I don't think anybody is suggesting "inject CO2, cause earthquake"
Well, anyone except the scientist at the University of Texas and the entire article. But other than that, no one else.
Sort of.
The data suggest that there is a previously unidentified fault running through the area, and that the CO2 injections effectively lubricate that fault, enabling slippage. (Scientists documented a series of earthquakes in the area from 1975 through 1982, but those tremors were linked to water injections, also intended to boost oil production.)
They're not saying that the simple presence of CO2 causes earthquakes. They're saying the mechanical stresses involved may well have dislodged things.
These guys probably deserve what's coming to them but to say that a profile is evidence is a bit extreme.
Except the article points out that they made sure to never actually suggest anything unless it was asked of them (OK, in fairness this one isn't as clear on that point, but I've seen quite a few covering this already).
It's not entrapment when you initiate contact and are the first one to offer to pay to see an underage girl naked.
They just had a fictional 10 year old join a chat room. That a bunch of them immediately started making contact with her... well, that's their actions. It's not like they went in and said "hey, I'm a 10 year old girl willing to get naked for old men".
And, remembering ICQ... a/s/l and other immediate responses to the apparent presence of a female, I find this entirely plausible.
Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.
Or that rocks will break and fracture in ways that aren't necessarily predictable.
It can be the cause in one well, and still not have caused the same problem in another well just simply by the local rocks and what's already happened to them.
I don't think anybody is suggesting "inject CO2, cause earthquake"... but that the rocks might fracture (or whatever) in ways you don't really have a way to predict very well.
If it was pumping in the high pressure stuff that lead to unexpected mechanical failure of rock structures, you're never going to get a 100% result on something like that.
But I do think it highly likely there's more complexity going on than they're capable of knowing or controlling.
I don't even want to think about what a 200mph+ DOT tire costs.
I figure if you can afford the 200+ mph car, you don't give a shit about the cost of tires.
That, or you've spent so much on the car you can't afford to operate it -- which makes you a complete moron. (Not 'you' in the specific, of course, the hypothetical supercar owner who can't afford tires)
Why is it that every single time some big entity's password database is breached, it turns out that they're not following best practices for password storage?
Honest answer? 'Good enough' costs far less than 'really secure', and companies aren't really interested in doing any real security -- just something which looks secure-ish.
Worst case, they'll get a small fine which is less than the cost of making the changes would have been.
There's simply no incentive (because there are no real punishments) for a company to take data security seriously. So they do a half-assed job of it, and leave it there.
You can bet that, at some point, someone said "this is terribly insecure", and got told by management to STFU.
And unless Adobe gets a really stiff penalty for this, nothing at all will change.
Yes and no. I'm betting this was about the top of the engineered range for the Tesla and its tires -- which likely means they didn't really do a lot of engineering and testing around these speeds.
Going as fast as your tires are rated for has about the same net effect I should think -- they get very hot, start to wear out, and likely don't have the expected pressure any more.
I kinda wonder if the tires were properly inflated and in good condition
Probably, they were.
When Top Gear took a Bugatti Veyron up to top speed, they said the tires would only last a few minutes, but the fuel would give out slightly before then.
My guess is driving that fast puts a lot of strain on the tires, and even if you started off with no warning lights, you'd end up with a couple.
you could blame india for the horrendus poverty levels that enable an american corporation to pay slave like wages to india and be considered a salvation
I certainly can't blame then for wanting to fix it. And since America also has horrendous poverty levels in some places... I wouldn't recommend falling off that moral high ground.
But I can blame corporations for what they do -- if an American corporation wants to cut American jobs so they can be done cheaply elsewhere, why would Americans keep buying from them? Loyalty? Pride? Stupidity?
Americans are fond of talking about 'the market' -- this is just that. For better or worse, this is the globalization everyone has been crowing about for years, and is pretty much exactly what we've been told to expect.
Someone is willing to do it cheaper than you are -- and the race to the bottom continues.
So, what have you to say for yourselves, space cowboys of India?
India has a population of over 1.2 billion people. There will always be other things to spend money on. This gives India both technology, future industry, and hopefully something to make the next generation of Indian rocket scientists happen.
You can't stagnate a country until you've mopped up everything else -- because you'd never be done. This was done for something like under $75 million dollars -- it's not like that would have completely alleviated the problems. It likely wouldn't even put a dent in them.
Find me one single country which has solved all of their problems before also focusing on other things. The reality is, you can't, and all countries need to do more than one thing.
