Your whole point is like telling someone to put their balls on a table and hand you a knife. If you want to take the risk, you put your balls on the table.
Not even remotely. The whole point is related to actual vs perceived risk. I your 'balls on the table' scenario, the actual risk seems quite unknown. There is not data to support a risk based decision.
A more appropriate comparison would be someone choice to walk a few steps with their shoelaces untied before stopping to tie them. They could fall down and get injured. They are aware and understand the risks, and they are able to decide based on that. People act accordingly when they understand the risks, and when they don't they act according to their perceptions of it.
Eating this food is extremely low risk, to the point where there is not really even a measurable impact, but people perceive it as higher risk based on FUD induced perceptions. By comparison, riding in a car is a much much greater risk, but still acceptable to the same people. People don't avoid riding in cars because they understand the risk.
Some people who buy in to the FUD regarding immunizations make bad decisions, because their perceptions of the risk are wrong.
And the important thing for American media companies to remember is that they're not American in thought, taste or outlook.
While I agree that there are differences, the EU still eats up American programming like crazy. So I'm not sure how much it matters, and it seems over time our programming is converging to be more similar, that is, what works in the US or the EU is tried in the other.
Actually, you simply can't explain it. There are many possible failure modes, we could list them all, but you fail to explain what information you have to indicate this particular failure occurred or is likely to occur. To do so would require you to put for the details of actual testing process, the peripheral checks in place, etc.
In what way is a known failure mode, tested carefully and repeatable, "baseless"?
Because you have no basis to apply it to these specific tests, and conveniently ignore that safety levels set by the government are much lower than what is known to be safe for a reason, and that safety levels are typically set in consideration of the testing methods available.
And now I see you are going to run off with some cesium FUD, and tell us levels don't matter, when they certainly do.
You prefer testing, but when you get it you throw out baseless doubts, and latch on to them. You fail to understand the levels of radiation we are dealing with and how easy it is to be accurate, even with large samples.
That was clever. now you have a convenient excuse to ignore the facts. Its amazing what people will manufacture in their minds to see the world the way they want to see it. If the equipment were proven accurate right in front of you, no doubt you would find another excuse, and in the end you can always call it a grand conspiracy so you don't have to face reality.
Radiation detection can easily be done do many orders of magnitude greater than needed for this test. You have no basis do doubt the equipment. The food is out there so independent folks can easily test it if they like.
You are not sure because the FUD you have heard over the years has influenced you.
Radiation and Asbestos health impacts have both been well studied, so if you are using that as an example, then you should very confident that eating the food is safe because we have the data . But, you don't because of the FUD.
I wonder if a spreadsheet is really the right tool for computations that take several dozens of seconds on modern hardware, even without GPU acceleration. I am inclined to think it is not.
It depends on the nature of the data and the calculation itself. If it is a relatively small data set and does not require relational tables, but a very complicated set of equations, then a spreadsheet might be a reasonable choice vs a database.
As someone who has never found a use for spreadsheets anyway, I wonder whether there is anyone who uses LibreOffice spreadsheets? For what is this used, accounting?
Just wondering...
Spreadsheets are tremendously useful for a number of things. Accounting is a perfect & common use. Doing cost estimates or comparisons, doing sensitivity analysis (what happens to the answer if I change one parameter?), anything where you have a table of data and you want to analyze it, sum it, average it, etc.
For me, video calling would be the thing I'd expect to improve significantly with higher speed access. But higher speed doesn't mean equivalently lower latency, and latency improvement is really what I want.
students who multitasked while doing homework had to study longer, and those who frequently multitasked in class had lower grades on average than their peers who multitasked less often
This groundbreaking research has discovered that people that focus on what they are doing perform better than people that don't. I think we need more studies to confirm this.
There are different kinds of experts (applies to all areas....). There's the 'professor', that understands it all, is glad to tell you how much you don't understand it, but has never implemented a useful solution. There's the 'painter', who knows how to find it and cover it up and make it look and sound good, there's the 'mechanic', who'll go in and work on it for you, but you may not know what he really did or if he really helped you, and there's the 'mentor', who will take time to make sure you understand and can do the right things.
Yeah, firefighters are the type of people that go around destroying people's property for no reason, and then laugh in their face. We can't trust them. They enter homes without knocking all the time.
If emergency workers get immunity that means they could step on your 20,000 dollar drone while fighting a fire in your neighbor's backyard and do nothing but laugh in your face.
They can already plow a car out of a fire zone with a fire truck if they need to. Laughing in the face of the owner is optional, probably not endorsed by the fire dept.
OK, that helps. Thanks. I just brought it up because it gets overlooked often in these types of articles.
I guess I'll have to watch the vid, but cant' at work...., will be interesting to see how they knew the address of that particular car......did they find that specific car via owner account/name after hacking Uconnect?
So, you are certain that they connected to a particular car that they had not accessed at all in any other way prior to hacking? I don't think it is clear at all on that part.
Doesn't it matter what it takes to make this exploit work? For instance, if you have to physically access the vehicle and do something in order to enable the remote exploit. There is a widely know physical exploit called cutting the brake lines, but manufacturers are in no way responsible for creating hard to access and cut brake lines.
These articles often are vague on the implementation requirements to achieve the exploit. That matters, IMHO.
With that said, standard control architecture practices should keep the key controls like steering, braking, acceleration, etc separate from the data monitoring and other systems, and where you can't separate entirely there are methods to manage that as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Your whole point is like telling someone to put their balls on a table and hand you a knife. If you want to take the risk, you put your balls on the table.
Not even remotely. The whole point is related to actual vs perceived risk. I your 'balls on the table' scenario, the actual risk seems quite unknown. There is not data to support a risk based decision.
