A number of years ago I remember reading about combining computer and human control of a/c so pilots could black out fro short periods while the plane takes evasive maneuvers.
This is more along the direction AI in aircraft will go. Similar to the way it's going with cars now, we'll see assistive technologies long before we'll see things go fully autonomous. For aircraft I could imagine it going in two directions: flight systems designed to assist in ways analogous to modern cars, and semi-autonamous drones slaved to a human fighter.
I'd think that the flight systems would be fairly straightforward. Ability to fly evasive patterns on command (basically like the current automatic countermeasure systems taken to the next level), threat prioritization and tracking, maybe even recommending some higher level strategy.
Semi-autonomous drones would get a lot more interesting. I could imagine something made small and cheap enough to be expendable (at least more expendable than the F-35 + pilot). They'd tail a human fighter by default, but then be tasked individually to do things like fire missiles, move away and serve as a second radar emitter for use against stealth targets, or even serve as a kind of ablative armor by decoying incoming missiles.
a "protest vote" for Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein or Ralph Nader will ultimately lead to the election of the Republican Party's presumptive nominee, the sociopathic, megalomaniacal demagogue, Donald Trump.
And then the next election, the democratic party will see that they lost 30% of their potential vote to sanders and start running candidates who aren't criminals, psychopaths, or just flat out insane; giving them much better odds of winning subsequent elections.
But don't let me stop you from only thinking as far ahead as the current election cycle. As you can see, it's worked out great for the country so far.
My understand of what makes these sorts of landings complex is that because the rocket is so light having expended all of its fuel, the engines can't throttle down low enough to not overcome gravity by a large margin. As such, it's basically falling at terminal velocity until the last few seconds when the engines cut in just long enough to cancel out the downwards velocity. Since the throttles are at minimum, I would suspect there's plenty of thrust available to do it with even just a single engine (assuming it can stabilize on one engine, as you rightly pointed out). It's just comes down to how quickly can it detect that there's less thrust than expected and then compensate for it, since the timing is extremely critical.
I'm as much against obamacare as the next guy, but I think you're buying into your own hyperbole. Otherwise explain the fact that our system has been "broken and headed for complete meltdown" since the 1700s, and how we're still around even though every president I can remember has always been the one who was going to destroy the country (according to their opposition).
I'm not the guy you were replying to, but I have a 30/month (comes out to 35 after taxes and such) no contract plan with t-mobile. Unlimited data (reduced speed after 5gb) and text, 300 minutes of talk. I bought a Nexus4 to use with the plan a few years ago and it still works great. Definitely came out ahead compared to if I'd gone with the pay monthly to rent a phone scheme that most people do.
Let me add to clarify, the third party doesn't threaten the most opposed dissimilar party. The third party divides the power of the most similar party, guaranteeing the most dissimilar party wins.
Everyone knows this, and I believe I addressed it already. Yes you hurt "your" side in the short term, that's the entire point of voting 3rd party. What you're not taking into account is "your" side seeing just how many votes they lost and then changing in response to the votes stolen by the 3rd party, hopefully becoming more in line with your actual views.
It's mathmatically poor in the short term, but does that take into account changes that will happen as a result? Election outcomes aren't a binary thing. A 60/40 landslide is going to mean the winner has a lot more political capital than a 50.5/49.5 outcome. If one of the main parties gets 30% with a 3rd party getting 34% and the winner having 36%, that should be a pretty big wakeup call to both main parties that they to get with the times. They're going to either change for the better by next election, or disappear into irrelevancy while the 3rd party takes their place.
That's the entire point. If the democrats see that a 3rd party stole 30% of their vote and they lost because of it, they'll learn their lesson and run a better candidate next time (or implode completely and the 3rd party will take their spot). Same goes for the republicans if Johnson gets a significant fraction of the vote. Plus a Trump or Clinton presidency is hardly going to be world ending. Our system is designed to deal with bad presidents, we have the legislative and judicial branches to stop them if they try to do anything truly terrible.
In this case, the article uses a bad example. However, let's look at this thought experiment: An autonomous tank with AI built in fires upon and kills several innocents. This is a military weapon and thus does not have Asimov's laws built in. Who is responsible? The military that used it? The company that made it? The programmers that programmed it?
