"Information wants to be free" isn't meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor for the fact that it is very hard to restrict access to information once a large enough number of people have already have access to it. It only takes one person to leak it, and the odds that no one will leak it goes to nearly 0 pretty quickly.
So yeah, don't create or share any information with anyone unnecessarily if you don't want it leaked. The morality of violating someone's privacy is irrelevant, to the reality of the difficulty of restricting access to information.
And yes, if I actually cared about keeping my medical information secret more than I cared about getting medical treatment, then I wouldn't get the medical treatment. Luckily, no one gives a shit about my medical records. Medical record are like genitals, everyone's got them. The same goes with financial records.
I'm waiting for the data mine on specific famous persons and political figures to be published with quite some interest... wonder if anyone is going to be dropping out of the presidential race over it...
Funny how Slashdot's fierce Fighters for Privacy turn a blind eye when it's the NSA's private files getting leaked. But I guess the NSA "deserved" it because they were not being honest about what kind of information they were gathering... or something.
Thugs are thugs whether they are murdering little babies or exposing dishonesty. A swift death is the best option for them.
Why does honesty have to be the moral norm? There is strictly no biological basis to it. At best feigned honesty can be justified in order to trick people into thinking that you can be trusted. But actual honesty? You got to be kidding...
Imagine how well behaved corporations would be if shareholders were imprisoned for the actions of the corporations by which they generate profits.
Corporations wouldn't be well behaved, they just wouldn't exist.
What do you think share value would be for ill behaved corporations that break laws and their share holders are punished.
They would be negative, along with the values of well behaved corporations. Even if a corporation is reliably earning a profit, the risk of being responsible for any crimes that employees of the corporation may commit, is not something most people will tolerate.
You might think that sounds awful but consider this, what is the punishment for citizens of a country that goes to war, summary random public execution.
It's not a punishment. It's just a consequence. There is a difference.
So if every citizen comes under threat when countries do bad things why shouldn't every share holder come under threat when corporations do bad things?
That's like saying, so if every premature baby (at x weeks) has a 50/50 chance of survival, why shouldn't every healthy baby be made to have a 50/50 chance of survival. We can flip a coin and kill every other full term baby so that it's fair.
Even parents of dead premature babies wouldn't want this.
This is an example of the owner of a company (and his son who was the COO) going to jail after pleading guilty to crimes. This is in addition to the company itself pleading guilty (making up the 3 defendants). What it does not show is that the owner of a corporation is necessarily responsible for the crimes committed by the corporation. It may not even be true in this case, as the 2 people and the company were listed as 3 separate defendants.
It would be a different story if the company was the only defendant who was then convicted and sentenced, and it was the owner(s) who serve out the sentence of jail time.
Well if their windows drivers are crappy *and* their linux drivers are crappy, it seems like as good a time as ever to make a good unified driver that isn't as heavily dependent on the OS. If ever there was a time *not* to focus only on windows, it's now. There are game consoles using desktop graphics chips, mobile OSes, etc. Gambling on windows being dominant forever was a good gamble in the 90s. It seems suicidal in 2015.
What I am asking TWX, is why it is so important to be covered beyond $50K in taxis, but not in other cars. The reasons of the people touting the need for taxis to have commercial insurance would seem like they should apply to everybody.
I can't imagine medical bills are higher in accidents involving taxis. It seems like the best thing to do would be to figure out how much coverage is necessary to cover medical bills (e.g. 50k 100k or 1 million, etc), force everyone to have that much insurance, and let insurance companies decide how much that much coverage costs for every person based on driving frequency, occupation, previous record, etc.
Having a government mandated separation between commercial and non-commercial insurance seems pointless. If it is important to be covered by a certain $ amount in the event that you are injured by a taxi, it would seem important that you are covered for that amount regardless of the professions of the people involved in the accident.
That sounds really good. It sure sucks that you are forced to be crippled and destitute if you are injured in a friend's car. Do we really want a system where you pray that the guy that just hit you is a commercial driver, because if he wasn't you are completely fucked?
why should a newcomer to the field not have to play by the same rules that the taxi companies are forced to play by?
