I promise I'll vote for any semi-competent alternative candidate who is not part of the Clinton/Bush family. Hell, I might even just write in Elizabeth Warren.
If only people had easy access to some sort of device that didn't rely on the Operating System in order to capture visual data. Like some sort of tiny camera that they always kept with them. Maybe it could be built-in to some other object that they already keep on them out of habit. We're probably decades away from anything like that, but who knows what the mysterious future holds!
Ah, too bad. I sent you my bank account #, SSN, mother's maiden name, the street I grew up on, and my favorite 4 digit number, and can't be arsed to type all that out again.
Also, the smaller the distance, the less you will have decelerated before the car behind you hits you, making the impact less severe!
(Note: I'm not defending tailgaters -- I would rather do without any collision, large or small -- but someone following a safe distance and not paying attention is a bigger risk, because you will have slowed significantly more before they rear end you.)
Things that fall off generally decelerate much less quickly than a vehicle can, because a) they are skidding, and skidding is not the fastest way to decelerate, and b) they usually aren't made out of material that deforms to the shape of the road surface to maximize traction, like tires.
It's two *extra* lights. The headlights do what the headlights have always done, and the 2 spotlights shine toward objects of importance, like street signs or warm bodies. Worst case, they don't, and you have the exact same functionality you've always had.
You've never worked in an actual SCIF then. There are no cameras, or devices with cameras, or recording features, allowed in those facilities.
And yes, people bring them in all the time anyway, either accidentally or intentionally.
It's sort of an arbitrary rule, since there are a plethora of methods to exfiltrate information, and in some of those facilities, the people who work there are, in fact, trained to extract information.
First, the nuclear option is a real-world test with unknowing participants -- the other drivers on the road -- which they did. A parking lot would have worked just as well.
Second, they disabled the transmission. Aside from the fact that acceleration is sometimes necessary to avoid accidents, any significant slowdown below normal speeds on a freeway increases the risk of a collision. Keep in mind that he had music blaring full blast and windshield wipers and fluid obscuring his view at the same time, and no exit strategy since he was on a bridge with no shoulder. That was incredibly irresponsible to put him in that situation.
You can't quantify the level of risk by losing control of a vehicle, because you don't have the data. Neither do they. But there IS a level of risk by simply being on a public road with other cars, and that risk DOES rise with distractions, let alone malfunctions affecting braking, acceleration, or steering. Moreover, they were trying to demonstrate how dangerous the hack can be, so on the one hand, they're implicitly admitting that they put the author and the public at risk, but on the other side of their mouth, they're trying to say there was nothing life-threatening? Sorry, I don't buy it. That was willful negligence. It was irresponsible and reckless, and the "only way to get attention" argument doesn't stick when you fail to escalate in a responsible and methodical manner and skip right to the nuclear option. That was the problem with Snowden, and that's the problem with these characters.
No, it's easy for married men to cheat. It's easier than getting laid when you're single.
one sizable study found 90 percent of single women were interested in a man who they believed was taken, while a mere 59 percent wanted him when told he was single.
You're not a troll, just an ordinary self-righteous individual rationalizing how two wrongs make a right.
On an unrelated note, I think it's wrong thing to leak the data, but if it does get leaked, I can't wait to find out the demographic information! Do women cheat as often as men? More? What age ranges? Does it vary by city? Profession? There's a goldmine of social data there to help understand something that's very difficult to study.
You don't need your customer's names unless you're a bank. There are plenty of cash businesses that have zero information on their customers. There's a reason they call it money "laundering," after all.
Cocaine is really difficult to overdose on, especially at such a young age. People who die from cocaine usually have a heart attack and are usually close to having one anyway. "Pills" is overly general. Opiates (oxycontin, heroin, morphene, fentanyl) are 99.9% of the overdoses that affect otherwise healthy people.
The actual overdose rates don't seem to support that on the surface, unless heroin is almost exclusively being used by healthy people, and cocaine is being used almost exclusively by physically frail individuals. http://www.drugabuse.gov/relat...
A self-driving car should *never* need a user to take over. The car should come to an immediate stop, like elevator brakes. This should be no more difficult than providing a dedicated, redundant lane-detection system and steering control, as exists in some vehicles today. Of course, elevators still fall, and car accidents will still happen, and that's unfortunate, but car accidents will be so rare that they will make the national news, unlike the 40,000 traffic fatalities we have every year. And when they happen, we will all shudder in horror for a minute before going back to life as usual.
There are lots of things I like to do, but I realize that allowing other people to do them impedes on my enjoyment of life more than abstaining from them personally. I like driving, there are clear benefits for everyone that outweigh my personal enjoyment of driving. Reduction of traffic jams and collisions will shorten average transit times immediately, and after a few years of proven safety and effectiveness, we could easily eliminate hard speed limits on driverless freeways. People can do the things they're *already doing* in cars without the risks and consequences to me. No more asshole or idiot-induced road rage. No more getting cut off. No more people failing to merge properly. No more worrying about getting randomly pulled over for frivolous or judgment-based violations (he looked like he was swerving in his lane). Travel by vehicle could be the life improvement it was meant to be instead of the blood-pressure spiking experience it is today. Get off work, crack a beer, jump in the car, and watch my DVR. That would be a great reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I promise I'll vote for any semi-competent alternative candidate who is not part of the Clinton/Bush family. Hell, I might even just write in Elizabeth Warren.
