Of more interest is *why* it's considered a free food - one tsp of mustard typically contains 3-5 calories. Even McDonalds tangy honey mustard is only about 3x that (though their packet is about 8 tsp, so adds up to 72 calories)
>utilized the web server as it was intended to be used.
That's just it - he didn't. It sounds like the server was intended to be used by making a specific request for documents, and then receiving links to those "approved" documents that satisfied the request. He bypassed that interface to download all the documents directly, and in doing so bypassed the "approved document" screening.
Of course that speaks of a "security" system so weak as to be unworthy of the name, but the fact that internal components of the system were exposed in such a way as to be easily exploitable doesn't change the intent. The intent of a cash register is that you enter a transaction and the drawer opens to allow you to insert payment and remove any change required. The fact that it exposes the internal details of "all the money in the register" doesn't change the fact that ringing up a stick of gum and stuffing all that money in your pockets is not the intended purpose.
Don't forget bad weather and unpredictable winds (especially if used in urban/ high-rise environments.) An automated system that can only handle things when everything is going well absolutely requires a skilled pilot to be present (and paying attention) at all times, which pretty much defeats the point of being automated other than reducing pilot fatigue (i.e. it boosts safety, but doesn't reduce costs). Flight is in many ways simpler than driving, and much better visibility lets you pay less constant attention, but the ways it's NOT simpler require a trained pilot, not just some idiot off the street. And if you need a trained pilot it gets expensive.
From the video it looks like Uber might be considering a hybrid approach - (semi?) autonomous flight augmented with remote pilot control. Which might actually work rather well - I've thought similar systems might work for "autonomous" cars. Assign an average of one pilot to monitor maybe 5-10 aircraft, and take over in case of problems or difficult situations. If the autopilot can handle 80+% of the flight, then there's no need to have a dedicated pilot for every aircraft.
Of course actual logistics might be more complicated - perhaps separate "monitors" and pilots, where the monitor hands the situation off to a pilot on standby as needed, (or alternately, hands their monitoring duties off to another monitor as they take emergency control of an aircraft), and aircraft get redistributed between monitors based on situation: e.g. in level cruising flight one monitor could probably handle dozens of aircraft, which get handed off to regional experts that only monitor a few aircraft at a time as they traverse more complicated terrain, and likely dedicated pilots for takeoff and landing - the most dangerous parts of a flight.
> it's not 3D printed rocket science...(but that may come up soon)
Actually it's been going up for just under a decade, longer if you don't insist on reaching orbit. The Falcon 1 Flight 4 reached orbit September 28, 2008 using its 3D printed engine components.
Actually it's only about 1/8th of a second of lag as I recall - at least sending signals to the hand, might take slightly longer to the foot. Classic example - have someone rest their hand on a table, extending their fingers past the edge, with thumb and forefinger poised to grab the midpoint of a dollar bill as soon as it's dropped. It's physically impossible to do so as the bill takes ~1/10th of a second to fall half it's length, and thus is safely clear before the signal gets from eye to brain and then to finger tips.
Of course that's with the subject poised to act in a predetermined fashion the moment a signal is given. Take them by surprise instead and things no doubt slow down a lot.
Yep. And if I give them my credit card information, address, etc. I expect them to take reasonable security precautions with that information for as long as they retain it. (We only need to watch the headlines to know that even most major companies do no such thing) It's also not unreasonable to ask them to let me know what information they've collected about me (nor difficult for them to deliver), and to delete it all if I so request.
Agreed. It doesn't matter how clear and concise the disclaimers are if the product itself doesn't take human nature into account. You've got a car that can drive itself without problems 99% of the time, the driver will inevitably stop paying attention to the road unless they have superhuman attention span.
Or unless they get lucky enough to personally have a few life-threatening close calls before they get comfortable with the system - in which case they *might* be able to maintain attention, provided they continue experiencing close calls often enough.
There's just not any middle ground for human nature - either a system needs at least frequent, moderate, interaction to maintain user attention, or it will go indefinite periods without getting ANY attention.
You really think it's THAT hard to collect only permitted information, and allow customers to see exactly what you're collecting and delete it?
It may be expensive to update an existing code base, but that's fairly straight-forward for anything new. As for keeping that information reasonably secure - if you can't be bothered to spend the time and effort to do that (as most current sites can't), you have no business collecting it in the first place.
Only if there's a free market for labor - or if laborers don't need a job to survive. Currently, neither of those are true, and so there's no inherent connection between the value of the labor and the amount paid for it.
