and significantly depress numbers of mosquitos in the area.
While significantly increasing the size of the mosquito supplier's bank account. But guess how many mosquito generations it takes for the numbers to be back to the old levels the moment you stop paying... not that many at all.
His debts includes $125 million that he owes to Hogan, an $11.5 million loan that he took out on June 10
IANAL but I think the bank that loaned him the money can probably nail him to the wall for fraud. It's one thing to take out a loan and go bankrupt, and quite another to take out a loan when you plan on declaring bankruptcy a month later. Any decent lawyer can probably make a case for intent to defraud here. Pretty sure he didn't specify this on his loan application...
You don't think breaches of this kind would negatively affect the company?
Besides the point entirely. I was accused of victim blaming. Say you are a construction worker and you lend me your tools to look after until tomorrow. I don't give a damn and leave your tools lying around where anyone can steal them. Next day, the tools are gone and when you ask me for them I just shrug my shoulders. Who is the victim - me or you? Yeah ok, I have lost credibility. You will never lend me any tools again. But I wouldn't call me a VICTIM. If anything, I am an accomplice.
In theory. In practice humans go for the low hanging fruit. This store was probably hacked because of ridiculous password security or SQL injection, or some other trivial technique. You don't need to build government-level security to convince a bad guy to move on to an easier target.
Also the store is not the victim. The customers who trusted the store are.
The VICTIMS are the customers who are about to have their private information plastered all over the internet. The store is not a victim. It's pretty obvious they don't give a shit.
I'm sorry but when you don't take your customers' security seriously, don't complain when someone walks through the front door and steals the stuff you left lying around. The hackers are wrong, but it's the store's own damned fault. They'd rather make more profit than pay for serious security. Shows what they think of their clients.
De-ionized water EXISTS ONLY IN A LAB. Water self ionizes. If you do not take steps to keep water de-ionized, you will not have de-ionized water. You have NEVER, EVER had de-ionized water coming from your tap or in a water bottle. And you're a fool if you're drinking water at the lab. Pure water, with extraneous Na+, K+, Ca2+ etc ions removed, is PERFECTLY SAFE to drink, provided you don't drink enough that you dilute the ions in your body to a dangerous level.
Please try to at least learn something about what you try to argue about.
We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from people.
No. We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from ENGINEERS. People are allowed to be stupid. Way back in the days of the first air-brakes, they used air pressure to apply the brakes. What happened when the system failed and air pressure was lost? The brakes failed. Nowadays you design a system where you need air pressure to REMOVE the brake. Now if your system fails, the brakes are applied - orders of magnitude safer than no brakes. Electrical devices are grounded. Commercial jets can fly with only a single engine. Etc.
Fail safes are necessary because the universe and people don't always co-operate. So when the shit hits the fan, you try to kill as few people as possible. Just hacking something together and throwing it out to the public isn't good enough - that's irresponsible design. If a guy kills himself with your product you need to be able to show that he went to extreme lengths to do so.
I can see how the car could fail to see the rig since it sits high off the ground and might appear to be clear, especially when the trailer color is gray.
No higher off the ground from the side than it is from the back. I still think their algos needed serious amounts of work before being released. It's 2016 not 1916, there are consumer safety laws now, you can't get away with "it's your own damned fault, you were doing it wrong" anymore. Not as much, anyway. Yeah I know the driver has a big role in the blame game, but if you were allowed to get away with that then nothing would have safety features. Got caught in the industrial machinery? His fault for being a dumbass and putting his hand there... doesn't fly anymore.
And hiding under a technicality "oh he clicked an agreement and agreed to become a tester for our experimental software". OK. How many hours of training did he receive? What do you mean, none? The state rests.
and slows or stops if the vehicle in front of you decelerates.
But not, apparently, if a brick wall suddenly appears in front of you. Yes I agree that "autopilot" is a horrendous choice of name because "auto" and "automatic" imply autonomy, no matter how many clickthrough EULA's you shove in front of someone. I'm all in favor of Tesla but Musk should have realized that people can be really, really, REALLY stupid and this system needed to be idiot-tested a lot more before being released. I don't think an EULA or even a signed contract will save him when people have died.
Slashdot Mirror
and significantly depress numbers of mosquitos in the area.
While significantly increasing the size of the mosquito supplier's bank account. But guess how many mosquito generations it takes for the numbers to be back to the old levels the moment you stop paying... not that many at all.
No guns allowed in your cell blo er I mean walled garden.
Audit NASA, which has hardly any budget. Do not audit the Pentagon, where trillions disappear regularly.
Yeah, but part of that is making you fill out forms for which you can go to jail if you lie on them.
