I can tell you that this isn't really a test, even if he did do it.
That is exactly what I am saying, it's not really that much of a test of todays autonomous driving cars because pretty much all highway driving is easy.
I do think the car probably drove itself to the gas stations and hotels used - that's a bit more impressive, but also like I said, roads near highways tend to be pretty wide, and clearly marked.
Pure city driving or really bad weather is more where things get interesting I think.
Even though you and I know this is easy though, it should be a real wake-up call for lots of self-driving car naysayers.
He doesn't lack a store of trust because of the accident, he lacks the store of trust because he's a thief.
So a guy who is highly desired by TWO companies for his autonomous driving knowledge cannot be "trusted" to have managed to drive cross country in one?
I wouldn't trust him very much in terms of a contract, but he obviously has the TECHNICAL skills to do what he claims. And there is video of course.
Like I said, what he did was not even that TECHNICALLY challenging, so it's more likely than not he did what he claims - despite how he may have treated employers he worked for.
Just because Uber's car had some software disabled that would have prevented collusion with a pedestrian, how does the mean this guy lacks trust?
Uber's cars were working generally OK - on city streets mind you - until they were pulled, because of one accident.
I actually don't find it very hard to believe this could be done myself, because you are talking about almost all city, or near highway driving which is generally straightforward. Pretty much no obstacles, maybe some construction zones which are usually pretty well marked on highways.
I don't even find it hard to believe an individual with a lot of skill and programming/AI/electronics knowledge could have pulled this off.
Exactly. Spam companies do it all online. There is no in person "appointment".
I don't know, one particularly noxious spam call I got for a while was for air duct cleaning services (they never said the company name in the call, different number every call). Eventually someone would have to come out? Unless it was a scam that just collected credit card info and then did nothing I suppose...
Yep, felony theft limit varies by state, but is just $500 to $1000 - even if those are cheaper Android phones that package probably goes over the limit.
So you can claim damages, but also get a felony theft rap... hmm.
If someone already had a felony theft charge previously though, I wonder if it would be as much a deterrent.
I think he's pretty safe - he could always claim he left it out as a prank for a friend, and the thief got in the way. For something like this intent would matter.
Also he was smart in that it spread the glitter horizontally, not upward - again not putting it into the face of whoever opened the box.
The funny thing to me is that the thieves did have something pretty valuable since it had four phones with service plans, if they'd juts literally held their nose they could have had a bounty.
The thing you cannot seem to grasp is simple cause and effect. Yes they COULD have complied differently, but they did not. They complied only in reaction to what the government demanded; without that demand there would have been no action.
Hopefully that is simple enough even for the dullards here on Slashdot to grasp, now I am truly done having done my duty to inform and educate.
Er, yes, of course it is. Because that's not how the web (which is part of the net) works.
Technically redirects are absolutely part of how the web works, letting you know there is a problem trying to reach some resource, possibly directing you to a login page for instance.
In this case, the problem is the destination is full of dicks (and not the viewin' kind).
The ISP is just supposed to send the URI that was requested to the correct server, and then relay the response back to the requester
What about proxies? CDN's? All kinds of caching? It's really not that simple.
It's not like they are disabling any way to reach the resource, you just have to use the link they provide when you try the original link after being re-directed. Perfectly valid HTTP.
It's pretty ironic that just because it suits the politics of the pro net neutrality people, that suddenly this would become magically OK.
I'm really on the fence on this one, being pro Network Neutrality but against regulation without cause.
Maybe he listens to a lot of rap, where the word is used casually?
I don't use the N word myself, but's that because I have class and some aversion to slang.
At this point though I don't see how anyone can consider the word in casual use racist the way many, many people use it so casually even when referring to friends.
That is the problem with CO2 and Global warming. It is a real problem, but it isn't easily seen, and to fix it requires a lot of changes
That's the thing. In a lot of other areas CO2 reduction may require complex changes.
But in terms of fundamental material used in construction, really not - find an alternative that is structurally sound, mandate construction use it. Done.
I specifically wonder why California is not doing this already when they are perfectly willing to regulate many other things of greater complexity in order to reduce CO2 emission.
This seems like an obvious quick win for CO2 reduction all over the place, so why are no alternatives for traditional concrete being actively explored and used? At this point a number of alternatives should be commercially viable.
Microsoft spent so long, in so many ways tweaking what they had control of so many different applications or systems or what have you would not run well, that this frankly is kind of deserved.
I don't know how much of it is deliberate "let's see how we can mess with IE" on the part of Google, vs. MS Edge developers struggling to keep up with advances in WebKit and Chromium. But in a way it makes me feel a little better having Microsoft THINK it was done specifically to target them, so they can understand the pain they caused so many others...
That describes what they aspired to be though, not the apparent complete vanishing act they have performed. Is anyone still developing or using Ferrock anywhere? I can't find signs it is used anywhere in practice, in fact most of what I find related to Ferrock (even recent links) all flows back to that same article!!