A more appropriate comparison would be someone choice to walk a few steps with their shoelaces untied before stopping to tie them. They could fall down and get injured. They are aware and understand the risks, and they are able to decide based on that. People act accordingly when they understand the risks, and when they don't they act according to their perceptions of it.
Eating this food is extremely low risk, to the point where there is not really even a measurable impact, but people perceive it as higher risk based on FUD induced perceptions. By comparison, riding in a car is a much much greater risk, but still acceptable to the same people. People don't avoid riding in cars because they understand the risk.
Some people who buy in to the FUD regarding immunizations make bad decisions, because their perceptions of the risk are wrong.
And the important thing for American media companies to remember is that they're not American in thought, taste or outlook.
While I agree that there are differences, the EU still eats up American programming like crazy. So I'm not sure how much it matters, and it seems over time our programming is converging to be more similar, that is, what works in the US or the EU is tried in the other.
Actually, you simply can't explain it. There are many possible failure modes, we could list them all, but you fail to explain what information you have to indicate this particular failure occurred or is likely to occur. To do so would require you to put for the details of actual testing process, the peripheral checks in place, etc.
I'll check that out.. thanks
In what way is a known failure mode, tested carefully and repeatable, "baseless"?
Because you have no basis to apply it to these specific tests, and conveniently ignore that safety levels set by the government are much lower than what is known to be safe for a reason, and that safety levels are typically set in consideration of the testing methods available.
And now I see you are going to run off with some cesium FUD, and tell us levels don't matter, when they certainly do.
You prefer testing, but when you get it you throw out baseless doubts, and latch on to them. You fail to understand the levels of radiation we are dealing with and how easy it is to be accurate, even with large samples.
That was clever. now you have a convenient excuse to ignore the facts. Its amazing what people will manufacture in their minds to see the world the way they want to see it. If the equipment were proven accurate right in front of you, no doubt you would find another excuse, and in the end you can always call it a grand conspiracy so you don't have to face reality.
Radiation detection can easily be done do many orders of magnitude greater than needed for this test. You have no basis do doubt the equipment. The food is out there so independent folks can easily test it if they like.
I'm not so sure it is FUD. I
You are not sure because the FUD you have heard over the years has influenced you.
Radiation and Asbestos health impacts have both been well studied, so if you are using that as an example, then you should very confident that eating the food is safe because we have the data . But, you don't because of the FUD.
But nobody under 50 should get near it.
There is no basis for this at all, it is pure FUD.
Anyone who is surprised by the fact that the long term effects of the Fukushima event won't live up to the FUD, might want to question those sources.
Yeah, I should have clarified for simple accounting. Obviously not for higher order stuff.
I wonder if a spreadsheet is really the right tool for computations that take several dozens of seconds on modern hardware, even without GPU acceleration. I am inclined to think it is not.
It depends on the nature of the data and the calculation itself. If it is a relatively small data set and does not require relational tables, but a very complicated set of equations, then a spreadsheet might be a reasonable choice vs a database.
As someone who has never found a use for spreadsheets anyway, I wonder whether there is anyone who uses LibreOffice spreadsheets? For what is this used, accounting?
Just wondering...
Spreadsheets are tremendously useful for a number of things. Accounting is a perfect & common use. Doing cost estimates or comparisons, doing sensitivity analysis (what happens to the answer if I change one parameter?), anything where you have a table of data and you want to analyze it, sum it, average it, etc.
For me, video calling would be the thing I'd expect to improve significantly with higher speed access. But higher speed doesn't mean equivalently lower latency, and latency improvement is really what I want.
They ought to make some shows about Alaska. Can't believe nobody has thought of that yet.
students who multitasked while doing homework had to study longer, and those who frequently multitasked in class had lower grades on average than their peers who multitasked less often
This groundbreaking research has discovered that people that focus on what they are doing perform better than people that don't. I think we need more studies to confirm this.
I also pledge for New York to decrease emissions.
That's funny. I had to look and check that he really said that. So much for maintaining legitimacy.
Besides, why do we need anti gravity propulsion when we'll have transporter beams?
There are different kinds of experts (applies to all areas....). There's the 'professor', that understands it all, is glad to tell you how much you don't understand it, but has never implemented a useful solution. There's the 'painter', who knows how to find it and cover it up and make it look and sound good, there's the 'mechanic', who'll go in and work on it for you, but you may not know what he really did or if he really helped you, and there's the 'mentor', who will take time to make sure you understand and can do the right things.
Autonomous subs.... what better way to smuggle? Expect in interesting audience.
Yeah, firefighters are the type of people that go around destroying people's property for no reason, and then laugh in their face. We can't trust them. They enter homes without knocking all the time.
If emergency workers get immunity that means they could step on your 20,000 dollar drone while fighting a fire in your neighbor's backyard and do nothing but laugh in your face.
They can already plow a car out of a fire zone with a fire truck if they need to. Laughing in the face of the owner is optional, probably not endorsed by the fire dept.
OK, that helps. Thanks. I just brought it up because it gets overlooked often in these types of articles.
I guess I'll have to watch the vid, but cant' at work...., will be interesting to see how they knew the address of that particular car......did they find that specific car via owner account/name after hacking Uconnect?
So, you are certain that they connected to a particular car that they had not accessed at all in any other way prior to hacking? I don't think it is clear at all on that part.
Doesn't it matter what it takes to make this exploit work? For instance, if you have to physically access the vehicle and do something in order to enable the remote exploit. There is a widely know physical exploit called cutting the brake lines, but manufacturers are in no way responsible for creating hard to access and cut brake lines.
These articles often are vague on the implementation requirements to achieve the exploit. That matters, IMHO.
With that said, standard control architecture practices should keep the key controls like steering, braking, acceleration, etc separate from the data monitoring and other systems, and where you can't separate entirely there are methods to manage that as well.