His debts includes $125 million that he owes to Hogan, an $11.5 million loan that he took out on June 10
IANAL but I think the bank that loaned him the money can probably nail him to the wall for fraud. It's one thing to take out a loan and go bankrupt, and quite another to take out a loan when you plan on declaring bankruptcy a month later. Any decent lawyer can probably make a case for intent to defraud here. Pretty sure he didn't specify this on his loan application...
You don't think breaches of this kind would negatively affect the company?
Besides the point entirely. I was accused of victim blaming. Say you are a construction worker and you lend me your tools to look after until tomorrow. I don't give a damn and leave your tools lying around where anyone can steal them. Next day, the tools are gone and when you ask me for them I just shrug my shoulders. Who is the victim - me or you? Yeah ok, I have lost credibility. You will never lend me any tools again. But I wouldn't call me a VICTIM. If anything, I am an accomplice.
They will never be able to get through them all.
I dunno you can get through a lot of cases quickly when all you ever do is take them round the back and cut their heads off.
It is, after all, the last day he can do it for free.
Nothing is unhackable.
In theory. In practice humans go for the low hanging fruit. This store was probably hacked because of ridiculous password security or SQL injection, or some other trivial technique. You don't need to build government-level security to convince a bad guy to move on to an easier target.
Also the store is not the victim. The customers who trusted the store are.
The VICTIMS are the customers who are about to have their private information plastered all over the internet. The store is not a victim. It's pretty obvious they don't give a shit.
We're going to launch a missile, and S. Korea is going to pay for it!
My daughter works at MS and keeps getting promoted. Touch wood...
I'm sorry but when you don't take your customers' security seriously, don't complain when someone walks through the front door and steals the stuff you left lying around. The hackers are wrong, but it's the store's own damned fault. They'd rather make more profit than pay for serious security. Shows what they think of their clients.
Or you'll just have to pay extra, nudge nudge wink wink
Depending on how old your computer is - up to a new motherboard. Isn't "Trusted Computing" and UEFI great?
Your computer gets to turn on, but you will have to pay a monthly fee to be able to actually DO anything with it.
Ahahahahaha fucking awesome!
Hey between a consenting adult and paperclip there's nothing wrong with it in the privacy of your own home.
It looks like you dropped the soap! Do you want me to:
Hughes and other satellite internet providers are going to be happy.
De-ionized water EXISTS ONLY IN A LAB. Water self ionizes. If you do not take steps to keep water de-ionized, you will not have de-ionized water. You have NEVER, EVER had de-ionized water coming from your tap or in a water bottle. And you're a fool if you're drinking water at the lab. Pure water, with extraneous Na+, K+, Ca2+ etc ions removed, is PERFECTLY SAFE to drink, provided you don't drink enough that you dilute the ions in your body to a dangerous level.
Please try to at least learn something about what you try to argue about.
[citation needed]
We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from people.
No. We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from ENGINEERS. People are allowed to be stupid. Way back in the days of the first air-brakes, they used air pressure to apply the brakes. What happened when the system failed and air pressure was lost? The brakes failed. Nowadays you design a system where you need air pressure to REMOVE the brake. Now if your system fails, the brakes are applied - orders of magnitude safer than no brakes. Electrical devices are grounded. Commercial jets can fly with only a single engine. Etc.
Fail safes are necessary because the universe and people don't always co-operate. So when the shit hits the fan, you try to kill as few people as possible. Just hacking something together and throwing it out to the public isn't good enough - that's irresponsible design. If a guy kills himself with your product you need to be able to show that he went to extreme lengths to do so.
I can see how the car could fail to see the rig since it sits high off the ground and might appear to be clear, especially when the trailer color is gray.
No higher off the ground from the side than it is from the back. I still think their algos needed serious amounts of work before being released. It's 2016 not 1916, there are consumer safety laws now, you can't get away with "it's your own damned fault, you were doing it wrong" anymore. Not as much, anyway. Yeah I know the driver has a big role in the blame game, but if you were allowed to get away with that then nothing would have safety features. Got caught in the industrial machinery? His fault for being a dumbass and putting his hand there... doesn't fly anymore.
And hiding under a technicality "oh he clicked an agreement and agreed to become a tester for our experimental software". OK. How many hours of training did he receive? What do you mean, none? The state rests.
Tesla has agreements and explanations for each owner that explicitly states what function the 'Autopilot' actually has.
Not going to fly with a judge when people start dying.
"Oh but your Honor he clicked on this agreement..."
uh huh.
and slows or stops if the vehicle in front of you decelerates.
But not, apparently, if a brick wall suddenly appears in front of you. Yes I agree that "autopilot" is a horrendous choice of name because "auto" and "automatic" imply autonomy, no matter how many clickthrough EULA's you shove in front of someone. I'm all in favor of Tesla but Musk should have realized that people can be really, really, REALLY stupid and this system needed to be idiot-tested a lot more before being released. I don't think an EULA or even a signed contract will save him when people have died.