How does it work if a human fires upon and kills several innocents? (hint: it's not just the guy who pulled the trigger who gets in trouble, his entire chain of command is potentially on the hook for it)
Now what about this: Same scenario, but a bug in the programming caused the tank to fire upon innocents. Who is responsible?
Ultimately whoever signed off on the software will be responsible, but you're going to be looking at a lengthy investigation examining the code and development process at each step of the way. Was the bug maliciously coded like something in the underhanded C challenge? Something testing should have caught but didn't due to negligence? Some error in the process that caused the code not to be tested? Working as intended due to bad requirements?
Designing the security system around the behavior of its users is the proper way to do it, rather than forcing users to adopt the behavior requirements of a bad system.
Too many security people don't understand this. Obvious there are degrees of compromise, but I've seen way too many instances of security necessarily hassling people to the extent that they circumvent it in a manner that's even more unsafe.
Libertarians don't keep their eyes open during events like this. They screw them shut and go "Oh it's still partially regulated and that's actually the problem".
I'm not sure which libertarians you've been talking to, but I'd like to think that they understand that it's not a matter of "less regulation" vs "more regulation" so much as it's a matter of what specifically is being regulated. "increasing regulation" doesn't do anyone else any good if your lobbyist writes the legislation such that it regulates your competitors out of business while only making things easier for you. By the same token, "decreasing regulation" doesn't help things at all if there's a company out there big enough and unscrupulous enough to engage in sketchy tactics to drive the competition out of business.
Ideally you want regulation that protects customers and keeps an even playing field between businesses while at the same time not meddling so much as to interfere with the companies ability to innovate and/or get things done.
I'm not sure how to read that as anything other than a recommendation against using a password store. If not that, what did you mean by it?
If you read the usernames very carefully, you'll see I wasn't the one who said that. That said, there's a big difference between recommending against a common user using a password manager vs saying nobody should ever use one in any circumstances. You seem to have interpreted the GPs statement both ways, so I'm not really sure which one you're complaining about.
No, they wouldn't. You seem to assume users have a set amount of effort they'll spend on a password, correct? That's a false assumption - because, most users will spend as little effort as possible.
You seem to assume that users will have a choice in the matter. I would expect that any site implementing a password autocorrect feature would also increase the minimum length to something significantly over 8 characters so as to prevent usage of single words as passwords.
And if the system is offline, then you're up a creek. If you can remember 30 characters of gibberish just fine, then the password manager discussion is moot. Same goes for if you can't think of a single use case in which you don't have access to your password manager. Just realize that there are plenty of people who aren't you, and therefore aren't guaranteed access to whatever password manager they've decided to entrust their ability to log into their accounts with.
By password store you mean a password manager such as LastPass? What's wrong with that?
When you have to enter your 30 characters of random gibberish (that you don't remember because you've never typed it) on a device that doesn't have LastPass on it? Or maybe that's not a problem for you, I don't know. I'd rather stay in practice memorizing my own passwords than trust it to a piece of software, especially in the context of work where I don't necessarily have control over what software I install, what hardware I plug in, or even what electronics I carry with me.
actually don't generate a unique password for everything. managing them is difficult time consuming, and ultimately useless.
It doesn't have to be. Use a random password generator to generate something of sufficient length (let's say 6 characters since 8 character minimum is generally a requirement and the next step will put it over the limit). Memorize that random password, use it as the base for everything, but mix in something unique to the website or service using a rule that you can apply consistently.
As a simple example, say I generate uYc2!c as my base password. I might decide to apply the first initial of the site to the beginning of it and the second initial to the end. That would make suYc2!cd my slashdot password, guYc2!cm my gmail password, and auYc2!ct my AT&T account password. If I were to find out I'd registered an account on a given site and completely forgotten about it, I could likely guess my password in less than 3 tries assuming the site name didn't change. If someone were to obtain one of the passwords, the others aren't immediately guessable since it looks like you just used a random generator. Though you're in trouble if they get two (not that far-fetched someone could correlate email addresses for sites you made junk registrations on that then got hacked) and decide to sit and think about it for a bit. That can be mitigated somewhat by making the rule you use to modify it more complex (e.g. something that changes the contents of the "base" password), or having a handful of different "base" passwords you use according to the importance of that particular account.
