Do you trust your average consumer electronics company with a kill switch on all your devices?
I know I don't!
Imagine that the company decides to do an autoupdate to introduce more ads, and more vendor lock-in, while doing nothing to improve security (which is thousands of times more likely to happen than a simple security update is) and then uses a kill switch on any device that doesn't update? We don't actually have to imagine all that hard, because we have lots of past experience of companies trying this sort of garbage.
What happens if your password safe is a) compromised b) destroyed?
Using a password safe decreases security over all by adding a single point of failure for all of your accounts, and additionally decreases reliability by allowing you to lose access to all of your accounts at once if anything were to ever happen to it.
My point was that we do not know the level of technical expertise of the attacker, because their exploit was not of a technical nature. While pointing out that there is no reason to believe that there is any correlation between the 2 different skills.
To emphasize the point I used a humorous stereotype in response to their stereotype, however it was not the point of the discussion, and I in fact specifically called it out as a stereotype as opposed to claiming that it was real.
An attacker can still get in with the password, but they can also now get in by gaining access to the vault. Now you could argue that the vault is more secure than the passwords, so the risk is minimal, but it still decreases rather than increases security over all. Additionally, what if the vault is destroyed? If you're talking one in your home, if your home is destroyed the vault could be as well. While it's true that you then have "bigger problems" to worry about, do you want to also be dealing with loss of access to all your online accounts at the same time?
So now people can hack your password manager and get access to ALL your sites instead of just one.
A password manager is another "account recovery" option, it weakens your security. By how much depends on the type of password manager used.
And how does the password manager solve the Tumblr incident I just mentioned? Or what if the password manager stops working for some reason (corrupt or lost database, cloud provider goes bankrupt, etc etc)
They didn't necessarily have any technical expertise. They had social engineering expertise which is something entirely different. In fact the 2 are often not really related. The stereotypical technical person (geek/nerd) is not known for their social engineering abilities.
It doesn't really matter what that is, but if there's a way to "recover" your account, then it's by necessity, a way to completely bypass any other authentication you had. The more ways to recover the account, the more attack vectors there are.
It's why I hate "recovery questions", they're usually bad questions that anyone could find out, and if I use some other answer, then I'm likely to forget what it is anyway.
If I need a password to access the site, at least it's only one thing to remember, and only one point of weakness for an attacker.
So the big question is, which is more important? the ability to recover an account you've been locked out of? or the security of knowing nobody else can either?
Of course companies can really screw this up too. For instance Tumblr recently re-set everyone's passwords and forced them all to use their recovery option because their password database had been compromised. Anyone who did not have a working recovery option was completely screwed, even though their account was otherwise more secure.
If someone sells you something WITHOUT any form of license, it's implied that you own it and can do whatever you want with it. It's only because the video game disk and windows came with license agreements that they retain any control over it. As Tesla's software does not come with a license agreement, they have not retained any rights to it and are implied to have ceded all those rights to the purchaser.
It's the same reason I don't need permission to modify a painting I bought, or to write all over the margins of a book I own.
That said, copyright would still apply if I tried to copy the software and give it to someone else. But that's an entirely different prospect than modifying my own property or using it how I see fit.
Physical ability, maybe, legal ability, no. Tesla cars currently do not come with any form of contract limiting what you may do with the vehicle. When you buy one you sign a form saying that you bought it, but no limitations at all on your use of it.
Now maybe a lease would be different as technically Tesla would still own the vehicle, but for sales, Tesla transfers all ownership rights to the new owner, and does not retain any.
Interestingly enough, Tesla currently does not have any EULA for buyers of it's cars. Which actually makes their sales stuff more open than some of their competition.
I bought the car outright, nowhere in any documentation I signed with the vehicle did it include any restrictions on what I may do with my own property after I bought it.
Now maybe they plan to start offering an EULA, but so far they do not.
Those people are educated, by definition. That doesn't mean that they are smart, or that they can read and write well. It just means they have more education.
People seem to assume that education equates to all sorts of other things, but it doesn't always. Just because it doesn't equate to all the things people want it to equate to though does not mean that more education does not make one more educated. By definition more education will always make you more educated, even if it doesn't make you smarter, more productive, or better in any other way.
L5 also requires driving in the rain. They added rear cameras, but no rear radar, and no way to clear those rear cameras off, as anyone who's ever tried using a backup camera in the rain or snow knows, after driving for a few minutes you can't see a thing through them.
The manual for the Model S and Model X both disagree with you. They explicitly state not to use autopilot in slippery conditions. Just like every other cruise control system on the market.