If only people had easy access to some sort of device that didn't rely on the Operating System in order to capture visual data. Like some sort of tiny camera that they always kept with them. Maybe it could be built-in to some other object that they already keep on them out of habit. We're probably decades away from anything like that, but who knows what the mysterious future holds!
Ah, too bad. I sent you my bank account #, SSN, mother's maiden name, the street I grew up on, and my favorite 4 digit number, and can't be arsed to type all that out again.
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
80x80 are $150-$250 straight from FLIR.
I suspect auto manufacturers can get a deal for a the resolution they need at a reasonable price.
Would that be a bug or a feature?
"Great for spotlighting deer too!"
Also, the smaller the distance, the less you will have decelerated before the car behind you hits you, making the impact less severe!
(Note: I'm not defending tailgaters -- I would rather do without any collision, large or small -- but someone following a safe distance and not paying attention is a bigger risk, because you will have slowed significantly more before they rear end you.)
Things that fall off generally decelerate much less quickly than a vehicle can, because a) they are skidding, and skidding is not the fastest way to decelerate, and b) they usually aren't made out of material that deforms to the shape of the road surface to maximize traction, like tires.
It's two *extra* lights. The headlights do what the headlights have always done, and the 2 spotlights shine toward objects of importance, like street signs or warm bodies. Worst case, they don't, and you have the exact same functionality you've always had.
There's no reason this couldn't be implemented in a HUD that's projected onto the windshield.
You've never worked in an actual SCIF then. There are no cameras, or devices with cameras, or recording features, allowed in those facilities.
And yes, people bring them in all the time anyway, either accidentally or intentionally.
It's sort of an arbitrary rule, since there are a plethora of methods to exfiltrate information, and in some of those facilities, the people who work there are, in fact, trained to extract information.
First, the nuclear option is a real-world test with unknowing participants -- the other drivers on the road -- which they did. A parking lot would have worked just as well.
Second, they disabled the transmission. Aside from the fact that acceleration is sometimes necessary to avoid accidents, any significant slowdown below normal speeds on a freeway increases the risk of a collision. Keep in mind that he had music blaring full blast and windshield wipers and fluid obscuring his view at the same time, and no exit strategy since he was on a bridge with no shoulder. That was incredibly irresponsible to put him in that situation.
You can't quantify the level of risk by losing control of a vehicle, because you don't have the data. Neither do they. But there IS a level of risk by simply being on a public road with other cars, and that risk DOES rise with distractions, let alone malfunctions affecting braking, acceleration, or steering. Moreover, they were trying to demonstrate how dangerous the hack can be, so on the one hand, they're implicitly admitting that they put the author and the public at risk, but on the other side of their mouth, they're trying to say there was nothing life-threatening? Sorry, I don't buy it. That was willful negligence. It was irresponsible and reckless, and the "only way to get attention" argument doesn't stick when you fail to escalate in a responsible and methodical manner and skip right to the nuclear option. That was the problem with Snowden, and that's the problem with these characters.
No, it's easy for married men to cheat. It's easier than getting laid when you're single.
one sizable study found 90 percent of single women were interested in a man who they believed was taken, while a mere 59 percent wanted him when told he was single.
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
Or wearing body cams to be reviewed by someone who -- don't worry -- won't share it with his or her colleagues.
You're not a troll, just an ordinary self-righteous individual rationalizing how two wrongs make a right.
On an unrelated note, I think it's wrong thing to leak the data, but if it does get leaked, I can't wait to find out the demographic information! Do women cheat as often as men? More? What age ranges? Does it vary by city? Profession? There's a goldmine of social data there to help understand something that's very difficult to study.
Eh.. married men live longer than their single counterparts. Though married women die earlier than single women.
Of course, correlation is not causation.
The truth is that people are not monogamous. It's marriage that's the lie.
In other words, it affects rich people with trophy spouses quite well.
You don't need your customer's names unless you're a bank. There are plenty of cash businesses that have zero information on their customers. There's a reason they call it money "laundering," after all.
The actual overdose rates don't seem to support that on the surface, unless heroin is almost exclusively being used by healthy people, and cocaine is being used almost exclusively by physically frail individuals. http://www.drugabuse.gov/relat...
A self-driving car should *never* need a user to take over. The car should come to an immediate stop, like elevator brakes. This should be no more difficult than providing a dedicated, redundant lane-detection system and steering control, as exists in some vehicles today. Of course, elevators still fall, and car accidents will still happen, and that's unfortunate, but car accidents will be so rare that they will make the national news, unlike the 40,000 traffic fatalities we have every year. And when they happen, we will all shudder in horror for a minute before going back to life as usual.
There are lots of things I like to do, but I realize that allowing other people to do them impedes on my enjoyment of life more than abstaining from them personally. I like driving, there are clear benefits for everyone that outweigh my personal enjoyment of driving. Reduction of traffic jams and collisions will shorten average transit times immediately, and after a few years of proven safety and effectiveness, we could easily eliminate hard speed limits on driverless freeways. People can do the things they're *already doing* in cars without the risks and consequences to me. No more asshole or idiot-induced road rage. No more getting cut off. No more people failing to merge properly. No more worrying about getting randomly pulled over for frivolous or judgment-based violations (he looked like he was swerving in his lane). Travel by vehicle could be the life improvement it was meant to be instead of the blood-pressure spiking experience it is today. Get off work, crack a beer, jump in the car, and watch my DVR. That would be a great reality.
Look, Mitt Romney, I know you think corporations are people, but birds, dogs, and cats are not people either. Now go make me some coffee!
OMG! Why are we not doing more to prevent this??