First of all, the government has acted irresponsibly with the powers it already has. Giving them the ability to remotely control our appliances is a terrible idea. We have to fix the problem with the unaccountable government and lack of societal trust before we start even thinking about these sorts of pie-in-the-sky, cooperative efforts which require a VERY high amount of accountability by those in control.
Second of all, even if the government can be trusted, the companies that will build these things will not take security seriously. I won't say maybe; I won't say possibly. Definitely. These things will definitely not be secure. Most companies still think they can just take a half-hearted crack at security, let marketing make it sound impermeable to the masses and act surprised when it comes out that the security was crap in the first place. It's pretty much the industry model at this point.
Finally, and most importantly, it's not even clear that smart meters will have the intended effect, that people adjust usage. As another commenter pointed out, when everyone is using electricity at the same time, there is usually a reason for that.
My fear is that these devices will be forced upon the public (they already are forcing the "smart" meters on us), and when the evidence is gathered that consumers don't adjust usage voluntarily, it will be done by force. And, the government does absolutely nothing to make me think this won't happen. Why should we, the public, accept this?
Have you pondered that the purpose is to cut the "think of the children" argument off at the pass? It's up to the rest of us to defeat that logic now before it's too late. I, personally, support Defense Distributed pushing the envelope with both 3D printers and gun rights. What value does a free society have if we cannot tackle the difficult questions like adults?
At what point does a bad office layout drive you to seek new employment? It might seem ridiculous at first cut, but if you work in a terrible office, it really drags on you. And, better yet, how does one find out at a new job exactly what the work environment is like? Interviews are not usually done near the cube farm. Do you ask to see an example section of the building?
While your comment is completely reasonable out of context, in the context of this discussion it is completely anti-freedom. The problem here is that the DMCA makes rights opt-in by government, rather than out-out. That is to say that laws like the DMCA assume that you have no rights unless the government or a corporation allows you them explicitly. That is so anti-American it makes me want to vomit. The standard arrangement needs to be that you can do with your property whatever you please as long as you aren't violating other laws which are in place to secure others' safety, the environment, etc.
In summary, you are right that in a civilized society, we can't just do whatever we please, but you are wrong that a sensible solution is to make a law which carte blanche disallows consumers from free modification of their own property. That's like the worst solution to the problem. In a free society (assuming that's what we are), the solution is to create laws which narrowly limit freedoms to promote public good on an ad hoc basis for an explicit and narrow purpose and rely on tort law to fill the gap until such time that new laws with reasonable scope can be created as needed.
I've read about this guy's idea, and I can see why it won't catch on. It feels very nanny state. It seems like if we're going to mandate technology to stop people from using cell phones while driving it should be handsfree technology. If we give teens (for example) a good handsfree alternative to texting in the car, they'll use it. So, let's not spend the money trying to jam communications, something that feels very nannyish and is likely to be worked around by drivers. Let's spend the money and give people and incentive to put down the phone and drive. Handsfree texting and calling would do this. Ford Sync does this, but the system is quite inferior to Siri or Google's voice recognition.
I never knew that. Are you American? I was absolutely never taught that, and I've never seen any sign which implies that is the correct action. I hate roundabouts actually, as they instill anxiety in me.
I love minivans. I spent the best years of my life in a minivan, as a teen and young 20-something borrowing the family minivan. I loved taking a road trip with 5 friends. I loved the comfort. But minivans are not superior to crossovers (which have largely replaced SUVs in the market) in design, fuel economy, safety or color choice (!?). I've been looking to buy a people hauler, and I've looked at crossovers and SUVs. I like the Ford Flex and the Chrysler Town and Country (the classic minivan!). They are similarly specced in terms of fuel economy, price and safety. In fact, the Ecoboost engine option in the Flex gives it superior fuel economy to most minivans. Design? Not even a contest. The Flex wins. More cubic feet, more fit and finish (barely when compared to a T&C) and better powertrain options. The Flex is not an SUV, but crossovers have largely taken the place of SUVs.
I really don't see the value in minivans anymore. Crossovers are better, and wagons and hatchbacks are a solid option if hauling stuff is your goal. Even SUVs get similar fuel economy to minivans these days, sacrificing people hauling prowess per MPG and ease of drivability for superior design and bad condition drivability. You had some axe to grind, but I think you're like the person who rags in American automobile reliability: stuck in the past.
We couldn't find any of these users in our system, so we knew they weren't customers.
That is demonstrably poor reasoning. Anyone who puts their real name on yelp is an idiot.
What's more, most reviews were factually and demonstrably inaccurate.
Specious, and you've already demonstrated specious reasoning.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you sound like a bad business owner, or in this case your friend is a bad business owner. You're demonstrating the telltale signs. Bad business owners often have a difficulty accepting responsibility. Bad business owners twist the facts to support their own side (you've stated that it not possible that these reviewers were customers). Worst of all, this business has attempted to retaliate against customers (I can see little to no reason to attempt to out the Yelp reviewers if not retaliation).