That said, we also know that this new hardware is NOT enough for full AP in inclement weather, or even a light drizzle of rain, because none of the rear cameras have wipers on them, and if you've ever tried to use the backup camera in the rain you'll see the problem.
Cameras are essential for forward vision to deal with lane markings and signage, however to see cars coming behind you, you need radar, and they still haven't included rear radar.
"Level 5 autonomy" in a car that can't drive in the rain is ridiculous.
So why is the sideline technology so hard to get right?
Because the criteria for selecting all of the equipment was solely which manufacturer paid them more to use it as opposed to who had a product suitable for the purpose? When your selection decisions don't include end users, or even an evaluation of their needs, nor do they compare the product to those needs, it's not a surprise when it doesn't do what your users need.
The funny thing about the study though is that a plumber running his own business with a dozen employees is "uneducated" while a Ph.D. in Gender Studies working the counter at Panera is "educated".
YMMV, read the fine print.
And that's completely accurate. Someone who has multiple degrees and has never worked in the real world will always be more "educated" and someone who has only a bit of training, but has been wildly successful and has lots of real world knowledge. That's what happens when you use the quantity of education as your differentiator. Now the real question becomes whether "education" is a metric we care about in these studies?
You could instead look at owners of businesses if that's what you care about, or people who have full time employment earning more than X per year, or in certain fields, or really there's almost an unlimited number of ways you can group people in a poll.
But to complain that "educated" only covers people with more education is somewhat funny as it is literally the definition of the word.
No, "copyright infringement" doesn't "murky the waters" it describes EXACTLY What is happening. the only ones trying to "murky the waters" are those calling it Theft when it doesn't meet even the most basic definitions of such.
It's precisely because people know that theft is wrong, and understand WHY it is wrong (depriving someone of their property) that it is extremely dishonest to call copyright infringement theft. When talking to non-technical people, you don't need to come up with a completely unrelated example. Talk to them about photocopying books, they're all familiar with that, and it's exactly the same thing. Trying to pretend it's different is extremely dishonest.
I'm not getting in to value judgement of whether copyright infringement is right or wrong, but you can't have an honest discussion about it when you intentionally try to prey on people's feelings in regards to a completely different issue to cause them to feel that same way about this one.
Well why don't we call it "murder" or "rape" while we're at it? They are also illegal, if that's what we're doing, lumping all illegal acts in together?
Why don't we call it jaywalking instead? Also illegal. But doesn't fit the narrative the studio's want to portray of it being a heinous act.
The point is that by conflating one crime with another you push an obvious agenda to try to make it seem more serious than it is.
Words do matter. And you can't have an honest discussion about a subject while using dishonest or misleading terminology.
Theft, in law, a general term covering a variety of specific types of stealing, including the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.
We have a word for copying something. "copying". We have a term for doing it without the legal permission to do so "copyright infringement". Theft is a very different crime which is in no way related to copyright infringement in any way.
Why should the CSS be different? Should my tablet really be forced in to a different version of the page than my netbook when they have basically the same screen size?
There is NEVER an excuse for offering a different page to mobile users than desktop users, NEVER. Every single time it provides a worse experience. EVERY time.
Right now Google lower-ranks your site for a variety of reasons relating to "but it doesn't work on a phone [crying sound]." While it makes sense to optimize for a phone normally (if trying to reach the largest audience), there are many cases where it actually hurts the site.
And by "many" times, you mean, "every single time" right? I have NEVER, not a single time, found a "mobile" version of a webpage that I like better on my phone than the full desktop version. Mobile sites need to die a horrible death.
I wonder if this means that the desktop index will remove those prioritization, allowing some of the old, but gold, content to bubble back up.
If true, I will definitely find a way to get my phone to use the desktop index, because if there's any possible way to eliminate "mobile friendly" sites from destroying the browsing experience on my phone, I'm all for it!
As a mobile user, I prefer sites which do NOT have a mobile interface. I have never found a single website that is better with it's "mobile" version than it's full version on my phone. It is ALWAYS better to have the full desktop site on my phone. Every single time.
If I could down rank every single "mobile compatible" page I would.
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla no longer has a reputation for speedy repairs.
Why Tesla has such a strong recommendation score is because there is literally zero competition.
So people will put up with flaky technology and poor repair experiences because there is simply no alternative if you want a similar vehicle.
I really believe that Tesla will be in a bunch of trouble if/when they ever have actual competition to deal with.
Do you trust your average consumer electronics company with a kill switch on all your devices?
I know I don't!