The former is an illogical thinker. The latter a logical one.
So, according to you, it is logical to conclude that: companies who already track, cross-reference, analyze, sell, and interpret all of the data they can get their hands upon about you, the consumer... when confronted with the ability to do facial recognition will choose not to unless otherwise compelled by law, and even if they did would never abuse? And that anytime we wanted to we could pass laws to make them stop?
Because of what, unicorns? Ethics? A sudden desire to protect your privacy?
I am not making a slippery slope argument. I am making a prediction that this will happen and will be abused... because it has been happening already, and it only gets worse. This one thing isn't the causal reason why it will be abused, it will be abused because it exists.
More and more entities collect and traffic in your data. More and more of them suffer data breaches. And more and more are subject to government subpoena and/or covert surveillance.
Thinking they won't do facial recognition in stores and leverage that in any way they can is naive. Thinking that governments (and other actors) won't seek to exploit that is ignoring what's been happening in the news.
The idiot is the person who believes in slippery slope arguments
No, the idiot is the one who is trying to prove himself clever in all of this.
You have doggedly stuck to debating syntax, if you have anything to say on the topic, feel free. If you just want to argue semantic technicalities and say nothing about the actual topic, piss off.
This is a "slippery slope argument" and therefore invalid.
Then you're an idiot, or fooling yourself.
Just because something nefarious could happen in the future does not mean it will and does not mean it will not be stopped before it happens.
And based on the nefarious stuff which happens now, and the distinct lack of stopping it, I conclude that the same bullshit will happen with different technology. It will just be more widespread and pervasive.
I'm not suggesting they're going to be any different than they are now, I'm saying they're already acting like douchebags and I expect them to continue. I call that a safe bet.
Do you really think that within hours of facial recognition being turned on or even proposed that it would not be posted on Slashdot?
And WTF would posting it on Slashdot do? There's all sorts of stuff that might outrage us here on Slashdot which the rest of the populace will say "well, as long as they're doing it to protect against terrorists it must be OK".
It is never too late to turn something off.
Bullshit. Because the companies have the ability to pay lobbyists to ensure it doesn't get turned off.
When your politicians are paid actors on behalf of corporations, and you already have evidence that corporations act like unprincipled assholes, you don't assume that this time they'll suddenly play nice.
Well, in fairness, by the time someone has a PhD in CS they are so removed from things like code reviews it's not funny.
Some of the worst programmers I've met in my life had a Masters in CS. Some of them couldn't really program at all, which often made me wonder how the hell they'd gotten a Masters degree. Because they'd clearly never learned some of the stuff I'd have expected them to have learned in an undergraduate degree.
At a certain point, CS has nothing at all to do with writing code, and is more like abstract math. And I've known several CS professors who hadn't written any code in literally years, and more than a few who never actually wrote code professionally.
Don't underestimate the extent to which the more letters after your name, the more your knowledge is limited to the purely theoretical or only your research area. That's not to say everybody with an MSc or PhD in CS suffers from this -- but I know I'm not alone in having seen examples of people who do.
What will we do ? Its not like a few developers can get together and create a voice-over-IP service themselves. Oh... wait a minute.
Right up until find yourself fighting a patent infringement lawsuit, I fear.
You really think Microsoft (and Skype before them) didn't make damned sure their patents were filed and recorded for this stuff? Or that they wouldn't be so over-broad as to encompass the entire concept?
Am I the only one who reads these things and goes: "Holy fuck, seriously? We're detecting planetary-caused star-wobble from where? That's how we do this shit?!?"
20+ years ago when I was in university and hung out with astrophysicists, this was exactly what they were talking about. There hadn't yet been any found, so it was still pretty cutting edge.
I think there's a few ways -- infer the planets from the wobble of the sun, observe a slight fluctuation in the starlight as the planet passes in front, and possibly gravitational lensing, but that might have been for other things.
Welcome to the future -- what was science fiction/cutting edge science when we were younger is now almost commonplace.
I remember at the time the belief of the astrophysicists was that only a very small amount of stars would have planets. Apparently it was considered pretty unlikely to happen. And now we seem to mostly expect that a large portion of stars will have planets and have catalogued quite a few of them.
Now imagine trying to explain all of this to your grandparents who likely remember indoor plumbing being new, and still received blocks of ice to keep food cold.
Slashdot Mirror
And the Veyron costs, what, over $1 million US dollars or something like that?