Granted, but there's still only very minimal bailout options for the crew of the Shuttle - anything goes catastrophically wrong once they leave the launch pad, they're probably dead. A reliable "any time" bailout option means you can allow much higher risk profiles for other risk modes while maintaining the same overall crew safety level.
Not that there isn't always room for improvement - but when every launch involves dozens of new changes to the rocket there's a limit to how safe you can really make things. I suspect that's part of the goal behind the "mature" Block 5 - the design will rapidly stabilize, and allow meaningful determination and certification of safety levels.
Only if I store the information. Easy enough to do an IP filter and simply refuse service and discard that info.
Or, since this "service" is apparently implemented Javascript, I may not filter you at all, rather the Javascript runs on *your* computer, determines you are in the denied zone, and terminates the connection without me ever knowing anything except that someone downloaded the page and then "vanished".
I'll admit I use "modern" in a somewhat long-viewed sense. But estimates are that our hunter-gatherer ancestors averaged about 3-4 hours per day on survival-oriented tasks - we were truly the kings of the animal world. Agriculture changed that considerably - but even agriculture involves long months of relatively idle time to counterbalance the crunch of planting and harvest.
Yep. Now we can only hope that more markets follow in their footsteps and make it impossible for such sites to stay in business at all. It's not like compliance is hard - just stop recording information about your visitors. Unless of course your business model depends on spying on your visitors, in which case good riddance.
Not quite, it's purpose avoiding (not evading) the legal requirements for privacy protection, in the simplest, most direct way possible - by refusing service to those visitors whose privacy they would be required to protect.
Or you could do it the NASA way and design a "safe" rocket without any escape options, then ignore the engineers' warnings about operating O-rings out-of-spec, and blow everyone up with no hope of escape.
Easy solution: pre-load a lower amount of fuel on manned flights.
The F9 has payload capacity to burn, the last-minute fueling boosts that even further. You want more safety, load the fuel beforehand, and accept the resulting lower capacity, which should still be more than enough to transport a few passengers to orbit.
>Timing analysis shows that if the driver would have been able to survive if.......they had actually been DOING THEIR EFFING JOB and driving the car, instead of taking a nap or whatever the heck they were doing instead? Autopilot is a driving aid, not autonomous mode.
Of course Musk's marketing, and horribly dangerous "almost autonomous but you need to keep paying constant attention" driving aid deserve a big slice of the blame - it's absolutely predictable that people will come to trust the "almost good enough to ignore the road" autopilot, but the driver was still ultimately responsible for operating their vehicle safely, and the autopilot weakness was well known and required informed consent from the driver before engaging.
Except we're not talking about speech in general - we're talking specifically about *advertising* - aka paying someone else to broadcast your speech to a large audience without their invitation. There are a LOT more restrictions on advertising than speech, and I see no reason why politics, particularly election ads, should get a free pass.
Everything beyond food, shelter and (arguably) medical care is by its nature unnecessary. *Desirable* maybe, but not necessary - and thus I would group it into some form of entertainment - science (satisfying intellectual curiosity = entertainment), dining out (spending less time cooking, more time focused on company = entertainment),etc. And of course, lots and lots of busywork that produces very little of value other than jobs to keep people fed, and could be eliminated without any loss so long as the Puritan/capitalist idea of jobs determining self- and social-worth (and wealth distribution) went with them.
Sure it's a timesink - but there's no need for constant labor, it'd be a complete waste. We could give every person on the planet adequate food, shelter, and medical care using only a small fraction of the current global productivity. After that, pretty much everything else is about either increasing future potential or entertainment.
Bull. Music, art, dance, board games - these things exist in practically every culture in the the world, and have for at least several thousand years. Poverty is no great impediment to entertainment. Even in our hunter-gather days it's estimated that the average person only spent a few hours a day in survival-oriented activities. Abject poverty, along with the idea that anyone should spend more than half their waking life at work, are purely modern constructs of greed-oriented society.
Oh, sure, I can imagine such a place - but that awasn't the proposition: a world full of truly selfish people would care for ONLY themselves. Meanwhile pretty much every social animal on the planet demonstrates compassion and altruism - without them we would probably never even manage to develop modern civilization in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Of more interest is *why* it's considered a free food - one tsp of mustard typically contains 3-5 calories. Even McDonalds tangy honey mustard is only about 3x that (though their packet is about 8 tsp, so adds up to 72 calories)
> Never left that place not feeling like I was about to die.