Imagine that the company decides to do an autoupdate to introduce more ads, and more vendor lock-in, while doing nothing to improve security (which is thousands of times more likely to happen than a simple security update is) and then uses a kill switch on any device that doesn't update?
We don't actually have to imagine all that hard, because we have lots of past experience of companies trying this sort of garbage.
What happens if your password safe is a) compromised b) destroyed?
Using a password safe decreases security over all by adding a single point of failure for all of your accounts, and additionally decreases reliability by allowing you to lose access to all of your accounts at once if anything were to ever happen to it.
And they wonder why people don't want to watch shows as they air any more?
My point was that we do not know the level of technical expertise of the attacker, because their exploit was not of a technical nature. While pointing out that there is no reason to believe that there is any correlation between the 2 different skills.
To emphasize the point I used a humorous stereotype in response to their stereotype, however it was not the point of the discussion, and I in fact specifically called it out as a stereotype as opposed to claiming that it was real.
Slightly less secure than a password alone.
An attacker can still get in with the password, but they can also now get in by gaining access to the vault. Now you could argue that the vault is more secure than the passwords, so the risk is minimal, but it still decreases rather than increases security over all. Additionally, what if the vault is destroyed? If you're talking one in your home, if your home is destroyed the vault could be as well. While it's true that you then have "bigger problems" to worry about, do you want to also be dealing with loss of access to all your online accounts at the same time?
So now people can hack your password manager and get access to ALL your sites instead of just one.
A password manager is another "account recovery" option, it weakens your security. By how much depends on the type of password manager used.
And how does the password manager solve the Tumblr incident I just mentioned? Or what if the password manager stops working for some reason (corrupt or lost database, cloud provider goes bankrupt, etc etc)
They didn't necessarily have any technical expertise. They had social engineering expertise which is something entirely different. In fact the 2 are often not really related. The stereotypical technical person (geek/nerd) is not known for their social engineering abilities.
It doesn't really matter what that is, but if there's a way to "recover" your account, then it's by necessity, a way to completely bypass any other authentication you had. The more ways to recover the account, the more attack vectors there are.
It's why I hate "recovery questions", they're usually bad questions that anyone could find out, and if I use some other answer, then I'm likely to forget what it is anyway.
If I need a password to access the site, at least it's only one thing to remember, and only one point of weakness for an attacker.
So the big question is, which is more important? the ability to recover an account you've been locked out of? or the security of knowing nobody else can either?
Of course companies can really screw this up too. For instance Tumblr recently re-set everyone's passwords and forced them all to use their recovery option because their password database had been compromised. Anyone who did not have a working recovery option was completely screwed, even though their account was otherwise more secure.
Sorry, that's completely incorrect.
If someone sells you something WITHOUT any form of license, it's implied that you own it and can do whatever you want with it. It's only because the video game disk and windows came with license agreements that they retain any control over it. As Tesla's software does not come with a license agreement, they have not retained any rights to it and are implied to have ceded all those rights to the purchaser.
It's the same reason I don't need permission to modify a painting I bought, or to write all over the margins of a book I own.
That said, copyright would still apply if I tried to copy the software and give it to someone else. But that's an entirely different prospect than modifying my own property or using it how I see fit.
Sure, but at least they were honest about it. Additionally, it wasn't a full 1/4 of the show like today's ads.
I don't know for sure what the 60s were like, but in the 70s hour long shows were over 50 minutes long. Now they're 45 or less.
Physical ability, maybe, legal ability, no. Tesla cars currently do not come with any form of contract limiting what you may do with the vehicle. When you buy one you sign a form saying that you bought it, but no limitations at all on your use of it.
Now maybe a lease would be different as technically Tesla would still own the vehicle, but for sales, Tesla transfers all ownership rights to the new owner, and does not retain any.
Interestingly enough, Tesla currently does not have any EULA for buyers of it's cars. Which actually makes their sales stuff more open than some of their competition.
I bought the car outright, nowhere in any documentation I signed with the vehicle did it include any restrictions on what I may do with my own property after I bought it.
Now maybe they plan to start offering an EULA, but so far they do not.
Those people are educated, by definition. That doesn't mean that they are smart, or that they can read and write well. It just means they have more education.
People seem to assume that education equates to all sorts of other things, but it doesn't always. Just because it doesn't equate to all the things people want it to equate to though does not mean that more education does not make one more educated. By definition more education will always make you more educated, even if it doesn't make you smarter, more productive, or better in any other way.
L5 also requires driving in the rain. They added rear cameras, but no rear radar, and no way to clear those rear cameras off, as anyone who's ever tried using a backup camera in the rain or snow knows, after driving for a few minutes you can't see a thing through them.