The IT experience doesn't have to involve actually fixing the autonomous stuff to be helpful. I've worked on code for devices used in an industrial context, and when something goes wrong, having someone out there who's able to describe the issue in terms other than "gosh darned newfangled shits gone 'an broke itself agin *throws computer out window*" is immensely helpful when doing post-failure analysis. There are also a lot of skills technical types possess that we tend to take for granted, e.g. the ability to recognize what changed between the "working" and "non-working" states.
Probably the same reasons people live paycheck to paycheck and don't plan ahead financially. Situations like this are why I keep enough in savings that I can comfortably say "fuck you" and walk out if my job ever goes sour; being confident that the savings will last me long enough to find a new job.
I'm thinking truck driving school, then start driving trucks. Pays less, but I imagine it has less bullshit.
It's got just as much bullshit from the stories I've heard from truckers (had 3 of them in the group of 10 people I played EVE with). Difference is that a lot of times the bullshit is solved in a very un-subtle and sometimes even physical manner. Plus if autonomous vehicles become a thing soon, that IT experience might come in handy. I suspect it'll start with one driver leading a train of autonomous trucks, at which point being able to troubleshoot any computery issues on the road would be really handy. If that ever phases out into a fully autonomous fleet, they'll always have need for people to maintain it, at which point you've got both the IT experience and the truck driving experience going for you.
The key in this case would be to document that the replacements are being trained in things they should have known if they were actually skilled workers who couldn't be found inside the US. e.g. if your company hired Linus to replace you, it would be expected to have to train him on procedure. It wouldn't be expected to have to train him on how to write a simple function in C. If you could document consistently having to do the latter, I suspect you would have a pretty good case that the H1B system was being abused.
Slashdot Mirror
A number of years ago I remember reading about combining computer and human control of a/c so pilots could black out fro short periods while the plane takes evasive maneuvers.
This is more along the direction AI in aircraft will go. Similar to the way it's going with cars now, we'll see assistive technologies long before we'll see things go fully autonomous. For aircraft I could imagine it going in two directions: flight systems designed to assist in ways analogous to modern cars, and semi-autonamous drones slaved to a human fighter.
I'd think that the flight systems would be fairly straightforward. Ability to fly evasive patterns on command (basically like the current automatic countermeasure systems taken to the next level), threat prioritization and tracking, maybe even recommending some higher level strategy.
Semi-autonomous drones would get a lot more interesting. I could imagine something made small and cheap enough to be expendable (at least more expendable than the F-35 + pilot). They'd tail a human fighter by default, but then be tasked individually to do things like fire missiles, move away and serve as a second radar emitter for use against stealth targets, or even serve as a kind of ablative armor by decoying incoming missiles.
Please stop spreading aliteracy. Read some books, kid.
There really needs to be a mod option for "ironic".
Except you could be using the low quality of the fax to hide the fact that it was just an elaborate photoshop. Better to just have him google it.
a "protest vote" for Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein or Ralph Nader will ultimately lead to the election of the Republican Party's presumptive nominee, the sociopathic, megalomaniacal demagogue, Donald Trump.
And then the next election, the democratic party will see that they lost 30% of their potential vote to sanders and start running candidates who aren't criminals, psychopaths, or just flat out insane; giving them much better odds of winning subsequent elections.
But don't let me stop you from only thinking as far ahead as the current election cycle. As you can see, it's worked out great for the country so far.
My understand of what makes these sorts of landings complex is that because the rocket is so light having expended all of its fuel, the engines can't throttle down low enough to not overcome gravity by a large margin. As such, it's basically falling at terminal velocity until the last few seconds when the engines cut in just long enough to cancel out the downwards velocity. Since the throttles are at minimum, I would suspect there's plenty of thrust available to do it with even just a single engine (assuming it can stabilize on one engine, as you rightly pointed out). It's just comes down to how quickly can it detect that there's less thrust than expected and then compensate for it, since the timing is extremely critical.
But when Trump gets elected and burns it all to the ground via massive incompetence, don't be surprised if angry mobs camp by your door.
And if he gets elected and nothing particularly bad happens, can we send a mob to your door to tell you what a moron you are?
