What you are talking about are double-reservations which only worked if people had refundable tickets. This got cracked down on but it's unrelated to over-booking. Over-booking exists because it allows the airlines to accommodate passengers with extenuating circumstances as well as business travelers who need some schedule flexibility. It is very rare that people get bumped from a flight. Many people love to volunteer to take a later flight in exchange for compensation. On Southwest, I'll do it just about every chance I get assuming that I'm not flying to a business meeting. On other airlines less so but only because the vouchers are too hard to redeem.
Business travelers change their flights all of the time. If it wasn't for overbooking this would be prohibitively expensive. Meeting runs late, you call the airline, pay your change fee, and carry on. Also many business travelers don't know when they are going to be done their last meeting so they leave plenty of time and book the last flight of the night. Then when business is done, they show up at the airport and ask to get put on the next flight. For vacation-grade tickets, if you're going to miss your flight, just call the airline and let them know and you can pay the change fee up to like 10 minutes before the flight departs. For many higher-fare tickets you can actually call up to 2 hours after the flight leaves.
They don't really have to lie. It's pretty reasonable to have one whitewashed social media account for business and acquaintance and another that you only use for close friends. Just provide the former.
The problem with client certificates is that you have to install them on a device before using the device. So you can only login from a device you completely trust. This is just another form of something you know. It's not a second factor. With U2F you can, in a pinch, login from say a computer in the library and not worry that your certificate just got compromised.
You are aware that RSA sold all of the SecureID keys to the NSA so that token is useless, right? Also you have to have one SecureID per entity with whom you do business. The problem this is trying to solve is that you don't end up with so many tokens that you exceed carryon limits and have to decide which ones to bring with you on a trip. Also the SecureID tokens are insanely priced. Agreed they should be free since reselling the keys is where RSA makes the real money. But current costs have been described as usurious.
The registering by phone *is* a form of two-factor authentication. You've just made the case for it. This is an improved form of two-factor authentication because it's too easy for phone numbers to get assigned to new devices. The SMS second-factor tends to work great against mass attacks and also protects low-value targets but is pretty much useless against a targeted attack. Too easy to walk into any mobile phone retailer and claim you lost your SIM card.
Logging in from a pwned box will get your one account stolen. But it's not a profitable criminal enterprise since it's a retail theft. This prevents wholesale crimes. Somebody can also rob you and steal your U2F dongle and threaten your family with violence if you don't turn over your dongle and password. It prevents mass attacks.
But there has to be a trust relationship between the owner of the authenticator app and the resource being protected. With U2F, there is no third-party involvement. Technically and contractually much easier.
Fair enough. It's certainly out of my price range as well. But I don't think that "winter" is holding us back in the electric car department. Rather it's price and those prices are dropping rapidly. By the time any of these recently-closed oil fields could have been productive, gasoline may be a curiosity for old people.
"They're nice people, but they're not my people." This got modded to +5, but I sure would have liked to have seen some clarification on this first. Cultural differences can be enriching.
Although I'm not fan of trying to get self-driving cars working on current infrastructure, I would say that the people programming the self-driving cars are probably an order of magnitude smarter than the average driver.
The Model X is 4WD although it may be out of most people's price range. It certainly has enough battery power to get you home from any commute even in winter!
If your choice is four-wheel drive or rear-wheel drive, the four-wheel drive solution will prove much better. If it's front-wheel drive vs four-wheel drive that's a tougher one. Its hard, however, to make a front drive vehicle with a lot of ground clearance and ground clearance is very important for going in the snow. As vehicles get larger, you need to produce more torque and applying a large amount of torque to wheels that turn has two problems. You get a terrible effect called "torque steer" but also you have to deal with the possibility of damaging the mechanisms that let the wheels turn. I don't know how you would actually do the comparison that you are talking about since I'm not aware of any high-clearance vehicles offered in both front and four wheel drive configurations. The closest I can think of is a cross-over like a Mazda CX-5.
I'm scared to mod this up since the meta-moderation would likely send me into oblivion, but I think there's a valid point here. And my politics are well left of center.
And since self-driving cars were only a figment of the imagination at the time that our laws were passed, it's a pretty reasonable interpretation that they weren't explicitly allowed. Yes it's also a reasonable interpretation that they should be allowed since they aren't explicitly disallowed. But the regulatory agency has chosen the former and it would be quite the convoluted argument to say that such an interpretation is unreasonable.
If you have health insurance in the US and suffer a wound, your health insurance provider will attempt to recover from the premises owner. If you don't have health insurance or your insurance is insufficient, you have to do it yourself.
There is a principle, however, of judicial deference to implementing agencies. That is to say that the courts, within reason, when interpreting a law, will give tend assume that the agencies responsible for implementing a law are the most qualified to interpret it. Going to court and arguing that a regulatory body has misinterpreted the law it's responsible for implementing is a pretty rough ride.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are talking about are double-reservations which only worked if people had refundable tickets. This got cracked down on but it's unrelated to over-booking. Over-booking exists because it allows the airlines to accommodate passengers with extenuating circumstances as well as business travelers who need some schedule flexibility. It is very rare that people get bumped from a flight. Many people love to volunteer to take a later flight in exchange for compensation. On Southwest, I'll do it just about every chance I get assuming that I'm not flying to a business meeting. On other airlines less so but only because the vouchers are too hard to redeem.