The manual for the Model S and Model X both disagree with you. They explicitly state not to use autopilot in slippery conditions. Just like every other cruise control system on the market.
That said, we also know that this new hardware is NOT enough for full AP in inclement weather, or even a light drizzle of rain, because none of the rear cameras have wipers on them, and if you've ever tried to use the backup camera in the rain you'll see the problem.
Cameras are essential for forward vision to deal with lane markings and signage, however to see cars coming behind you, you need radar, and they still haven't included rear radar.
"Level 5 autonomy" in a car that can't drive in the rain is ridiculous.
So why is the sideline technology so hard to get right?
Because the criteria for selecting all of the equipment was solely which manufacturer paid them more to use it as opposed to who had a product suitable for the purpose? When your selection decisions don't include end users, or even an evaluation of their needs, nor do they compare the product to those needs, it's not a surprise when it doesn't do what your users need.
>
The funny thing about the study though is that a plumber running his own business with a dozen employees is "uneducated" while a Ph.D. in Gender Studies working the counter at Panera is "educated".
YMMV, read the fine print .
And that's completely accurate.
Someone who has multiple degrees and has never worked in the real world will always be more "educated" and someone who has only a bit of training, but has been wildly successful and has lots of real world knowledge. That's what happens when you use the quantity of education as your differentiator. Now the real question becomes whether "education" is a metric we care about in these studies?
You could instead look at owners of businesses if that's what you care about, or people who have full time employment earning more than X per year, or in certain fields, or really there's almost an unlimited number of ways you can group people in a poll.
But to complain that "educated" only covers people with more education is somewhat funny as it is literally the definition of the word.
But how many will go from a VW TDi to a moped?
No, there people will pick one of the dozens of other Android phone makers because they want the capabilities that the Androids have.
My suspicion is that the Pixel will be the big winner in all of this, though there are better choices out there.
No, "copyright infringement" doesn't "murky the waters" it describes EXACTLY What is happening. the only ones trying to "murky the waters" are those calling it Theft when it doesn't meet even the most basic definitions of such.
It's precisely because people know that theft is wrong, and understand WHY it is wrong (depriving someone of their property) that it is extremely dishonest to call copyright infringement theft. When talking to non-technical people, you don't need to come up with a completely unrelated example. Talk to them about photocopying books, they're all familiar with that, and it's exactly the same thing. Trying to pretend it's different is extremely dishonest.
I'm not getting in to value judgement of whether copyright infringement is right or wrong, but you can't have an honest discussion about it when you intentionally try to prey on people's feelings in regards to a completely different issue to cause them to feel that same way about this one.
Well why don't we call it "murder" or "rape" while we're at it? They are also illegal, if that's what we're doing, lumping all illegal acts in together?
Why don't we call it jaywalking instead? Also illegal. But doesn't fit the narrative the studio's want to portray of it being a heinous act.
The point is that by conflating one crime with another you push an obvious agenda to try to make it seem more serious than it is.
Words do matter. And you can't have an honest discussion about a subject while using dishonest or misleading terminology.
Theft, in law, a general term covering a variety of specific types of stealing, including the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.
theft | law | Britannica.com
https://www.britannica.com/top...
We have a word for copying something. "copying". We have a term for doing it without the legal permission to do so "copyright infringement". Theft is a very different crime which is in no way related to copyright infringement in any way.
Why should the CSS be different?
Should my tablet really be forced in to a different version of the page than my netbook when they have basically the same screen size?
There is NEVER an excuse for offering a different page to mobile users than desktop users, NEVER. Every single time it provides a worse experience. EVERY time.
Right now Google lower-ranks your site for a variety of reasons relating to "but it doesn't work on a phone [crying sound]." While it makes sense to optimize for a phone normally (if trying to reach the largest audience), there are many cases where it actually hurts the site.
And by "many" times, you mean, "every single time" right? I have NEVER, not a single time, found a "mobile" version of a webpage that I like better on my phone than the full desktop version. Mobile sites need to die a horrible death.
I wonder if this means that the desktop index will remove those prioritization, allowing some of the old, but gold, content to bubble back up.
If true, I will definitely find a way to get my phone to use the desktop index, because if there's any possible way to eliminate "mobile friendly" sites from destroying the browsing experience on my phone, I'm all for it!
As a mobile user, I prefer sites which do NOT have a mobile interface.
I have never found a single website that is better with it's "mobile" version than it's full version on my phone. It is ALWAYS better to have the full desktop site on my phone. Every single time.
If I could down rank every single "mobile compatible" page I would.