Just because they offer "All You Can Eat" specials, doesn't mean it's actually a good idea to eat as much as you're physically able to...
>utilized the web server as it was intended to be used.
That's just it - he didn't. It sounds like the server was intended to be used by making a specific request for documents, and then receiving links to those "approved" documents that satisfied the request. He bypassed that interface to download all the documents directly, and in doing so bypassed the "approved document" screening.
Of course that speaks of a "security" system so weak as to be unworthy of the name, but the fact that internal components of the system were exposed in such a way as to be easily exploitable doesn't change the intent. The intent of a cash register is that you enter a transaction and the drawer opens to allow you to insert payment and remove any change required. The fact that it exposes the internal details of "all the money in the register" doesn't change the fact that ringing up a stick of gum and stuffing all that money in your pockets is not the intended purpose.
Don't forget bad weather and unpredictable winds (especially if used in urban/ high-rise environments.) An automated system that can only handle things when everything is going well absolutely requires a skilled pilot to be present (and paying attention) at all times, which pretty much defeats the point of being automated other than reducing pilot fatigue (i.e. it boosts safety, but doesn't reduce costs). Flight is in many ways simpler than driving, and much better visibility lets you pay less constant attention, but the ways it's NOT simpler require a trained pilot, not just some idiot off the street. And if you need a trained pilot it gets expensive.
From the video it looks like Uber might be considering a hybrid approach - (semi?) autonomous flight augmented with remote pilot control. Which might actually work rather well - I've thought similar systems might work for "autonomous" cars. Assign an average of one pilot to monitor maybe 5-10 aircraft, and take over in case of problems or difficult situations. If the autopilot can handle 80+% of the flight, then there's no need to have a dedicated pilot for every aircraft.
Of course actual logistics might be more complicated - perhaps separate "monitors" and pilots, where the monitor hands the situation off to a pilot on standby as needed, (or alternately, hands their monitoring duties off to another monitor as they take emergency control of an aircraft), and aircraft get redistributed between monitors based on situation: e.g. in level cruising flight one monitor could probably handle dozens of aircraft, which get handed off to regional experts that only monitor a few aircraft at a time as they traverse more complicated terrain, and likely dedicated pilots for takeoff and landing - the most dangerous parts of a flight.
Just don't forget to turn off the car before removing the football, or you may find it has resumed driving without you.
> it's not 3D printed rocket science...(but that may come up soon)
Actually it's been going up for just under a decade, longer if you don't insist on reaching orbit. The Falcon 1 Flight 4 reached orbit September 28, 2008 using its 3D printed engine components.
Actually it's only about 1/8th of a second of lag as I recall - at least sending signals to the hand, might take slightly longer to the foot. Classic example - have someone rest their hand on a table, extending their fingers past the edge, with thumb and forefinger poised to grab the midpoint of a dollar bill as soon as it's dropped. It's physically impossible to do so as the bill takes ~1/10th of a second to fall half it's length, and thus is safely clear before the signal gets from eye to brain and then to finger tips.
Of course that's with the subject poised to act in a predetermined fashion the moment a signal is given. Take them by surprise instead and things no doubt slow down a lot.
Yep. And if I give them my credit card information, address, etc. I expect them to take reasonable security precautions with that information for as long as they retain it. (We only need to watch the headlines to know that even most major companies do no such thing) It's also not unreasonable to ask them to let me know what information they've collected about me (nor difficult for them to deliver), and to delete it all if I so request.
Agreed. It doesn't matter how clear and concise the disclaimers are if the product itself doesn't take human nature into account. You've got a car that can drive itself without problems 99% of the time, the driver will inevitably stop paying attention to the road unless they have superhuman attention span.
Or unless they get lucky enough to personally have a few life-threatening close calls before they get comfortable with the system - in which case they *might* be able to maintain attention, provided they continue experiencing close calls often enough.
There's just not any middle ground for human nature - either a system needs at least frequent, moderate, interaction to maintain user attention, or it will go indefinite periods without getting ANY attention.
You really think it's THAT hard to collect only permitted information, and allow customers to see exactly what you're collecting and delete it?
It may be expensive to update an existing code base, but that's fairly straight-forward for anything new. As for keeping that information reasonably secure - if you can't be bothered to spend the time and effort to do that (as most current sites can't), you have no business collecting it in the first place.
