhaps it's better to say, it has enough moving parts that it gets screwed up pretty frequently. For example, it's secure until your boss sends you AnnualReport.docx, which happens to contain a virus (and actually wasn't sent by your boss).
I agree, I just extend that to pretty much all computer products. I hope that someday the plague of insecure software will end, but we're nowhere near that now.
Oh, give me a break.
Not every attack is "terrorism". Not every crime is terrorism.
IF this materializes, which who knows, it might, it will most likely be cyber-annoyance. You'll try to buy something on amazon and it'll be slow, so you'll do it later. Some web sites may be DDOSed off the net for a day or three. Life will go on.
That doesn't really work here, because a conventional speed trap is just measuring your location over points much closer together. Infinitesimally, I suppose, if we're talking doppler.
I wouldn't have any real objection to such a system if the collected data was purged once it was no longer useful for its intended purpose. In this case, once more time has elapsed than it takes you to cover 20 miles, though really I'd be fine with some frequent periodic purge like daily. The problem is that data, once collected, is often never deleted.
I suppose because the meaning of "assumption of (possible right)" has been corrupted.
The rules of society aren't handed down on stone tablets. Society works the way we decide it should. If a lot of people think, like you, that you shouldn't expect to be able to drive around anonymously and untracked in public, then you're right. There is no reasonable assumption of privacy while driving on a public road. If most people think we should expect to be able to travel unwatched, then perhaps we should, and people who infringe that right should be made to stop.
Personally, when I hop in my car and drive to work, I do tend to assume that nobody knows where I am from the moment I say bye to the wife and kids, to the moment I badge in at work. If most people agree with me, that argues my assumption is reasonable.
You go from properly skeptical here:
to ridiculously optimistic here:
Come on. Boston would have been level 0. They shut the entire CITY down, and you think they're not going to overreact on the alerts?
As someone who has actually driven to help search for someone's missing child more than once, yeah, I get this. Telling a bunch of people who are sleeping, nearly all of whom are not going to get up and go look for this car, that a child is missing somewhere in a large area (read: you're extremely unlikely to go outside and see this car) is stupid. Telling people things in stupid ways gets them ignored. You don't have to like it, but it's true, and it's what actually happened.
My kids' school does something similar. Every bleeping day they have 2-6 "important announcements" that they have to call my cell phone about. Every day I let them go to voice mail and delete it unheard, not because I don't care, but because I actually did listen to them in the beginning and they were never important announcements. It was often crap like grade so-and-so is having a fund raiser, or remember to send (thing) if your child is going on the field trip my kids weren't going on.
Attention is a precious commodity. Abuse it and lose it.
Or not, because moving often means driving and if I'm driving you really shouldn't encourage me to read my phone.
And here I was, about to tease you for saying something doesn't make sense while your sig refers to a bible verse. Not wanting to look a total fool, I looked it up first.
Well played. Very well played.
NSA had DES modified in the early 1970s to make it resistant to differential cryptanalysis. The general public, meaning non-classified cryptographers, "discovered" differential cryptanalysis in the late 1980s. So yeah, the NSA is probably a lot better at cryptography than you think.
Your tax dollars don't pay for my healthcare. If and when they do, it won't be because I voted for it. So why do you get a right to decide what I eat again?
Not at all. Brains are useful.
I fired my last insurance company for erroneously cancelling my homeowner's policy twice. Sort of. The first time, I confess, I erred and forgot to send the payment on my car insurance in a timely manner. They did the irrational thing, and took the money from the paid-in-full homeowner's policy, and paid the auto policy. No, sorry idjits, you don't get to unpay my bills. This would have bothered me less if they hadn't sent me and my mortgage company a cancellation notice when they did it. Before someone jumps in about how it's all my fault, they themselves agreed they screwed up, and they fixed it.
The second time, I called in to cancel my auto insurance, having already procured coverage from another company. I decided not to renew after the first screw up. In true screw up fashion, I got a letter a few days later confirming cancellation of my homeowner's policy. Yes, these morons, when told to cancel my auto policy, cancelled my homeowner's policy AND sent a letter to my mortgage holder to that effect, who promptly sent me an invoice for just shy of $2,000 for replacement coverage. Fine, ya morons. After successfully demanding AGAIN that they fix the mess they made, I bought homeowner's insurance through another company and cancelled coverage. They had the nerve to send me my refund with the reason for my cancellation being "coverage too expensive". No, company too $%&@*^$ stupid to put up with anymore.
Depending on the size of your organization, "orders" can come from very high up and bringing it to the attention of management at a level that can actually change it is just plain not gonna happen.
Sometimes we've also already told management we disagree with a particular policy for @REASONS. Sometimes that doesn't get the policy changed, and we're still charged with enforcing it. Sorry. We're no happier about it than you are.
It doesn't say they're putting a permanent human colony on a different planet.
It says establish a program to develop. All they actually have to do is establish a program that's intended to develop such a program that will theoretically result in such a colony way off in the nebulous future. I can see that being done on not much money. Actually succeeding, of course, will require that enormous expense.
Realistically, it goes back to court.
Interestingly, a lot more people have died from oppressive government than terrorism.
You're right, though. Eat well, exercise, and don't drive like a moron. Also watch out for your country going down the tubes.
And then THEY should fire THEMSELVES for not fixing the problem THEMSELVES long ago.
You don't view not being shut down as a financial benefit? Or a savings of money? Unless you're a loss-making enterprise, continuing in operation is usually an important thing.
Private contractor with a security clearance, which implies he did make some promise to protect the information he was given. Whether the words "enemies, foreign and domestic" are part of that set of promises, I have no idea.
All agencies use contractors. It's very likely not because NSA employees aren't supposed to be doing the work. It's just the way the government gets work done.
1) Information like this tends to be used for other things. Sometimes those other things are objectionable to the point where you wouldn't consent to give up the information if you knew what it was going to be used for later.
2) It's wasteful of taxpayer money.
3) It conditions these kids to obey questionable directions from people in positions of authority, even when those directions reach beyond their authority.
4) It's not clear what actual problem they're solving. Older kids have been getting on buses forever and do fine. Younger kids should be under the direct supervision of an adult.
5) Solving such non-problems often goes hand-in-hand with not solving actual problems. I can't speak for FL, but in my neck of the woods it's common for kids, even in elementary schools, to have bus stops on roads with significant traffic and high (40 and up) speed limits. Every year there are news reports of kids hit and killed, but hey, the school district saves a little money by not driving into subdivisions. I'm sure these schools have something more useful they could do with the time, money, and attention that went into doing this.
That's just off the top of my head.