The main problem is that two of those "local governments" are India and China - until we figure out a way to get them in check
Since you can't control what they do, the only way you can "get them in check" is to use improved concrete alternatives locally and show ways in which it is superior, so it would naturally be adopted over traditional means.
China and India have also both signed onto global warming accords so it's obvious they are highly motivated to address the issue, otherwise why would they be signatories.
If you look at the URL for that story, it's from 2016...
if you try to follow the link to ironkast.com, you just get a big "SITE UNAVAILABLE PAGE" message.
So what happened? I remember reading about that before, it seemed like a great idea with a lot of benefits.
It makes me wonder if there was some downside they didn't report in that article... material science is hard stuff (not even joking there. Well maybe just a little).
If the government had not passed that law, would there have been any blocking by the ISP to present an ad they did not need to present? No, of course not.
So the government WAS the cause of that ad and the blocking it caused.
I'll let you have the last response since this is crystal clear and undeniable - even though you'll try, what is the point of further discussion around something so obvious?
Concrete contributing to CO2 has been known for a while - that is why at this point there are a lot of solutions to that problem, including concrete variants that sequester or even absorb CO2.
Notice how old some of the results in that search are...
If CO2 is really a problem, local governments will seek to adopt some of those ideas.
Yes I read the summary. The point was this is how the ISP interpreted this law, particularly the "in a conspicuous manner" part. Therefore, other laws like network neutrality, may lead to other equally stupid interpretations on behalf of ISP's - exactly what I said in my first post, if you had simply paid attention to what I was saying.
No ISP would be stupid enough to do this unless it was legally required - which it was by Utah law. Network neutrality as regulation will bring MORE insane interpretations of how an ISP should be have like this one - not fewer.
In short if you like ISP's cutting off access for idiotic messaging from the state, then my all means push for more regulation of the internet.
Now you just need to build it five to ten stories high with fireproofed wood pulp bricks, include modern HVAC, fiber and telecom, water and sewage, other machinery,...
I think you were being sarcastic but in fact they are planning to build a wooden skyscraper in Tokyo.
Slashdot Mirror
I can tell you that this isn't really a test, even if he did do it.
That is exactly what I am saying, it's not really that much of a test of todays autonomous driving cars because pretty much all highway driving is easy.
I do think the car probably drove itself to the gas stations and hotels used - that's a bit more impressive, but also like I said, roads near highways tend to be pretty wide, and clearly marked.
Pure city driving or really bad weather is more where things get interesting I think.
Even though you and I know this is easy though, it should be a real wake-up call for lots of self-driving car naysayers.
He doesn't lack a store of trust because of the accident, he lacks the store of trust because he's a thief.
So a guy who is highly desired by TWO companies for his autonomous driving knowledge cannot be "trusted" to have managed to drive cross country in one?
I wouldn't trust him very much in terms of a contract, but he obviously has the TECHNICAL skills to do what he claims. And there is video of course.
Like I said, what he did was not even that TECHNICALLY challenging, so it's more likely than not he did what he claims - despite how he may have treated employers he worked for.
Just because Uber's car had some software disabled that would have prevented collusion with a pedestrian, how does the mean this guy lacks trust?
Uber's cars were working generally OK - on city streets mind you - until they were pulled, because of one accident.
I actually don't find it very hard to believe this could be done myself, because you are talking about almost all city, or near highway driving which is generally straightforward. Pretty much no obstacles, maybe some construction zones which are usually pretty well marked on highways.
I don't even find it hard to believe an individual with a lot of skill and programming/AI/electronics knowledge could have pulled this off.
Yep, I agree, copycats will be less nice... if I were a package thief I'd hang it up starting today lest something really nasty happen.
But, thieves gotta thief I guess.
Exactly. Spam companies do it all online. There is no in person "appointment".
I don't know, one particularly noxious spam call I got for a while was for air duct cleaning services (they never said the company name in the call, different number every call). Eventually someone would have to come out? Unless it was a scam that just collected credit card info and then did nothing I suppose...
Yep, felony theft limit varies by state, but is just $500 to $1000 - even if those are cheaper Android phones that package probably goes over the limit.
So you can claim damages, but also get a felony theft rap... hmm.
If someone already had a felony theft charge previously though, I wonder if it would be as much a deterrent.
Right - not anymore. But the people in the video also have shown they are not hurt at all so they couldn't claim harm at this point...
I'm talking more for future scenarios if someone would be liable if one o the thieves held onto the device and wanted to sue.
I think he's pretty safe - he could always claim he left it out as a prank for a friend, and the thief got in the way. For something like this intent would matter.
Also he was smart in that it spread the glitter horizontally, not upward - again not putting it into the face of whoever opened the box.
The funny thing to me is that the thieves did have something pretty valuable since it had four phones with service plans, if they'd juts literally held their nose they could have had a bounty.
This includes media showing ... "female-presenting" nipples.
Hey Tumblr - did you just assume the gender of EVERY NIPPLE ON TUMBLR????