This is a good reason to remove unnecessary laws for all taxis, not force evryone to follow the same bad laws just to be fair. You could even have compensation for those who may have invested a lot of money taxi medallions, by purchasing them back at a recent high market price (not the post uber crash price).
Some regulations are good. Let's keep those. We just need to get rid of the bad ones.
And you know about all the insurance policies in every state around the country and all the insurance laws regarding taxis in the world, so this guy is clearly full of shit.
All you mindless anti-uber people who love pointless government regulations that only serve to funnel money to those in positions of power, just don't understand that regulations can sometimes be outdated and/or exploited to the detriment of the public good.
See, it's pretty easy to make a strawman argument.
So why is it that it is not important to have that kind of safety when you're not in a taxi? Do we really want people to have medical bills they can't afford if they are injured in a friend's car?
People picking up their drunk friends also don't carry a commercial license. Why is it even necessary for any taxis to have commercial insurance? Just let the insurance companies decide what to charge people for coverage, and simply have the law require all people to be insured.
Hacking isn't the only problem that can occur. There can be deadly software bugs that are discovered (e.g. like Toyota's stuck accelerator problem), that an OTA update would be able to fix relatively quickly. Even if you do a recall, it will be impossible to fix all the cars at once, it will take months to get all the cars fixed, and in the mean time people will be driving them. Even the people that fix them immediately will need to drive to those cars to the dealership to get them updated.
I take it then, that you have a doctoral degree in education?
If I did, you would just believe me?
And, thirty years experience in the field?
I know plenty of people with 30+ years of experience in the field of education that don't know shit.
I don't know where you got the idea that the brightest person in a group is going to be held back.
Are you asking me where I got the idea that people who aren't challenged with what they are learning aren't actually learning anything?
If that were so, the brightest people in the class of 20 or 30 students will also be held back by the class.
If you were ever one of the brightest people in a class of 20 or 30 students, you might have experienced being bored (i.e. not challenged) by the material.
If you were never one of the kids in a learning group who totally understood the material and spent the entire time trying to explain the material to the rest of the group (i.e. you were the one receiving the help), then maybe you would be inclined to believe that group learning is only ever helpful.
Teacher + assistants? I've never experienced such a thing. One teacher, or one professor. Assistants? WTF for?
I don't know if you have have a university degree or not, but it is pretty common for professors to have assistants known as "teaching assistants" or "T.A.s". They do things like answering questions students may have about the professor's lectures, grading homework and exams, proctoring exams, etc. It seemed to me that they were usually graduate students trying to earn some extra money and something to put on their resume.
Actually, the OTA makes it vulnerable. If the car is totally disconnected from the interwebs, then it cannot be hacked from the interwebs.
So if hacking from the interwebs were the only potential vulnerability, then simply disconnecting from the interwebs would certainly be the best solution.
If hacking from the interwebs is not the only potential vulnerability, by simply disconnecting, you are surrendering a very powerful tool for patching all security vulnerabilities in order to be safer from one of them.
OTA updates are probably safer than every vehicle being stuck with whatever old version of software they have until the driver brings it in for service, the whole time being vulnerable to publicly known security flaws.
I'm sure Tesla digitally signs it's updates, so it's not as if any idiot can just beam over whatever software they want onto your car. And if they can, that's something that needs to be patched immediately (i.e. with an OTA update), rather than waiting a few weeks.
That would be a good way to avoid all warranty claims. If your engine dies, you need to provide police reports and insurance reports IT reports, etc, etc, etc. Assuming the company doesn't give a shit about their reputation, or selling any cars in the future, they should absolutely deny your warranty for any and every reason they can think of, if your car (running their software), gets hacked.
Slashdot Mirror
"Information wants to be free" isn't meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor for the fact that it is very hard to restrict access to information once a large enough number of people have already have access to it. It only takes one person to leak it, and the odds that no one will leak it goes to nearly 0 pretty quickly.