I'm as much against obamacare as the next guy, but I think you're buying into your own hyperbole. Otherwise explain the fact that our system has been "broken and headed for complete meltdown" since the 1700s, and how we're still around even though every president I can remember has always been the one who was going to destroy the country (according to their opposition).
I'm not the guy you were replying to, but I have a 30/month (comes out to 35 after taxes and such) no contract plan with t-mobile. Unlimited data (reduced speed after 5gb) and text, 300 minutes of talk. I bought a Nexus4 to use with the plan a few years ago and it still works great. Definitely came out ahead compared to if I'd gone with the pay monthly to rent a phone scheme that most people do.
Let me add to clarify, the third party doesn't threaten the most opposed dissimilar party. The third party divides the power of the most similar party, guaranteeing the most dissimilar party wins.
Everyone knows this, and I believe I addressed it already. Yes you hurt "your" side in the short term, that's the entire point of voting 3rd party. What you're not taking into account is "your" side seeing just how many votes they lost and then changing in response to the votes stolen by the 3rd party, hopefully becoming more in line with your actual views.
It's mathmatically poor in the short term, but does that take into account changes that will happen as a result? Election outcomes aren't a binary thing. A 60/40 landslide is going to mean the winner has a lot more political capital than a 50.5/49.5 outcome. If one of the main parties gets 30% with a 3rd party getting 34% and the winner having 36%, that should be a pretty big wakeup call to both main parties that they to get with the times. They're going to either change for the better by next election, or disappear into irrelevancy while the 3rd party takes their place.
All you'll do is fragment the Democratic vote.
That's the entire point. If the democrats see that a 3rd party stole 30% of their vote and they lost because of it, they'll learn their lesson and run a better candidate next time (or implode completely and the 3rd party will take their spot). Same goes for the republicans if Johnson gets a significant fraction of the vote. Plus a Trump or Clinton presidency is hardly going to be world ending. Our system is designed to deal with bad presidents, we have the legislative and judicial branches to stop them if they try to do anything truly terrible.
In this case, the article uses a bad example. However, let's look at this thought experiment: An autonomous tank with AI built in fires upon and kills several innocents. This is a military weapon and thus does not have Asimov's laws built in. Who is responsible? The military that used it? The company that made it? The programmers that programmed it?
How does it work if a human fires upon and kills several innocents? (hint: it's not just the guy who pulled the trigger who gets in trouble, his entire chain of command is potentially on the hook for it)
Now what about this: Same scenario, but a bug in the programming caused the tank to fire upon innocents. Who is responsible?
Ultimately whoever signed off on the software will be responsible, but you're going to be looking at a lengthy investigation examining the code and development process at each step of the way. Was the bug maliciously coded like something in the underhanded C challenge? Something testing should have caught but didn't due to negligence? Some error in the process that caused the code not to be tested? Working as intended due to bad requirements?
If that's true, you may have chosen poorly for college. (Either that, or you went to one of the most elite high schools with super high standards.)
You honestly can't think of any other reasons besides those?
Designing the security system around the behavior of its users is the proper way to do it, rather than forcing users to adopt the behavior requirements of a bad system.
Too many security people don't understand this. Obvious there are degrees of compromise, but I've seen way too many instances of security necessarily hassling people to the extent that they circumvent it in a manner that's even more unsafe.
Libertarians don't keep their eyes open during events like this. They screw them shut and go "Oh it's still partially regulated and that's actually the problem".
I'm not sure which libertarians you've been talking to, but I'd like to think that they understand that it's not a matter of "less regulation" vs "more regulation" so much as it's a matter of what specifically is being regulated. "increasing regulation" doesn't do anyone else any good if your lobbyist writes the legislation such that it regulates your competitors out of business while only making things easier for you. By the same token, "decreasing regulation" doesn't help things at all if there's a company out there big enough and unscrupulous enough to engage in sketchy tactics to drive the competition out of business.
Ideally you want regulation that protects customers and keeps an even playing field between businesses while at the same time not meddling so much as to interfere with the companies ability to innovate and/or get things done.
I'm not sure how to read that as anything other than a recommendation against using a password store. If not that, what did you mean by it?