If you can afford to buy the world's fastest car for that much money, I'm sure replacing the tires is just chump change.
Let's face it, this isn't the car you're taking the kids to school with or doing your shopping, so you've probably got a dozen other cars you can use.
Sort of.
They're not saying that the simple presence of CO2 causes earthquakes. They're saying the mechanical stresses involved may well have dislodged things.
But you apparently didn't read TFA.
Except the article points out that they made sure to never actually suggest anything unless it was asked of them (OK, in fairness this one isn't as clear on that point, but I've seen quite a few covering this already).
It's not entrapment when you initiate contact and are the first one to offer to pay to see an underage girl naked.
They just had a fictional 10 year old join a chat room. That a bunch of them immediately started making contact with her ... well, that's their actions. It's not like they went in and said "hey, I'm a 10 year old girl willing to get naked for old men".
And, remembering ICQ ... a/s/l and other immediate responses to the apparent presence of a female, I find this entirely plausible.
Or that rocks will break and fracture in ways that aren't necessarily predictable.
It can be the cause in one well, and still not have caused the same problem in another well just simply by the local rocks and what's already happened to them.
I don't think anybody is suggesting "inject CO2, cause earthquake" ... but that the rocks might fracture (or whatever) in ways you don't really have a way to predict very well.
If it was pumping in the high pressure stuff that lead to unexpected mechanical failure of rock structures, you're never going to get a 100% result on something like that.
But I do think it highly likely there's more complexity going on than they're capable of knowing or controlling.
I figure if you can afford the 200+ mph car, you don't give a shit about the cost of tires.
That, or you've spent so much on the car you can't afford to operate it -- which makes you a complete moron. (Not 'you' in the specific, of course, the hypothetical supercar owner who can't afford tires)
Honest answer? 'Good enough' costs far less than 'really secure', and companies aren't really interested in doing any real security -- just something which looks secure-ish.
Worst case, they'll get a small fine which is less than the cost of making the changes would have been.
There's simply no incentive (because there are no real punishments) for a company to take data security seriously. So they do a half-assed job of it, and leave it there.
You can bet that, at some point, someone said "this is terribly insecure", and got told by management to STFU.
And unless Adobe gets a really stiff penalty for this, nothing at all will change.
That's not fair. Someone has to be around to enforce contract law and property rights too.
Yes and no. I'm betting this was about the top of the engineered range for the Tesla and its tires -- which likely means they didn't really do a lot of engineering and testing around these speeds.
Going as fast as your tires are rated for has about the same net effect I should think -- they get very hot, start to wear out, and likely don't have the expected pressure any more.
I already know French. And sunscreen helps keep my pasty-white complexion. ;-)
Probably, they were.
When Top Gear took a Bugatti Veyron up to top speed, they said the tires would only last a few minutes, but the fuel would give out slightly before then.
My guess is driving that fast puts a lot of strain on the tires, and even if you started off with no warning lights, you'd end up with a couple.
Considering the Maxima was made by Nissan and not Toyota, absolutely.
Otherwise, not so much. ;-)
I certainly can't blame then for wanting to fix it. And since America also has horrendous poverty levels in some places ... I wouldn't recommend falling off that moral high ground.
But I can blame corporations for what they do -- if an American corporation wants to cut American jobs so they can be done cheaply elsewhere, why would Americans keep buying from them? Loyalty? Pride? Stupidity?
Americans are fond of talking about 'the market' -- this is just that. For better or worse, this is the globalization everyone has been crowing about for years, and is pretty much exactly what we've been told to expect.
Someone is willing to do it cheaper than you are -- and the race to the bottom continues.
India isn't stealing anything. It's your corporate overlords who are moving the jobs away to be done more cheaply.
Don't blame India for that.
India has a population of over 1.2 billion people. There will always be other things to spend money on. This gives India both technology, future industry, and hopefully something to make the next generation of Indian rocket scientists happen.
You can't stagnate a country until you've mopped up everything else -- because you'd never be done. This was done for something like under $75 million dollars -- it's not like that would have completely alleviated the problems. It likely wouldn't even put a dent in them.
Find me one single country which has solved all of their problems before also focusing on other things. The reality is, you can't, and all countries need to do more than one thing.
Jai Hind!!
Awesome work guys. Hopefully in 10 months we'll be seeing stories about how it's entered orbit, and not stories about something going wrong.