So yeah, don't create or share any information with anyone unnecessarily if you don't want it leaked. The morality of violating someone's privacy is irrelevant, to the reality of the difficulty of restricting access to information.
And yes, if I actually cared about keeping my medical information secret more than I cared about getting medical treatment, then I wouldn't get the medical treatment. Luckily, no one gives a shit about my medical records. Medical record are like genitals, everyone's got them. The same goes with financial records.
I'm waiting for the data mine on specific famous persons and political figures to be published with quite some interest... wonder if anyone is going to be dropping out of the presidential race over it...
Hillary is out...
Funny how Slashdot's fierce Fighters for Privacy turn a blind eye when it's the NSA's private files getting leaked. But I guess the NSA "deserved" it because they were not being honest about what kind of information they were gathering... or something.
Thugs are thugs whether they are murdering little babies or exposing dishonesty. A swift death is the best option for them.
Why does honesty have to be the moral norm? There is strictly no biological basis to it. At best feigned honesty can be justified in order to trick people into thinking that you can be trusted. But actual honesty? You got to be kidding...
Imagine how well behaved corporations would be if shareholders were imprisoned for the actions of the corporations by which they generate profits.
Corporations wouldn't be well behaved, they just wouldn't exist.
What do you think share value would be for ill behaved corporations that break laws and their share holders are punished.
They would be negative, along with the values of well behaved corporations. Even if a corporation is reliably earning a profit, the risk of being responsible for any crimes that employees of the corporation may commit, is not something most people will tolerate.
You might think that sounds awful but consider this, what is the punishment for citizens of a country that goes to war, summary random public execution.
It's not a punishment. It's just a consequence. There is a difference.
So if every citizen comes under threat when countries do bad things why shouldn't every share holder come under threat when corporations do bad things?
That's like saying, so if every premature baby (at x weeks) has a 50/50 chance of survival, why shouldn't every healthy baby be made to have a 50/50 chance of survival. We can flip a coin and kill every other full term baby so that it's fair.
Even parents of dead premature babies wouldn't want this.
Not only that, but we'd jail people who we think are going to commit a crime (but haven't yet).
This is an example of the owner of a company (and his son who was the COO) going to jail after pleading guilty to crimes. This is in addition to the company itself pleading guilty (making up the 3 defendants). What it does not show is that the owner of a corporation is necessarily responsible for the crimes committed by the corporation. It may not even be true in this case, as the 2 people and the company were listed as 3 separate defendants.
It would be a different story if the company was the only defendant who was then convicted and sentenced, and it was the owner(s) who serve out the sentence of jail time.
So if your grandma bought you 1 share of stock in a company that did something illegal for your birthday, you get to go to jail. Nice.
profound...
Well if their windows drivers are crappy *and* their linux drivers are crappy, it seems like as good a time as ever to make a good unified driver that isn't as heavily dependent on the OS. If ever there was a time *not* to focus only on windows, it's now. There are game consoles using desktop graphics chips, mobile OSes, etc. Gambling on windows being dominant forever was a good gamble in the 90s. It seems suicidal in 2015.
What I am asking TWX, is why it is so important to be covered beyond $50K in taxis, but not in other cars. The reasons of the people touting the need for taxis to have commercial insurance would seem like they should apply to everybody.
I can't imagine medical bills are higher in accidents involving taxis. It seems like the best thing to do would be to figure out how much coverage is necessary to cover medical bills (e.g. 50k 100k or 1 million, etc), force everyone to have that much insurance, and let insurance companies decide how much that much coverage costs for every person based on driving frequency, occupation, previous record, etc.
Having a government mandated separation between commercial and non-commercial insurance seems pointless. If it is important to be covered by a certain $ amount in the event that you are injured by a taxi, it would seem important that you are covered for that amount regardless of the professions of the people involved in the accident.
That sounds really good. It sure sucks that you are forced to be crippled and destitute if you are injured in a friend's car. Do we really want a system where you pray that the guy that just hit you is a commercial driver, because if he wasn't you are completely fucked?
why should a newcomer to the field not have to play by the same rules that the taxi companies are forced to play by?