I have a Yelp account, and it's not in my real name. I leave bad reviews (and good ones). You could say I have a history of making bad reviews. You could also say that this business you are talking about has a history of receiving bad reviews. Yelp is far from perfect, but in business-friendly America, it's one of the most powerful tools we as consumers have to bleed dry bad businesses and bolster good ones. If this business wants friends' reviews visible, those people need to get more active on Yelp. That's it. That's the whole filtering algorithm as best I can tell. If you create a Yelp account for one single review, you get filtered. If you write more reviews, you don't.
In addition, I would challenge Charlie's and Chris's assessment of this. I didn't dig into it myself, but I would guess that a stateless gateway allows the radio to talk to the brakes in most autos, not just the few identified.
These this will naturally become shuttles and taxi services almost immediately. Given the protests of Uber and Lyft, what will the outcry be for these?
Well, given that the protests against those companies are mostly policy-rooted and not technology-rooted, at this point it is almost impossible to tell. Are you suggesting that these shuttles and taxis will defy existing laws and fail to get licenses? Then, I would assume that the outcry will be the same. If these hypotehtical taxis get licensed, probably none.
Every iOS device has a dedicated AES 256-bit crypto engine built in that is used to encrypt all data on the device at all times. In addition, the iOS Cryptographic Modules have been granted FIPS 140-2 compliance by the U.S. federal government on devices running iOS 6.
If passcode-protected whole phone encryption is enabled, no one should be able to access that without the key. I guess they know how it works more than I do. They've even redefined encryption. It's "encrypted" just like everything else these days. I guess it's still technically encrypted even if everyone has a key.
I guess that's a reasonable response. It fits in with the notion that SVN stores much more information in the actual repository. In practice, there are a few issues, however.
In a controlled (read: corporate) environment, the architect or lead or integration person may feel ownership over the repository, and, therefore, resist the excess creation of personal branches. In any environment, it can create a lot of clutter in the repo which leads to cognitive noise. Branches will be merged back in, potentially leaving a messier looking history. With the stash/shelve feature, when the code is finally committed, it ends up looking more like a linear development line. This, again, reduces cognitive noise.
I think having special "stash branches" in an SVN-like repo is an intriguing idea.
You're not alone. Git is great, but has a terrible interface. I know many respectable and intelligent software engineers who find the interface difficult. It goes beyond RTFM. OTOH, SVN has an amazing interface. Very well thought out. I think SVN would be just as great as git if not better if it added in some of Git's features.
What's cool about git?
Distributed and offline operation. Repositories are local and can be "synced" to one another when online. There can be a central repo with which everyone syncs, or syncs can happen between individuals' workstations. It's hard to describe to a someone who's never used distributed version control exactly why this is great beyond the offline part of it.
The stash/shelve feature is sorely missing from SVN. Ever performed an updated with uncommitted changes? It sucks. If you stash beforehand, it drastically reduces the possibility that you lose any work, as you can systematically revert to the previous working state. This is a 100% client side solution, so could be added to SVN without breaking any compatibility.
Staging. All files are manually chosen for commit before a commit. In the most basic form, tracked and modified files are not automatically committed). Staging is actually a little more useful than that, but I don't know if I can describe well enough how. Again, totally client side operation.
Auto-merging excellence. Git does makes a lot more merging automatic by using more history in the merge process. This can be done by subversion, but is somewhat of a divergence from how Subversion has historically treated changes. Most people agree that the git way is smarter, and should probably influence SVN's future direction IMO. Git's merge strategy would be implementable completely in a client. SVN saves more information in the repo than git.
Rebasing. This is essentially a combination of stashing and merging. When changes are made to an older version of the code, a developer needs to pull in the new software and then merge in his or her changes again. Rebasing does this automatically (essentially using stash before the update and the excellent git merge algorithm to reapply those changes to the updated code).
In conclusion, Git is great, but you're not crazy for finding the interface insurmountable.
Poison the well. A browser plugin could be created that identifies trackers and just shovels so much false information that it is practically very difficult to identify what the user actually did verses what was false.
Heh. With the pace we're on, whether or not you have access to your DNA information and whether or not it's in your medical history, it will be in a database with essentially unfettered access by the NSA, FBI, TSA, ATF, CIA and probably the local police should their buddy the 5 term, hard-on-crime judge agree.
To counter your terminology argument, often in technology, backwards compatible is preferable to a redesign. Git redesigned the version control interface and that seems unnecessary. Only the most stubborn git users would say git has a better interface than subversion, which has an excellent one.
If subversion took the git lessons and added them in, it would be so much better than git ever could be. The stellar parts of git could be added into subversion more cleanly than vice versa.