But apparently everyone forgets the Russian trolls were trolling both sides.
The thing you cannot seem to grasp is simple cause and effect. Yes they COULD have complied differently, but they did not. They complied only in reaction to what the government demanded; without that demand there would have been no action.
Hopefully that is simple enough even for the dullards here on Slashdot to grasp, now I am truly done having done my duty to inform and educate.
Playing devils advocate here
Er, yes, of course it is. Because that's not how the web (which is part of the net) works.
Technically redirects are absolutely part of how the web works, letting you know there is a problem trying to reach some resource, possibly directing you to a login page for instance.
In this case, the problem is the destination is full of dicks (and not the viewin' kind).
The ISP is just supposed to send the URI that was requested to the correct server, and then relay the response back to the requester
What about proxies? CDN's? All kinds of caching? It's really not that simple.
It's not like they are disabling any way to reach the resource, you just have to use the link they provide when you try the original link after being re-directed. Perfectly valid HTTP.
It's pretty ironic that just because it suits the politics of the pro net neutrality people, that suddenly this would become magically OK.
I'm really on the fence on this one, being pro Network Neutrality but against regulation without cause.
Is this re-direction a violation of Network Neutrality or not as most people think of it, I wonder...
I personally support what they are doing in spirit but it does seem like it's probably bad form technology-wise.
Maybe he listens to a lot of rap, where the word is used casually?
I don't use the N word myself, but's that because I have class and some aversion to slang.
At this point though I don't see how anyone can consider the word in casual use racist the way many, many people use it so casually even when referring to friends.
The phone works just great, fix your mind if it cannot parse broken unicode forums.
That is the problem with CO2 and Global warming. It is a real problem, but it isn't easily seen, and to fix it requires a lot of changes
That's the thing. In a lot of other areas CO2 reduction may require complex changes.
But in terms of fundamental material used in construction, really not - find an alternative that is structurally sound, mandate construction use it. Done.
I specifically wonder why California is not doing this already when they are perfectly willing to regulate many other things of greater complexity in order to reduce CO2 emission.
This seems like an obvious quick win for CO2 reduction all over the place, so why are no alternatives for traditional concrete being actively explored and used? At this point a number of alternatives should be commercially viable.
Microsoft spent so long, in so many ways tweaking what they had control of so many different applications or systems or what have you would not run well, that this frankly is kind of deserved.
I don't know how much of it is deliberate "let's see how we can mess with IE" on the part of Google, vs. MS Edge developers struggling to keep up with advances in WebKit and Chromium. But in a way it makes me feel a little better having Microsoft THINK it was done specifically to target them, so they can understand the pain they caused so many others...
That describes what they aspired to be though, not the apparent complete vanishing act they have performed. Is anyone still developing or using Ferrock anywhere? I can't find signs it is used anywhere in practice, in fact most of what I find related to Ferrock (even recent links) all flows back to that same article!!
The main problem is that two of those "local governments" are India and China - until we figure out a way to get them in check
Since you can't control what they do, the only way you can "get them in check" is to use improved concrete alternatives locally and show ways in which it is superior, so it would naturally be adopted over traditional means.
China and India have also both signed onto global warming accords so it's obvious they are highly motivated to address the issue, otherwise why would they be signatories.
If you look at the URL for that story, it's from 2016...
if you try to follow the link to ironkast.com, you just get a big "SITE UNAVAILABLE PAGE" message.
So what happened? I remember reading about that before, it seemed like a great idea with a lot of benefits.
It makes me wonder if there was some downside they didn't report in that article... material science is hard stuff (not even joking there. Well maybe just a little).
If the government had not passed that law, would there have been any blocking by the ISP to present an ad they did not need to present? No, of course not.
So the government WAS the cause of that ad and the blocking it caused.
I'll let you have the last response since this is crystal clear and undeniable - even though you'll try, what is the point of further discussion around something so obvious?
Concrete contributing to CO2 has been known for a while - that is why at this point there are a lot of solutions to that problem, including concrete variants that sequester or even absorb CO2.
Notice how old some of the results in that search are...
If CO2 is really a problem, local governments will seek to adopt some of those ideas.
Yes I read the summary. The point was this is how the ISP interpreted this law, particularly the "in a conspicuous manner" part. Therefore, other laws like network neutrality, may lead to other equally stupid interpretations on behalf of ISP's - exactly what I said in my first post, if you had simply paid attention to what I was saying.
No ISP would be stupid enough to do this unless it was legally required - which it was by Utah law. Network neutrality as regulation will bring MORE insane interpretations of how an ISP should be have like this one - not fewer.
In short if you like ISP's cutting off access for idiotic messaging from the state, then my all means push for more regulation of the internet.
Now you just need to build it five to ten stories high with fireproofed wood pulp bricks, include modern HVAC, fiber and telecom, water and sewage, other machinery,...
I think you were being sarcastic but in fact they are planning to build a wooden skyscraper in Tokyo.