I don't believe it was cracked, but the errors introduced ended up causing problems for everyone (such as the FAA), which combined with Differential GPS (which allowed you to compensate for the error almost completely) made it worse than worthless.
A person with a wide range of historical knowledge, as opposed to an expert in one field (like the American Civil War or ancient Greece). Strictly speaking, you be a polymath in a specific field if that field in turn has a large variety of largely separate sub-fields, although it is not generally used that way. The term makes sense, although it really doesn't seem relevant or required here at all.
You're right the free speech issues here are minimal. The real problem is how we deal with the mentally ill in this country. He needs help, not prison.
And thats why they took him to a mental hospital (John Randolph Psychiatric Hospital, to be specific) and not prison. He wasn't technically arrested or charged with any crime at all, it was a "civil commitment" (which law exists, I believe, to hold individuals who are believed to be a potential danger to themselves/others).
I find the term A.I. to be racist, and indicative of the chauvinistic attitude some humans have about their own mental prowess -- Your brains are not special. Any sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience, because that IS what sentience is. Once cybernetic systems attain (and surpass) the level of complexity present in humans brains, Artificial Intelligence will be a derogatory term: "Oh you pass yourself off as being smart, but you're just Artificially Intelligent -- You don't actually understand anything!"
First of all, thats a pretty horrible misuse of the term "racist", and second, the term "artificial" means, by definition, created through art (art here being the broad sense as any product of human activity, rather than the fine arts): i.e. created by human intention and design. By definition "Machine Intelligence" is "Artificial Intelligence", at least so far as we have created it. That intelligence is designed and a product of human work. It's intended, and is brought about not because of some emergent behavior found naturally in existence, but because humans arranged it that way and brought it about. That's not in any way racist, it's just the meaning of the words.
It would be completely irrational and contradictory to the very meaning of the term to call humans "artificial life", since we were not created by human art. You'd destroy the meaning of the words to call humans "artificial", just as we wouldn't call the sun "artificial" even if you said it was created by a god, since that's not what the word means. Long story short, you are trying to destroy the meaning of words. Don't do that: it's bad for everyone.
Not exactly. Judges can render laws partly or wholly invalid (or inapplicable in a specific case) should they violate the US Constitution. The original judge in fact did just that: held the statutory damage in this case to be "cruel and unusual" and thus reduced them. But yes, the primary fault is with the lawmakers. The judges do share in the blame in this case, though.
Oops, missed the "lower" bit when I was skimming TFA. However, according to wikipedia only the "serialized" receiver (lower for the AR-15) is the "gun" in US law for guns that have multi-part receivers, so you would still get around the legal difficulty of purchasing an AR-15 (not that they are terribly difficult to find, in any case). But I agree, you won't have people printing complete plastic guns anytime soon: even if plastic could be strong enough, the kind you use in a RepRap certainly isn't. It tends to have a very low melting point, for one, which is obviously not a good thing in a gun. You'll really have to wait until 3d metal printing becomes common before that happens.
That was my thought as well, although someone claimed they were able to print out a receiver for an AR-15 and fire a few hundred rounds without noticeable wear. Since the receiver is the "gun" part according to US law, that is all you need to circumvent any regulations. The rest of the parts can, I believe, be acquired with no or very little licensing. I don't think making the entire thing of plastic is very practical, and might not even be possible for most gun designs (anything that requires a spring, for example, won't work).
OTOH if you could, it would give you a weapon undetectable by normal metal detectors. The bullet and casing would be metal still, but you could probably get around that.
I look forward to your telling me how this is invalid evidence, though.
Well first of all, the site proudly proclaims it is run by lawyers. As others have noted, lawyers make millions of dollars off of class action lawsuits while the injured parties are lucky to make a few dollars, which makes me inclined to be highly suspicious of anything they claim right off the bat (I'm actually suspicious of anything lawyers claim period: many of them make a living by saying things that are not technically false, but which any reasonable person would call a lie). Oh and
Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of froced arbitration (81 percent) when presented with all the facts.
(emphasis mine, but otherwise sic.) so, you just might want to find a better source. Because honestly, if they can't be bothered to notice such an obvious typo, I'm simply not going to believe them. And language like "all of the facts" is usually code for "the facts as we present them and what we care to present", which is of course usually neither very factual nor very "all".