Business travelers change their flights all of the time. If it wasn't for overbooking this would be prohibitively expensive. Meeting runs late, you call the airline, pay your change fee, and carry on. Also many business travelers don't know when they are going to be done their last meeting so they leave plenty of time and book the last flight of the night. Then when business is done, they show up at the airport and ask to get put on the next flight. For vacation-grade tickets, if you're going to miss your flight, just call the airline and let them know and you can pay the change fee up to like 10 minutes before the flight departs. For many higher-fare tickets you can actually call up to 2 hours after the flight leaves.
Instead it requires specialized hardware be deployed at each endpoint!
Congratulations, you've just described U2F!
Anybody who doesn't share all of the intimate personal details on social media must be a terrorist.
It's actually easier to go to Israel than the US!
They don't really have to lie. It's pretty reasonable to have one whitewashed social media account for business and acquaintance and another that you only use for close friends. Just provide the former.
Or better yet a version of Ubuntu that is supported!
The problem with client certificates is that you have to install them on a device before using the device. So you can only login from a device you completely trust. This is just another form of something you know. It's not a second factor. With U2F you can, in a pinch, login from say a computer in the library and not worry that your certificate just got compromised.
You are aware that RSA sold all of the SecureID keys to the NSA so that token is useless, right? Also you have to have one SecureID per entity with whom you do business. The problem this is trying to solve is that you don't end up with so many tokens that you exceed carryon limits and have to decide which ones to bring with you on a trip. Also the SecureID tokens are insanely priced. Agreed they should be free since reselling the keys is where RSA makes the real money. But current costs have been described as usurious.
The registering by phone *is* a form of two-factor authentication. You've just made the case for it. This is an improved form of two-factor authentication because it's too easy for phone numbers to get assigned to new devices. The SMS second-factor tends to work great against mass attacks and also protects low-value targets but is pretty much useless against a targeted attack. Too easy to walk into any mobile phone retailer and claim you lost your SIM card.
Which is still way better than single-factor authentication
Logging in from a pwned box will get your one account stolen. But it's not a profitable criminal enterprise since it's a retail theft. This prevents wholesale crimes. Somebody can also rob you and steal your U2F dongle and threaten your family with violence if you don't turn over your dongle and password. It prevents mass attacks.
But there has to be a trust relationship between the owner of the authenticator app and the resource being protected. With U2F, there is no third-party involvement. Technically and contractually much easier.
You generate your own key.
Fair enough. It's certainly out of my price range as well. But I don't think that "winter" is holding us back in the electric car department. Rather it's price and those prices are dropping rapidly. By the time any of these recently-closed oil fields could have been productive, gasoline may be a curiosity for old people.
The slashdot crowd should be rejoicing. "It's for health."
"They're nice people, but they're not my people." This got modded to +5, but I sure would have liked to have seen some clarification on this first. Cultural differences can be enriching.
Although I'm not fan of trying to get self-driving cars working on current infrastructure, I would say that the people programming the self-driving cars are probably an order of magnitude smarter than the average driver.
The Model X is 4WD although it may be out of most people's price range. It certainly has enough battery power to get you home from any commute even in winter!
If your choice is four-wheel drive or rear-wheel drive, the four-wheel drive solution will prove much better. If it's front-wheel drive vs four-wheel drive that's a tougher one. Its hard, however, to make a front drive vehicle with a lot of ground clearance and ground clearance is very important for going in the snow. As vehicles get larger, you need to produce more torque and applying a large amount of torque to wheels that turn has two problems. You get a terrible effect called "torque steer" but also you have to deal with the possibility of damaging the mechanisms that let the wheels turn. I don't know how you would actually do the comparison that you are talking about since I'm not aware of any high-clearance vehicles offered in both front and four wheel drive configurations. The closest I can think of is a cross-over like a Mazda CX-5.
I'm scared to mod this up since the meta-moderation would likely send me into oblivion, but I think there's a valid point here. And my politics are well left of center.
And since self-driving cars were only a figment of the imagination at the time that our laws were passed, it's a pretty reasonable interpretation that they weren't explicitly allowed. Yes it's also a reasonable interpretation that they should be allowed since they aren't explicitly disallowed. But the regulatory agency has chosen the former and it would be quite the convoluted argument to say that such an interpretation is unreasonable.
If you have health insurance in the US and suffer a wound, your health insurance provider will attempt to recover from the premises owner. If you don't have health insurance or your insurance is insufficient, you have to do it yourself.
There is a principle, however, of judicial deference to implementing agencies. That is to say that the courts, within reason, when interpreting a law, will give tend assume that the agencies responsible for implementing a law are the most qualified to interpret it. Going to court and arguing that a regulatory body has misinterpreted the law it's responsible for implementing is a pretty rough ride.