To make me never think of git again, subversion needs:
* distributed and offline operation (duh)
* the stash/shelve feature (and might as well add in auto-stashing when an update is performed on a repo with changes)
* staging for all commits (no auto-staging of known files anymore)
* the auto-merging excellence of git
For git to be better than subversion with those features, it needs a complete redesign.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, the government has acted irresponsibly with the powers it already has. Giving them the ability to remotely control our appliances is a terrible idea. We have to fix the problem with the unaccountable government and lack of societal trust before we start even thinking about these sorts of pie-in-the-sky, cooperative efforts which require a VERY high amount of accountability by those in control.
Second of all, even if the government can be trusted, the companies that will build these things will not take security seriously. I won't say maybe; I won't say possibly. Definitely. These things will definitely not be secure. Most companies still think they can just take a half-hearted crack at security, let marketing make it sound impermeable to the masses and act surprised when it comes out that the security was crap in the first place. It's pretty much the industry model at this point.
Finally, and most importantly, it's not even clear that smart meters will have the intended effect, that people adjust usage. As another commenter pointed out, when everyone is using electricity at the same time, there is usually a reason for that.
My fear is that these devices will be forced upon the public (they already are forcing the "smart" meters on us), and when the evidence is gathered that consumers don't adjust usage voluntarily, it will be done by force. And, the government does absolutely nothing to make me think this won't happen. Why should we, the public, accept this?
So, your suggestion is that we roll over? No thanks.
Have you pondered that the purpose is to cut the "think of the children" argument off at the pass? It's up to the rest of us to defeat that logic now before it's too late. I, personally, support Defense Distributed pushing the envelope with both 3D printers and gun rights. What value does a free society have if we cannot tackle the difficult questions like adults?
At what point does a bad office layout drive you to seek new employment? It might seem ridiculous at first cut, but if you work in a terrible office, it really drags on you. And, better yet, how does one find out at a new job exactly what the work environment is like? Interviews are not usually done near the cube farm. Do you ask to see an example section of the building?
While your comment is completely reasonable out of context, in the context of this discussion it is completely anti-freedom. The problem here is that the DMCA makes rights opt-in by government, rather than out-out. That is to say that laws like the DMCA assume that you have no rights unless the government or a corporation allows you them explicitly. That is so anti-American it makes me want to vomit. The standard arrangement needs to be that you can do with your property whatever you please as long as you aren't violating other laws which are in place to secure others' safety, the environment, etc.
In summary, you are right that in a civilized society, we can't just do whatever we please, but you are wrong that a sensible solution is to make a law which carte blanche disallows consumers from free modification of their own property. That's like the worst solution to the problem. In a free society (assuming that's what we are), the solution is to create laws which narrowly limit freedoms to promote public good on an ad hoc basis for an explicit and narrow purpose and rely on tort law to fill the gap until such time that new laws with reasonable scope can be created as needed.
I've read about this guy's idea, and I can see why it won't catch on. It feels very nanny state. It seems like if we're going to mandate technology to stop people from using cell phones while driving it should be handsfree technology. If we give teens (for example) a good handsfree alternative to texting in the car, they'll use it. So, let's not spend the money trying to jam communications, something that feels very nannyish and is likely to be worked around by drivers. Let's spend the money and give people and incentive to put down the phone and drive. Handsfree texting and calling would do this. Ford Sync does this, but the system is quite inferior to Siri or Google's voice recognition.
I never knew that. Are you American? I was absolutely never taught that, and I've never seen any sign which implies that is the correct action. I hate roundabouts actually, as they instill anxiety in me.
I love minivans. I spent the best years of my life in a minivan, as a teen and young 20-something borrowing the family minivan. I loved taking a road trip with 5 friends. I loved the comfort. But minivans are not superior to crossovers (which have largely replaced SUVs in the market) in design, fuel economy, safety or color choice (!?). I've been looking to buy a people hauler, and I've looked at crossovers and SUVs. I like the Ford Flex and the Chrysler Town and Country (the classic minivan!). They are similarly specced in terms of fuel economy, price and safety. In fact, the Ecoboost engine option in the Flex gives it superior fuel economy to most minivans. Design? Not even a contest. The Flex wins. More cubic feet, more fit and finish (barely when compared to a T&C) and better powertrain options. The Flex is not an SUV, but crossovers have largely taken the place of SUVs.
I really don't see the value in minivans anymore. Crossovers are better, and wagons and hatchbacks are a solid option if hauling stuff is your goal. Even SUVs get similar fuel economy to minivans these days, sacrificing people hauling prowess per MPG and ease of drivability for superior design and bad condition drivability. You had some axe to grind, but I think you're like the person who rags in American automobile reliability: stuck in the past.
Tuition doesn't cover any use of university resources outside of education or recreation.