The terms specify that eBay will pay the costs of the arbitration (so long as the judgment is under $10,000 dollars) unless it is deemed as frivolous by the arbitrator, so it won't cost the individual a dime in legitimate cases. Also they allow arbitration by telephone for under a certain amount (don't recall the exact figure), so it isn't even a terrible inconvenience.
There is also the fact that if eBay really does start fucking over customers (more than they do already), people will find out and stop using eBay. The Internet is quite good at that.
Do you have any evidence that arbitration actually biases it in their favor? The Federal Arbitration Act specifically states that for the arbitration to prevent entering court, it must be fair: at least as fair as going to court would be. In other words, if it actually is biased for the companies, they could be sued over that for violating the law. In other words, you can only have an arbitration clause in the first place if it is actually fair (IANAL, of course).
This is possible. You'd have to track car length (a tractor-trailer truck takes much longer to go through the stop light than a Prius, for instance) and that would prevent pedestrian crossings at stoplights, which is actually a pretty significant problem. Of course in some places you could build a bridge or tunnel for them, but that isn't feasible everywhere.
Such system are, however, a natural progression of automated driving and would massively decrease travel times and fuel wastage (in theory, every car could be travel at or near the speed limit, always, even during the busiest times).
I think it would need technically need to be "star-devouring" to mean a planet that devours stars. As it stands, it is not strictly speaking ambiguous, unless you relax the rules somewhat. Since this is the Internet, though, I supposed relaxed rules are the norm, so you do make a valid point.
These aren't driverless cars. The crash-avoidance system is a supplement to help drivers avoid collision (giving them warnings of incoming cars at intersections, alerts of possible rear end collisions, stuff like that), rather than a replacement for the drivers. In other words, if the system goes down you simply don't get the benefits, which is exactly what we have now anyways.
So is charging into a showing of The Dark Knight Rises with smoke bombs and guns. Especially with soldiers who have seen combat, there is a real and very unfortunate risk that they will come unhinged and start killing people randomly. It happens in wartime scenarios all the time, and it has been known to happen afterwards as well.
I noticed the summary conveniently forgets to mention that there are also several hundred boxes of paper evidence. The electronic evidence is only one piece they mentioned: claiming, as the summary does, that they are dropping it due to lack of electronic data storage is somewhat misleading. And of course if Panama isn't going to extradite him anyways, which seems extremely likely, keeping the case open is a waste of resources no matter how you look at it.
And of course it isn't like these are 2 terabytes of Blu-ray movies: it's probably mostly text and image files, and that is a lot of text documents to keep track of and make sure are backed up on a regular basis, with a full chain of custody to ensure they aren't being tampered with and whatnot. Sure, 40 TB sounds like a small amount of data, but then again if you introduce 4 or 5 backups with tampering resistance... it suddenly starts looking like quite a bit.
Who was it again who said "Good artists copy, great artists steal"? Steve Jobs? Oh right, he stole that quote from Picasso. No it isn't ironic, he did so deliberately, but the point is: "stealing" is what artists (and tech companies, and nearly everyone ever) do. It isn't a bad thing: in fact, it's very very good. You take good ideas, and you make them better. You add competition, with some (minor) improvement, then the original creator steals back your improvement (which Apple has done plenty of), improves on that, then you steal that, and so on and so forth. You know who wins in that arrangement? Literally everyone, but especially the customers. You know who wins when you protect the original with lawyers so that no-one else can make something similar? The lawyers. Not even the original creator, in the end: just lawyers. Which is not surprising, considering lawyers also wrote the law in the first place.
If you have physical access to the bus, it's already game over. The rest should all be segregated from the car's central computer, either through a one-way filter (aka a firewall) or simply by not being on the same network. There is no reason the radio should be able to start the car or unlock the doors, and for its part the keyless entry shouldn't be able to disengage the brakes or start the radio (but should be able to start the engine or unlock the car). The keyless system presumably has security already, so it shouldn't be a problem anyways.
Thankfully it didn't run windows so there's no virus issue.
Ha. Hahah, wow, this is... well, just straight up completely wrong. Just because it isn't Window's doesn't mean it can't get virii or other malware, not by a long shot. But anyways, even assuming you want the radio talking to the transmission, it should be a one-way communication: the radio shouldn't be able to send the transmission commands. It's odd to think of needing a firewall on your car, but with that's definitely needed for a situation like that.
