No matter what we do they will fail. However, they can be made to fail safe and hopefully infrequently. For example, drone designs and flight algorithms that ensure a controlled landing in the event of a motor failure.
Credit cards aren't a system to make payments easier.
Except they are. Credit card companies charge merchants fees in order to be part of their network. As long as you are spending with their cards, they are making money by having you as a customer regardless of the fact that you are not allowing your balance to incur interest.
Compared to everyone else, $70 a month is an amazing price for Gigabit speeds. I am paying that much just for a 75Mbps download, 75Mbps upload connection. Google Fiber is literally over 13 times faster than my speed for the same price. Besides, you are forgetting why Google started Google Fiber: market disruption and to show everyone the power of Gigabit speeds. You can't do that if everyone only has 100Mbps internet.
The new chip-based credit card will cover the issue with brick and mortar stores. The chip only gives enough information to the merchant to complete a single transaction. The chip is an active component unlike the current magnetic strip. It contains an public/private key encryption module that signs information that can be used to verify that specific authorization. I could be wrong but I think the mobile NFC payment technologies do something similar.
I think parking will be less of an issue. Think Uber/Lift with autonomous cars. This would be especially true in cities where parking costs can get ridiculous. The fleet would spread themselves out based on historical data and probabilities on where people are likely to request them from. I could see systems that will automatically call a car while you are waiting at the registers of stores so that by the time you are a the front door, a car is reserved and waiting there.
I think the biggest hinderance to fully autonomous cars will be the illogical nature of the human psyche. At some point, these cars will be advanced enough that they will be significantly safer than human-driven ones and will start making life-and-death decisions based on the rules that will reduce overal loss of life and limb to the human population in general. For example, image that the car as been put in a position where it needs to decide whether it is likely going to kill two people or kill one. Which path should it choose? Most people would say kill the one instead of the two. Now, what if the car is yours and you are the one person?
Even though the chance of a car getting put in that position might be orders of magitude lower with autonomous cars over manual cars, a lot of people will not like the idea of their property chosing to kill them to save two complete strangers.
Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.
Providing the password to potential evidence that is encrypted is self-incrimination.
Let's say the justice system believes you are a drug trafficker. They believe you have drugs stashed somewhere in your house. With a warrant, they try and try but they just can't find your stash. Under the Fifth Amendment, they cannot force you to tell them where the stash is.
Encryption is the same way. The encrypted container is the house; the evidence within that container is the drugs; and providing the password is the equivalent to telling them where the drugs are.
If we pretend the self-incrimination part of the Fifth Amendment didn't exist, there are a lot of other issues.
What if the evidence doesn't actually exist? What if what they believe is a encrypted container is actually a corrupt file or random noise? If the evidence does exist, what if the accused does not remember the details either by amnesia or simple forgetfulness? What if the acccused never had the password to begin with or use encrypted keys that no longer exist? Yes, the accused could be lying but how are you going to prove they are?
Irrelevant to what? His stated purpose was to make the public aware of what the NSA was doing so that there can be a public discussion rather than a backroom one. For that purpose, his leaks are highly relevant,
The constitution was never meant to be imutable; it was meant to be supreme. Because it is supposed to be supreme, the rules for modifying are much greater than the rules for creating/modifying lesser laws. The problem is that many of the government's parts do not want to treat it as supreme because it is so hard to modify. They would rather do what they think they can get away with constitutional or not.
well, smart is relative. This shows him to be pro society.
From a stock holder perspective. it's a very dumb move.
Not sure you second statement is true. By opening the patents of his super charging systems, it encourages other parties to put up more stations. This would make Teslas more enticing to prospective buyers. Sometimes, pro-society and pro-profit are not mutally exclusive.
The point is that if a flaw exists, when found, it can be quickly fixed in open source. You can also do your own security audit on open source software if you are really security conscious. With closed source, you have to wait for the vendor to both find and fix it (if they ever do). That said, assuming the vendor is trustworthy and would rather shut down than backdoor their software, heavily auditted close source software could easily be more secure than lightly audited open source software. If the audit levels are the same, open source wins. Part of the problem is that until recently a lot of open source security software/libraries like OpenSSL have not gone though enough auditting and vunerabilities are overlooked.