It does at the university I attended.
We couldn't find any of these users in our system, so we knew they weren't customers.
That is demonstrably poor reasoning. Anyone who puts their real name on yelp is an idiot.
What's more, most reviews were factually and demonstrably inaccurate.
Specious, and you've already demonstrated specious reasoning.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you sound like a bad business owner, or in this case your friend is a bad business owner. You're demonstrating the telltale signs. Bad business owners often have a difficulty accepting responsibility. Bad business owners twist the facts to support their own side (you've stated that it not possible that these reviewers were customers). Worst of all, this business has attempted to retaliate against customers (I can see little to no reason to attempt to out the Yelp reviewers if not retaliation).
I have a Yelp account, and it's not in my real name. I leave bad reviews (and good ones). You could say I have a history of making bad reviews. You could also say that this business you are talking about has a history of receiving bad reviews. Yelp is far from perfect, but in business-friendly America, it's one of the most powerful tools we as consumers have to bleed dry bad businesses and bolster good ones. If this business wants friends' reviews visible, those people need to get more active on Yelp. That's it. That's the whole filtering algorithm as best I can tell. If you create a Yelp account for one single review, you get filtered. If you write more reviews, you don't.
That doesn't make any sense. You pay tuition to use those resources. Your output should be yours.
...ghetto culture...
...any inner city youth, they are discouraged from learning because it's considered "acting white"
Wow. So, we're modding up straight up racists now?
In addition, I would challenge Charlie's and Chris's assessment of this. I didn't dig into it myself, but I would guess that a stateless gateway allows the radio to talk to the brakes in most autos, not just the few identified.
ONLY TWICE!? I apply ROT-13 no less than 20 times, 30 for e-banking passwords.
These this will naturally become shuttles and taxi services almost immediately. Given the protests of Uber and Lyft, what will the outcry be for these?
Well, given that the protests against those companies are mostly policy-rooted and not technology-rooted, at this point it is almost impossible to tell. Are you suggesting that these shuttles and taxis will defy existing laws and fail to get licenses? Then, I would assume that the outcry will be the same. If these hypotehtical taxis get licensed, probably none.
Someone should enshrine that in some sort of high code of law upon which all other laws will be based in some sort of new democratic society...
Every iOS device has a dedicated AES 256-bit crypto engine built in that is used to encrypt all data on the device at all times. In addition, the iOS Cryptographic Modules have been granted FIPS 140-2 compliance by the U.S. federal government on devices running iOS 6.
Emphasis mine. Sounds like doublespeak to me.
https://support.apple.com/kb/h...
If passcode-protected whole phone encryption is enabled, no one should be able to access that without the key. I guess they know how it works more than I do. They've even redefined encryption. It's "encrypted" just like everything else these days. I guess it's still technically encrypted even if everyone has a key.
I guess that's a reasonable response. It fits in with the notion that SVN stores much more information in the actual repository. In practice, there are a few issues, however.
In a controlled (read: corporate) environment, the architect or lead or integration person may feel ownership over the repository, and, therefore, resist the excess creation of personal branches. In any environment, it can create a lot of clutter in the repo which leads to cognitive noise. Branches will be merged back in, potentially leaving a messier looking history. With the stash/shelve feature, when the code is finally committed, it ends up looking more like a linear development line. This, again, reduces cognitive noise.
I think having special "stash branches" in an SVN-like repo is an intriguing idea.
You're not alone. Git is great, but has a terrible interface. I know many respectable and intelligent software engineers who find the interface difficult. It goes beyond RTFM. OTOH, SVN has an amazing interface. Very well thought out. I think SVN would be just as great as git if not better if it added in some of Git's features.
What's cool about git?
In conclusion, Git is great, but you're not crazy for finding the interface insurmountable.
There is no way to stop this that I can think of
Poison the well. A browser plugin could be created that identifies trackers and just shovels so much false information that it is practically very difficult to identify what the user actually did verses what was false.
Shit. I totally whiffed on DEA!
Heh. With the pace we're on, whether or not you have access to your DNA information and whether or not it's in your medical history, it will be in a database with essentially unfettered access by the NSA, FBI, TSA, ATF, CIA and probably the local police should their buddy the 5 term, hard-on-crime judge agree.
To counter your terminology argument, often in technology, backwards compatible is preferable to a redesign. Git redesigned the version control interface and that seems unnecessary. Only the most stubborn git users would say git has a better interface than subversion, which has an excellent one.
If subversion took the git lessons and added them in, it would be so much better than git ever could be. The stellar parts of git could be added into subversion more cleanly than vice versa.
To make me never think of git again, subversion needs:
For git to be better than subversion with those features, it needs a complete redesign.
People sold their soul and got nothing in exchange. I'd rather have been the martyr than the inquisitor, and that's saying a lot.