Obviously, what they are doing wasn't legal, not in the way they were doing it. Facebook wouldn't have proposed a ~$20 million settlement deal if they thought what they were doing was legal.
BTW, ICBM were originally mounted on Atlas rockets then were replaced by the Titan II rockets.
And those Atlas rockets carried the first Americans into orbit. Slightly modified to be "man rated", of course, but it was based on the ICBM and was most certainly not designed from the ground up for manned missions. Of course NASA would never launch astronauts on non-man-rated rockets, that's the whole point of "man rated".
The Saturn 5 used the F-1 engine which was initially developed for the Air Force. They halted that when they realized they didn't need an engine that big, but initial development was for military purposes. And of course it was developed by German scientists who headed the whole Saturn family, from experience they had from developing the V-2 rockets. So really, it was, at least indirectly, developed by the Nazis.
Any authentication that authenticates the user using SMS (which is the only SMS authentication I'm aware of) will be unaffected, since it isn't like sending a fake code that looks like it is from Google will do anything more than a fake code from some random number. No, the only case where it can do real damage is in phishing attacks, by sending the user to a fake site to do a password reset or the like. Which, really, people should have learned not to do anyways, with how often stuff like that happens in email. It's still a problem, since some people will follow a link in an SMS that appears to come from their bank, but they shouldn't.
Australia wouldn't object to it "in principle" (some countries will actually refuse to extradite a national no matter the circumstances) but they state they would have to conduct "a formal determination on the merits of the case". And that's interesting, but again, cables discussing the possibility of extradition and requesting advanced notice of such request are a fair bit from "The US is seeking Assange at this very moment." The whole Assange case is so full of half-truths and downright lies that I hate to see even more mis-information and misleading headlines thrown around.
However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”....
The released diplomatic cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high level US advice on “the direction and likely outcome of the investigation” and “reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange”.
So, in other words, asking for advanced warning if the US does even make plans to request extradition equates to "US intends to chase Assange"? Really? I mean I have no doubt that if the US thought it could bring charges against him that didn't possibly fall under First Amendment protection, it probably would, but that is the evidence you have? The Australian embassy asking for advanced warning? That's not evidence. That's barely above speculation. Actually, no, it is speculation.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe it was cracked, but the errors introduced ended up causing problems for everyone (such as the FAA), which combined with Differential GPS (which allowed you to compensate for the error almost completely) made it worse than worthless.
A person with a wide range of historical knowledge, as opposed to an expert in one field (like the American Civil War or ancient Greece). Strictly speaking, you be a polymath in a specific field if that field in turn has a large variety of largely separate sub-fields, although it is not generally used that way. The term makes sense, although it really doesn't seem relevant or required here at all.
You're right the free speech issues here are minimal. The real problem is how we deal with the mentally ill in this country. He needs help, not prison.
And thats why they took him to a mental hospital (John Randolph Psychiatric Hospital, to be specific) and not prison. He wasn't technically arrested or charged with any crime at all, it was a "civil commitment" (which law exists, I believe, to hold individuals who are believed to be a potential danger to themselves/others).
I find the term A.I. to be racist, and indicative of the chauvinistic attitude some humans have about their own mental prowess -- Your brains are not special. Any sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience, because that IS what sentience is. Once cybernetic systems attain (and surpass) the level of complexity present in humans brains, Artificial Intelligence will be a derogatory term: "Oh you pass yourself off as being smart, but you're just Artificially Intelligent -- You don't actually understand anything!"
First of all, thats a pretty horrible misuse of the term "racist", and second, the term "artificial" means, by definition, created through art (art here being the broad sense as any product of human activity, rather than the fine arts): i.e. created by human intention and design. By definition "Machine Intelligence" is "Artificial Intelligence", at least so far as we have created it. That intelligence is designed and a product of human work. It's intended, and is brought about not because of some emergent behavior found naturally in existence, but because humans arranged it that way and brought it about. That's not in any way racist, it's just the meaning of the words.
It would be completely irrational and contradictory to the very meaning of the term to call humans "artificial life", since we were not created by human art. You'd destroy the meaning of the words to call humans "artificial", just as we wouldn't call the sun "artificial" even if you said it was created by a god, since that's not what the word means. Long story short, you are trying to destroy the meaning of words. Don't do that: it's bad for everyone.