A whistle blower's exclusion of their name is likely only going to protect them for so long. It is better to be seen as a hero than just to disappear or be cleverly murdered one night. Also, revealing themself as a source adds validity to the information leaked.
I would argue that having any government move to open source is good for everyone. I don't know if it will be cheaper but I do think it will like give the people more bang for their buck. Instead of those dollars going into one person's pockets, they can not only still be used to solve the government's software problems but also provide software libraries and frameworks for other to bulid off of.
But what if they don't get squished? Think about the intelligient alien species that might be on the other side! Do you really want to curse another intelligent species with such a disease?
Which is why many species evolved collaboration. Evolution doesn't always mean killing competitors. Some species(particularly humans) do extremely well by turning competitors into collaborators and developing mutually beneficial relationships.
Until the last human dies, the pig species will survive, because we like bacon.
While I don't know what made Minecraft initially popular, I think its prolonged success was a happy accident. Notch decided to write the Minecraft client and server in Java which is a relatively easy to decompile language. This encourage a few hacker types to make their own mods. This eventually evolved into third-party mod APIs like Bukkit and Forge which further encouraged third-party content. I don't know what the percentages are but I would guess there is a lot more people playing modded Minecraft than vanilla Minecraft. Since there is not an official modding API, I don't think Minecraft would be nearly as popular today if it had been written in C or C++ because there would much less likely be such a rich modding community for the game.
Also, since the entity that is issuing the tickets also has no say on whom that funds are allocated to, there is a much smaller chance of corruption. Unfortunately, where money is involved. There is always a chance of corruption. I suppose the government could lie on how much ticket revenue they bring in.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter what we do they will fail. However, they can be made to fail safe and hopefully infrequently. For example, drone designs and flight algorithms that ensure a controlled landing in the event of a motor failure.
The doesn't bother me if they don't take parts of the TV show or movie to actively advertise the products.
Credit cards aren't a system to make payments easier.
Except they are. Credit card companies charge merchants fees in order to be part of their network. As long as you are spending with their cards, they are making money by having you as a customer regardless of the fact that you are not allowing your balance to incur interest.
I am curious on how it will work out if he needs to hire some high level executives that would normally make 6 figures or more.
Compared to everyone else, $70 a month is an amazing price for Gigabit speeds. I am paying that much just for a 75Mbps download, 75Mbps upload connection. Google Fiber is literally over 13 times faster than my speed for the same price. Besides, you are forgetting why Google started Google Fiber: market disruption and to show everyone the power of Gigabit speeds. You can't do that if everyone only has 100Mbps internet.
I would say this is a below minimum feature set.
The new chip-based credit card will cover the issue with brick and mortar stores. The chip only gives enough information to the merchant to complete a single transaction. The chip is an active component unlike the current magnetic strip. It contains an public/private key encryption module that signs information that can be used to verify that specific authorization. I could be wrong but I think the mobile NFC payment technologies do something similar.
I think parking will be less of an issue. Think Uber/Lift with autonomous cars. This would be especially true in cities where parking costs can get ridiculous. The fleet would spread themselves out based on historical data and probabilities on where people are likely to request them from. I could see systems that will automatically call a car while you are waiting at the registers of stores so that by the time you are a the front door, a car is reserved and waiting there.
I think the biggest hinderance to fully autonomous cars will be the illogical nature of the human psyche. At some point, these cars will be advanced enough that they will be significantly safer than human-driven ones and will start making life-and-death decisions based on the rules that will reduce overal loss of life and limb to the human population in general. For example, image that the car as been put in a position where it needs to decide whether it is likely going to kill two people or kill one. Which path should it choose? Most people would say kill the one instead of the two. Now, what if the car is yours and you are the one person?
Even though the chance of a car getting put in that position might be orders of magitude lower with autonomous cars over manual cars, a lot of people will not like the idea of their property chosing to kill them to save two complete strangers.
That's what you say, but it is clearly established that you are wrong.
How so?
Once you put information into anything except your own head, it's fair game for a subpoena or search warrant. Period. Encryption doesn't matter. You can be compelled to provide keys or passwords, because the keys and passwords themselves aren't evidence against you. They just unlock the evidence that already exists.
Providing the password to potential evidence that is encrypted is self-incrimination.