If you read the usernames very carefully, you'll see I wasn't the one who said that. That said, there's a big difference between recommending against a common user using a password manager vs saying nobody should ever use one in any circumstances. You seem to have interpreted the GPs statement both ways, so I'm not really sure which one you're complaining about.
No, they wouldn't. You seem to assume users have a set amount of effort they'll spend on a password, correct? That's a false assumption - because, most users will spend as little effort as possible.
You seem to assume that users will have a choice in the matter. I would expect that any site implementing a password autocorrect feature would also increase the minimum length to something significantly over 8 characters so as to prevent usage of single words as passwords.
You said that people shouldn't use password managers.
No I didn't, but thanks for reading.
And if the system is offline, then you're up a creek. If you can remember 30 characters of gibberish just fine, then the password manager discussion is moot. Same goes for if you can't think of a single use case in which you don't have access to your password manager. Just realize that there are plenty of people who aren't you, and therefore aren't guaranteed access to whatever password manager they've decided to entrust their ability to log into their accounts with.
By password store you mean a password manager such as LastPass? What's wrong with that?
When you have to enter your 30 characters of random gibberish (that you don't remember because you've never typed it) on a device that doesn't have LastPass on it? Or maybe that's not a problem for you, I don't know. I'd rather stay in practice memorizing my own passwords than trust it to a piece of software, especially in the context of work where I don't necessarily have control over what software I install, what hardware I plug in, or even what electronics I carry with me.
actually don't generate a unique password for everything. managing them is difficult time consuming, and ultimately useless.
It doesn't have to be. Use a random password generator to generate something of sufficient length (let's say 6 characters since 8 character minimum is generally a requirement and the next step will put it over the limit). Memorize that random password, use it as the base for everything, but mix in something unique to the website or service using a rule that you can apply consistently.
As a simple example, say I generate uYc2!c as my base password. I might decide to apply the first initial of the site to the beginning of it and the second initial to the end. That would make suYc2!cd my slashdot password, guYc2!cm my gmail password, and auYc2!ct my AT&T account password. If I were to find out I'd registered an account on a given site and completely forgotten about it, I could likely guess my password in less than 3 tries assuming the site name didn't change. If someone were to obtain one of the passwords, the others aren't immediately guessable since it looks like you just used a random generator. Though you're in trouble if they get two (not that far-fetched someone could correlate email addresses for sites you made junk registrations on that then got hacked) and decide to sit and think about it for a bit. That can be mitigated somewhat by making the rule you use to modify it more complex (e.g. something that changes the contents of the "base" password), or having a handful of different "base" passwords you use according to the importance of that particular account.
The IT experience doesn't have to involve actually fixing the autonomous stuff to be helpful. I've worked on code for devices used in an industrial context, and when something goes wrong, having someone out there who's able to describe the issue in terms other than "gosh darned newfangled shits gone 'an broke itself agin *throws computer out window*" is immensely helpful when doing post-failure analysis. There are also a lot of skills technical types possess that we tend to take for granted, e.g. the ability to recognize what changed between the "working" and "non-working" states.
I don't understand why people don't just walk.
Probably the same reasons people live paycheck to paycheck and don't plan ahead financially. Situations like this are why I keep enough in savings that I can comfortably say "fuck you" and walk out if my job ever goes sour; being confident that the savings will last me long enough to find a new job.
I'm thinking truck driving school, then start driving trucks. Pays less, but I imagine it has less bullshit.
It's got just as much bullshit from the stories I've heard from truckers (had 3 of them in the group of 10 people I played EVE with). Difference is that a lot of times the bullshit is solved in a very un-subtle and sometimes even physical manner. Plus if autonomous vehicles become a thing soon, that IT experience might come in handy. I suspect it'll start with one driver leading a train of autonomous trucks, at which point being able to troubleshoot any computery issues on the road would be really handy. If that ever phases out into a fully autonomous fleet, they'll always have need for people to maintain it, at which point you've got both the IT experience and the truck driving experience going for you.
The key in this case would be to document that the replacements are being trained in things they should have known if they were actually skilled workers who couldn't be found inside the US. e.g. if your company hired Linus to replace you, it would be expected to have to train him on procedure. It wouldn't be expected to have to train him on how to write a simple function in C. If you could document consistently having to do the latter, I suspect you would have a pretty good case that the H1B system was being abused.