Not exactly. Judges can render laws partly or wholly invalid (or inapplicable in a specific case) should they violate the US Constitution. The original judge in fact did just that: held the statutory damage in this case to be "cruel and unusual" and thus reduced them. But yes, the primary fault is with the lawmakers. The judges do share in the blame in this case, though.
Oops, missed the "lower" bit when I was skimming TFA. However, according to wikipedia only the "serialized" receiver (lower for the AR-15) is the "gun" in US law for guns that have multi-part receivers, so you would still get around the legal difficulty of purchasing an AR-15 (not that they are terribly difficult to find, in any case). But I agree, you won't have people printing complete plastic guns anytime soon: even if plastic could be strong enough, the kind you use in a RepRap certainly isn't. It tends to have a very low melting point, for one, which is obviously not a good thing in a gun. You'll really have to wait until 3d metal printing becomes common before that happens.
That was my thought as well, although someone claimed they were able to print out a receiver for an AR-15 and fire a few hundred rounds without noticeable wear. Since the receiver is the "gun" part according to US law, that is all you need to circumvent any regulations. The rest of the parts can, I believe, be acquired with no or very little licensing. I don't think making the entire thing of plastic is very practical, and might not even be possible for most gun designs (anything that requires a spring, for example, won't work).
OTOH if you could, it would give you a weapon undetectable by normal metal detectors. The bullet and casing would be metal still, but you could probably get around that.
I look forward to your telling me how this is invalid evidence, though.
Well first of all, the site proudly proclaims it is run by lawyers. As others have noted, lawyers make millions of dollars off of class action lawsuits while the injured parties are lucky to make a few dollars, which makes me inclined to be highly suspicious of anything they claim right off the bat (I'm actually suspicious of anything lawyers claim period: many of them make a living by saying things that are not technically false, but which any reasonable person would call a lie). Oh and
Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of froced arbitration (81 percent) when presented with all the facts.
(emphasis mine, but otherwise sic.) so, you just might want to find a better source. Because honestly, if they can't be bothered to notice such an obvious typo, I'm simply not going to believe them. And language like "all of the facts" is usually code for "the facts as we present them and what we care to present", which is of course usually neither very factual nor very "all".
And again, the arbitration is legally binding under federal law if and only if it is fair. So an unfair result allows you to sue.
The terms specify that eBay will pay the costs of the arbitration (so long as the judgment is under $10,000 dollars) unless it is deemed as frivolous by the arbitrator, so it won't cost the individual a dime in legitimate cases. Also they allow arbitration by telephone for under a certain amount (don't recall the exact figure), so it isn't even a terrible inconvenience.
There is also the fact that if eBay really does start fucking over customers (more than they do already), people will find out and stop using eBay. The Internet is quite good at that.
Do you have any evidence that arbitration actually biases it in their favor? The Federal Arbitration Act specifically states that for the arbitration to prevent entering court, it must be fair: at least as fair as going to court would be. In other words, if it actually is biased for the companies, they could be sued over that for violating the law. In other words, you can only have an arbitration clause in the first place if it is actually fair (IANAL, of course).
This is possible. You'd have to track car length (a tractor-trailer truck takes much longer to go through the stop light than a Prius, for instance) and that would prevent pedestrian crossings at stoplights, which is actually a pretty significant problem. Of course in some places you could build a bridge or tunnel for them, but that isn't feasible everywhere.
Such system are, however, a natural progression of automated driving and would massively decrease travel times and fuel wastage (in theory, every car could be travel at or near the speed limit, always, even during the busiest times).
I think it would need technically need to be "star-devouring" to mean a planet that devours stars. As it stands, it is not strictly speaking ambiguous, unless you relax the rules somewhat. Since this is the Internet, though, I supposed relaxed rules are the norm, so you do make a valid point.
These aren't driverless cars. The crash-avoidance system is a supplement to help drivers avoid collision (giving them warnings of incoming cars at intersections, alerts of possible rear end collisions, stuff like that), rather than a replacement for the drivers. In other words, if the system goes down you simply don't get the benefits, which is exactly what we have now anyways.
So is charging into a showing of The Dark Knight Rises with smoke bombs and guns. Especially with soldiers who have seen combat, there is a real and very unfortunate risk that they will come unhinged and start killing people randomly. It happens in wartime scenarios all the time, and it has been known to happen afterwards as well.