Let's say the justice system believes you are a drug trafficker. They believe you have drugs stashed somewhere in your house. With a warrant, they try and try but they just can't find your stash. Under the Fifth Amendment, they cannot force you to tell them where the stash is.
Encryption is the same way. The encrypted container is the house; the evidence within that container is the drugs; and providing the password is the equivalent to telling them where the drugs are.
If we pretend the self-incrimination part of the Fifth Amendment didn't exist, there are a lot of other issues.
What if the evidence doesn't actually exist? What if what they believe is a encrypted container is actually a corrupt file or random noise? If the evidence does exist, what if the accused does not remember the details either by amnesia or simple forgetfulness? What if the acccused never had the password to begin with or use encrypted keys that no longer exist? Yes, the accused could be lying but how are you going to prove they are?
I agree. It makes more sense to give all blind people car detectors than to make all cars noisy.
Apparently, they are using a propietary ink: http://www.consumeraffairs.com... rather than RFID.
News to me considering the founders of the United States fought a war partially over this. Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?
Irrelevant to what? His stated purpose was to make the public aware of what the NSA was doing so that there can be a public discussion rather than a backroom one. For that purpose, his leaks are highly relevant,
10Mbps for broadband is garbage now.
The constitution was never meant to be imutable; it was meant to be supreme. Because it is supposed to be supreme, the rules for modifying are much greater than the rules for creating/modifying lesser laws. The problem is that many of the government's parts do not want to treat it as supreme because it is so hard to modify. They would rather do what they think they can get away with constitutional or not.
well, smart is relative. This shows him to be pro society. From a stock holder perspective. it's a very dumb move.
Not sure you second statement is true. By opening the patents of his super charging systems, it encourages other parties to put up more stations. This would make Teslas more enticing to prospective buyers. Sometimes, pro-society and pro-profit are not mutally exclusive.
The point is that if a flaw exists, when found, it can be quickly fixed in open source. You can also do your own security audit on open source software if you are really security conscious. With closed source, you have to wait for the vendor to both find and fix it (if they ever do). That said, assuming the vendor is trustworthy and would rather shut down than backdoor their software, heavily auditted close source software could easily be more secure than lightly audited open source software. If the audit levels are the same, open source wins. Part of the problem is that until recently a lot of open source security software/libraries like OpenSSL have not gone though enough auditting and vunerabilities are overlooked.
A whistle blower's exclusion of their name is likely only going to protect them for so long. It is better to be seen as a hero than just to disappear or be cleverly murdered one night. Also, revealing themself as a source adds validity to the information leaked.
I would argue that having any government move to open source is good for everyone. I don't know if it will be cheaper but I do think it will like give the people more bang for their buck. Instead of those dollars going into one person's pockets, they can not only still be used to solve the government's software problems but also provide software libraries and frameworks for other to bulid off of.
But what if they don't get squished? Think about the intelligient alien species that might be on the other side! Do you really want to curse another intelligent species with such a disease?
They are advocating for my destruction, so it's really only rational to advocate for theirs.
Many many Christians are no better than the Taliban in their desire to force the rest of us to follow their rules.
What's funny is that a lot of thiests probably thing the same thing about you.
Which is why many species evolved collaboration. Evolution doesn't always mean killing competitors. Some species(particularly humans) do extremely well by turning competitors into collaborators and developing mutually beneficial relationships.
Until the last human dies, the pig species will survive, because we like bacon.
While I don't know what made Minecraft initially popular, I think its prolonged success was a happy accident. Notch decided to write the Minecraft client and server in Java which is a relatively easy to decompile language. This encourage a few hacker types to make their own mods. This eventually evolved into third-party mod APIs like Bukkit and Forge which further encouraged third-party content. I don't know what the percentages are but I would guess there is a lot more people playing modded Minecraft than vanilla Minecraft. Since there is not an official modding API, I don't think Minecraft would be nearly as popular today if it had been written in C or C++ because there would much less likely be such a rich modding community for the game.
Also, since the entity that is issuing the tickets also has no say on whom that funds are allocated to, there is a much smaller chance of corruption. Unfortunately, where money is involved. There is always a chance of corruption. I suppose the government could lie on how much ticket revenue they bring in.