Only if there's a free market for labor - or if laborers don't need a job to survive. Currently, neither of those are true, and so there's no inherent connection between the value of the labor and the amount paid for it.
Granted, but there's still only very minimal bailout options for the crew of the Shuttle - anything goes catastrophically wrong once they leave the launch pad, they're probably dead. A reliable "any time" bailout option means you can allow much higher risk profiles for other risk modes while maintaining the same overall crew safety level.
Not that there isn't always room for improvement - but when every launch involves dozens of new changes to the rocket there's a limit to how safe you can really make things. I suspect that's part of the goal behind the "mature" Block 5 - the design will rapidly stabilize, and allow meaningful determination and certification of safety levels.
Only if I store the information. Easy enough to do an IP filter and simply refuse service and discard that info.
Or, since this "service" is apparently implemented Javascript, I may not filter you at all, rather the Javascript runs on *your* computer, determines you are in the denied zone, and terminates the connection without me ever knowing anything except that someone downloaded the page and then "vanished".
I'll admit I use "modern" in a somewhat long-viewed sense. But estimates are that our hunter-gatherer ancestors averaged about 3-4 hours per day on survival-oriented tasks - we were truly the kings of the animal world. Agriculture changed that considerably - but even agriculture involves long months of relatively idle time to counterbalance the crunch of planting and harvest.
If the short-bus version actually respects people's privacy instead of spying on visitors, then maybe we need more short buses.
Yep. Now we can only hope that more markets follow in their footsteps and make it impossible for such sites to stay in business at all. It's not like compliance is hard - just stop recording information about your visitors. Unless of course your business model depends on spying on your visitors, in which case good riddance.
Not quite, it's purpose avoiding (not evading) the legal requirements for privacy protection, in the simplest, most direct way possible - by refusing service to those visitors whose privacy they would be required to protect.
Or you could do it the NASA way and design a "safe" rocket without any escape options, then ignore the engineers' warnings about operating O-rings out-of-spec, and blow everyone up with no hope of escape.
Easy solution: pre-load a lower amount of fuel on manned flights.
The F9 has payload capacity to burn, the last-minute fueling boosts that even further. You want more safety, load the fuel beforehand, and accept the resulting lower capacity, which should still be more than enough to transport a few passengers to orbit.
>Timing analysis shows that if the driver would have been able to survive if .... ...they had actually been DOING THEIR EFFING JOB and driving the car, instead of taking a nap or whatever the heck they were doing instead? Autopilot is a driving aid, not autonomous mode.
Of course Musk's marketing, and horribly dangerous "almost autonomous but you need to keep paying constant attention" driving aid deserve a big slice of the blame - it's absolutely predictable that people will come to trust the "almost good enough to ignore the road" autopilot, but the driver was still ultimately responsible for operating their vehicle safely, and the autopilot weakness was well known and required informed consent from the driver before engaging.
Except we're not talking about speech in general - we're talking specifically about *advertising* - aka paying someone else to broadcast your speech to a large audience without their invitation. There are a LOT more restrictions on advertising than speech, and I see no reason why politics, particularly election ads, should get a free pass.
Everything beyond food, shelter and (arguably) medical care is by its nature unnecessary. *Desirable* maybe, but not necessary - and thus I would group it into some form of entertainment - science (satisfying intellectual curiosity = entertainment), dining out (spending less time cooking, more time focused on company = entertainment),etc. And of course, lots and lots of busywork that produces very little of value other than jobs to keep people fed, and could be eliminated without any loss so long as the Puritan/capitalist idea of jobs determining self- and social-worth (and wealth distribution) went with them.
Sure it's a timesink - but there's no need for constant labor, it'd be a complete waste. We could give every person on the planet adequate food, shelter, and medical care using only a small fraction of the current global productivity. After that, pretty much everything else is about either increasing future potential or entertainment.
Bull. Music, art, dance, board games - these things exist in practically every culture in the the world, and have for at least several thousand years. Poverty is no great impediment to entertainment. Even in our hunter-gather days it's estimated that the average person only spent a few hours a day in survival-oriented activities. Abject poverty, along with the idea that anyone should spend more than half their waking life at work, are purely modern constructs of greed-oriented society.
Oh, sure, I can imagine such a place - but that awasn't the proposition: a world full of truly selfish people would care for ONLY themselves. Meanwhile pretty much every social animal on the planet demonstrates compassion and altruism - without them we would probably never even manage to develop modern civilization in the first place.