I noticed the summary conveniently forgets to mention that there are also several hundred boxes of paper evidence. The electronic evidence is only one piece they mentioned: claiming, as the summary does, that they are dropping it due to lack of electronic data storage is somewhat misleading. And of course if Panama isn't going to extradite him anyways, which seems extremely likely, keeping the case open is a waste of resources no matter how you look at it.
And of course it isn't like these are 2 terabytes of Blu-ray movies: it's probably mostly text and image files, and that is a lot of text documents to keep track of and make sure are backed up on a regular basis, with a full chain of custody to ensure they aren't being tampered with and whatnot. Sure, 40 TB sounds like a small amount of data, but then again if you introduce 4 or 5 backups with tampering resistance... it suddenly starts looking like quite a bit.
Who was it again who said "Good artists copy, great artists steal"? Steve Jobs? Oh right, he stole that quote from Picasso. No it isn't ironic, he did so deliberately, but the point is: "stealing" is what artists (and tech companies, and nearly everyone ever) do. It isn't a bad thing: in fact, it's very very good. You take good ideas, and you make them better. You add competition, with some (minor) improvement, then the original creator steals back your improvement (which Apple has done plenty of), improves on that, then you steal that, and so on and so forth. You know who wins in that arrangement? Literally everyone, but especially the customers. You know who wins when you protect the original with lawyers so that no-one else can make something similar? The lawyers. Not even the original creator, in the end: just lawyers. Which is not surprising, considering lawyers also wrote the law in the first place.
If you have physical access to the bus, it's already game over. The rest should all be segregated from the car's central computer, either through a one-way filter (aka a firewall) or simply by not being on the same network. There is no reason the radio should be able to start the car or unlock the doors, and for its part the keyless entry shouldn't be able to disengage the brakes or start the radio (but should be able to start the engine or unlock the car). The keyless system presumably has security already, so it shouldn't be a problem anyways.
Thankfully it didn't run windows so there's no virus issue.
Ha. Hahah, wow, this is... well, just straight up completely wrong. Just because it isn't Window's doesn't mean it can't get virii or other malware, not by a long shot. But anyways, even assuming you want the radio talking to the transmission, it should be a one-way communication: the radio shouldn't be able to send the transmission commands. It's odd to think of needing a firewall on your car, but with that's definitely needed for a situation like that.
Obviously, what they are doing wasn't legal, not in the way they were doing it. Facebook wouldn't have proposed a ~$20 million settlement deal if they thought what they were doing was legal.
BTW, ICBM were originally mounted on Atlas rockets then were replaced by the Titan II rockets.
And those Atlas rockets carried the first Americans into orbit. Slightly modified to be "man rated", of course, but it was based on the ICBM and was most certainly not designed from the ground up for manned missions. Of course NASA would never launch astronauts on non-man-rated rockets, that's the whole point of "man rated".
The Saturn 5 used the F-1 engine which was initially developed for the Air Force. They halted that when they realized they didn't need an engine that big, but initial development was for military purposes. And of course it was developed by German scientists who headed the whole Saturn family, from experience they had from developing the V-2 rockets. So really, it was, at least indirectly, developed by the Nazis.
Any authentication that authenticates the user using SMS (which is the only SMS authentication I'm aware of) will be unaffected, since it isn't like sending a fake code that looks like it is from Google will do anything more than a fake code from some random number. No, the only case where it can do real damage is in phishing attacks, by sending the user to a fake site to do a password reset or the like. Which, really, people should have learned not to do anyways, with how often stuff like that happens in email. It's still a problem, since some people will follow a link in an SMS that appears to come from their bank, but they shouldn't.
Australia wouldn't object to it "in principle" (some countries will actually refuse to extradite a national no matter the circumstances) but they state they would have to conduct "a formal determination on the merits of the case". And that's interesting, but again, cables discussing the possibility of extradition and requesting advanced notice of such request are a fair bit from "The US is seeking Assange at this very moment." The whole Assange case is so full of half-truths and downright lies that I hate to see even more mis-information and misleading headlines thrown around.
However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”....
The released diplomatic cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high level US advice on “the direction and likely outcome of the investigation” and “reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange”.
So, in other words, asking for advanced warning if the US does even make plans to request extradition equates to "US intends to chase Assange"? Really? I mean I have no doubt that if the US thought it could bring charges against him that didn't possibly fall under First Amendment protection, it probably would, but that is the evidence you have? The Australian embassy asking for advanced warning? That's not evidence. That's barely above speculation. Actually, no, it is speculation.