Yeah, but it was Pizza Pizza, so by giving you lousy technology they spared you from eating the lousy pizza. ;-)
So, according to you, it is logical to conclude that: companies who already track, cross-reference, analyze, sell, and interpret all of the data they can get their hands upon about you, the consumer ... when confronted with the ability to do facial recognition will choose not to unless otherwise compelled by law, and even if they did would never abuse? And that anytime we wanted to we could pass laws to make them stop?
Because of what, unicorns? Ethics? A sudden desire to protect your privacy?
I am not making a slippery slope argument. I am making a prediction that this will happen and will be abused ... because it has been happening already, and it only gets worse. This one thing isn't the causal reason why it will be abused, it will be abused because it exists.
More and more entities collect and traffic in your data. More and more of them suffer data breaches. And more and more are subject to government subpoena and/or covert surveillance.
Thinking they won't do facial recognition in stores and leverage that in any way they can is naive. Thinking that governments (and other actors) won't seek to exploit that is ignoring what's been happening in the news.
No, the idiot is the one who is trying to prove himself clever in all of this.
You have doggedly stuck to debating syntax, if you have anything to say on the topic, feel free. If you just want to argue semantic technicalities and say nothing about the actual topic, piss off.
Then you're an idiot, or fooling yourself.
And based on the nefarious stuff which happens now, and the distinct lack of stopping it, I conclude that the same bullshit will happen with different technology. It will just be more widespread and pervasive.
I'm not suggesting they're going to be any different than they are now, I'm saying they're already acting like douchebags and I expect them to continue. I call that a safe bet.
And WTF would posting it on Slashdot do? There's all sorts of stuff that might outrage us here on Slashdot which the rest of the populace will say "well, as long as they're doing it to protect against terrorists it must be OK".
Bullshit. Because the companies have the ability to pay lobbyists to ensure it doesn't get turned off.
When your politicians are paid actors on behalf of corporations, and you already have evidence that corporations act like unprincipled assholes, you don't assume that this time they'll suddenly play nice.
And, has this changed in the last 30-50 years, and is it related to home-schooling?
The answer is, 'no' on both counts.
So I'm not sure what you're saying -- home schooling prevents bullying of nerds by taking other children out of the equation?
Well, in fairness, by the time someone has a PhD in CS they are so removed from things like code reviews it's not funny.
Some of the worst programmers I've met in my life had a Masters in CS. Some of them couldn't really program at all, which often made me wonder how the hell they'd gotten a Masters degree. Because they'd clearly never learned some of the stuff I'd have expected them to have learned in an undergraduate degree.
At a certain point, CS has nothing at all to do with writing code, and is more like abstract math. And I've known several CS professors who hadn't written any code in literally years, and more than a few who never actually wrote code professionally.
Don't underestimate the extent to which the more letters after your name, the more your knowledge is limited to the purely theoretical or only your research area. That's not to say everybody with an MSc or PhD in CS suffers from this -- but I know I'm not alone in having seen examples of people who do.
Not yet.
And in an age of big data and massive government surveillance, I have little faith it won't be before long.
You either need to pass laws concerning it now, or in 5 years (or less) what you say isn't happening will be common place and it will be too late.
So, expect the quality of computers to go downhill over the next few years, but we'll do out best to fix it in software?
That sounds like we're putting the quality control on the wrong side of the equation to me.
Right up until find yourself fighting a patent infringement lawsuit, I fear.
You really think Microsoft (and Skype before them) didn't make damned sure their patents were filed and recorded for this stuff? Or that they wouldn't be so over-broad as to encompass the entire concept?
I'm not so sure.
You mean it might stop offering to install Flash for me?
That would be nice.
20+ years ago when I was in university and hung out with astrophysicists, this was exactly what they were talking about. There hadn't yet been any found, so it was still pretty cutting edge.
I think there's a few ways -- infer the planets from the wobble of the sun, observe a slight fluctuation in the starlight as the planet passes in front, and possibly gravitational lensing, but that might have been for other things.
Welcome to the future -- what was science fiction/cutting edge science when we were younger is now almost commonplace.
I remember at the time the belief of the astrophysicists was that only a very small amount of stars would have planets. Apparently it was considered pretty unlikely to happen. And now we seem to mostly expect that a large portion of stars will have planets and have catalogued quite a few of them.
Now imagine trying to explain all of this to your grandparents who likely remember indoor plumbing being new, and still received blocks of ice to keep food cold.