This is a good reason to remove unnecessary laws for all taxis, not force evryone to follow the same bad laws just to be fair. You could even have compensation for those who may have invested a lot of money taxi medallions, by purchasing them back at a recent high market price (not the post uber crash price).
Some regulations are good. Let's keep those. We just need to get rid of the bad ones.
And you know about all the insurance policies in every state around the country and all the insurance laws regarding taxis in the world, so this guy is clearly full of shit.
All you mindless anti-uber people who love pointless government regulations that only serve to funnel money to those in positions of power, just don't understand that regulations can sometimes be outdated and/or exploited to the detriment of the public good.
See, it's pretty easy to make a strawman argument.
So why is it that it is not important to have that kind of safety when you're not in a taxi? Do we really want people to have medical bills they can't afford if they are injured in a friend's car?
People picking up their drunk friends also don't carry a commercial license. Why is it even necessary for any taxis to have commercial insurance? Just let the insurance companies decide what to charge people for coverage, and simply have the law require all people to be insured.
Hacking isn't the only problem that can occur. There can be deadly software bugs that are discovered (e.g. like Toyota's stuck accelerator problem), that an OTA update would be able to fix relatively quickly. Even if you do a recall, it will be impossible to fix all the cars at once, it will take months to get all the cars fixed, and in the mean time people will be driving them. Even the people that fix them immediately will need to drive to those cars to the dealership to get them updated.
I take it then, that you have a doctoral degree in education?
If I did, you would just believe me?
And, thirty years experience in the field?
I know plenty of people with 30+ years of experience in the field of education that don't know shit.
I don't know where you got the idea that the brightest person in a group is going to be held back.
Are you asking me where I got the idea that people who aren't challenged with what they are learning aren't actually learning anything?
If that were so, the brightest people in the class of 20 or 30 students will also be held back by the class.
If you were ever one of the brightest people in a class of 20 or 30 students, you might have experienced being bored (i.e. not challenged) by the material.
If you were never one of the kids in a learning group who totally understood the material and spent the entire time trying to explain the material to the rest of the group (i.e. you were the one receiving the help), then maybe you would be inclined to believe that group learning is only ever helpful.
Teacher + assistants? I've never experienced such a thing. One teacher, or one professor. Assistants? WTF for?
I don't know if you have have a university degree or not, but it is pretty common for professors to have assistants known as "teaching assistants" or "T.A.s". They do things like answering questions students may have about the professor's lectures, grading homework and exams, proctoring exams, etc. It seemed to me that they were usually graduate students trying to earn some extra money and something to put on their resume.
Actually, the OTA makes it vulnerable. If the car is totally disconnected from the interwebs, then it cannot be hacked from the interwebs.
So if hacking from the interwebs were the only potential vulnerability, then simply disconnecting from the interwebs would certainly be the best solution.
If hacking from the interwebs is not the only potential vulnerability, by simply disconnecting, you are surrendering a very powerful tool for patching all security vulnerabilities in order to be safer from one of them.
I don't think it would have adequately captured the absurdity.
OTA updates are probably safer than every vehicle being stuck with whatever old version of software they have until the driver brings it in for service, the whole time being vulnerable to publicly known security flaws.
I'm sure Tesla digitally signs it's updates, so it's not as if any idiot can just beam over whatever software they want onto your car. And if they can, that's something that needs to be patched immediately (i.e. with an OTA update), rather than waiting a few weeks.
If the government has backdoor access to your car's computers -- and how do we know they don't? -- so will the hackers.
We will know about the backdoors because hackers (unlike the NSA) are blabber-mouths. There is a reason 0-day exploits are valuable.
That would be a good way to avoid all warranty claims. If your engine dies, you need to provide police reports and insurance reports IT reports, etc, etc, etc. Assuming the company doesn't give a shit about their reputation, or selling any cars in the future, they should absolutely deny your warranty for any and every reason they can think of, if your car (running their software), gets hacked.
He actually will still be doing that. It is how he is able to transfuse youth into himself and achieve immortality.