It's from May 1999, but I think the bug was found in February. That does indeed count as being in the 1990's. I suppose it didn't get into popular press until after y2k because, well y2k. I used to do back-end Win95 support for Microsoft (among other things), but had quit before 1999, so that's my excuse for thinking it came out after y2k.
Maybe someone googled for "what operating system runs on old satellites" and didn't realize that the Satellite made by Toshiba is a laptop, not an actual Earth orbiting device.
I, too, do not believe that any satellite is running Windows 95. To say the least, Win95 has not been optimized for power efficiency or running on resource-poor radiation hardened microprocessors, memory and support chips. Considering the Win95 is just a gui on top of MSDOS, running just MSDOS would make far more sense than Win95. Who would be using a mouse and looking at the screen on a satellite? Would they be using PCAnywhere on a space dial-up modem link?
Furthermore, Windows 95 has a timer wraparound bug that causes a crash every 49.7 days, and that bug wasn't found until the early 2000's, so anyone that used Win95 as a space OS has a dead satellite.
Win95 was used on the ground. Here's some info from people who were involved in all that back then. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-t...
Also, I'm not seeing any evidence in the article that "hacking a satellite is surprisingly easy".
our early solar system had a large amount of those, not just one. a lot of them are still around, further away after Jupiter flung them out. others shredded. still that would be long before multicellular life on earth came around
And some are still around. Some planetary scientists say that the large rocky moons of Jupiter and Saturn were originally inner orbit planets that were captured during the Grand Tack. Here's an overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As the topic says, but I repeat: What is a high-roller database?
A database is an organized collection of information, generally thought of as being held on a computer with a well-defined structure and method of access.
Childeric says hello, and also he says you owe him $48.15 because you snuck out before the bar tab was closed. I say kudos to you. I never got anything over on him.
This is once again an example of Slashdot summary disease. Summary says: "Crocodiles (believed to be descended from dinosaurs) also can't recognize the taste of toxic plants " etc
Except that the actual paper does not say that crocodiles descended from dinosaurs. This is what the paper says:
Since crocodilians are descendent from the same creatures that gave rise to dinosaurs, this creates the opportunity to evaluate the tenability of the proposition that dinosaurs went extinct due to an inherent inability to learn to avoid eating toxic plants
The funny thing about crocodiles is that they are evolutionarily less like lizards and are evolutionarily the closest living relative to birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Crocodilians evolved in the Triassic as part of the Archosaur group which is crocodiles, non-avian dinosaurs, birds. So it's not completely ridiculous to use crocodiles in their experiment.
Except there's this one. I had forgotten about it due to the thought that a single bone is more likely to be a re-buried bone, and also because I forget a lot of stuff lately. Decide for yourself. http://palaeo-electronica.org/... https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/201...
And they point out that not only did dinosaurs start to disappear before the asteroid impact -- they continued to "gradually disappear for millions of years afterward."
If dinosaurs survived for millions of years after the asteroid impact, then very clearly the impact did not kill them. The asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs any more than the Black Death killed humanity. No, Trump will kill humanity. Trump will kill us dead. Trump!
There's zero evidence that dinosaurs existed after the asteroid. The article referred to by Slashdot, the Biotic Revenge Hypotheses has this citation for their "continued to survive" claim: Sakamoto, M., Benton, M.J., and C. Venditti. 2016. Dinosaurs in decline tens of millions of years before their final extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(18):5036–5040
But the Sakamoto article says this about that: "The fossil record shows that dinosaurs existed to the K-Pg boundary but did not survive into the Cenozoic"
Whether I two-finger type in my userid "clovis" or use a vbscript sendkey to send the same string, the http/TCP/IP packet that arrives at the web site is indistinguishable.
That's nice but irrelevant.
How can the owner of a web site say that I cannot take a screen shot on my own PC or photograph the screen?
My God, are you never going to stop with this nonsense? They can't. And you know they aren't trying.
I'm not inventing these things. They are discussed in the complaint. You clearly have not read it.
The fact that you are creating thousands of packets containing fake names over a few hours pretending to want to rent an apartment on airbnb and sending them to the airbnb servers is the relevant bit.
Where did you get the idea that the researchers are creating thousands of packets containing fake names over a few hours? Did you make that up, or do you have a source?
I suppose the other thing that is bothering me is that the private property that is being regulated is mine. Going to a web site and going to a store have something different. I'm using my device at home to access the web site. The owners of the web site are saying that they have the right to dictate how I use my keyboard and mouse at my house. Whether I two-finger type in my userid "clovis" or use a vbscript sendkey to send the same string, the http/TCP/IP packet that arrives at the web site is indistinguishable. How can the owners of the web site declare it to be a crime to depending upon the method I use to create the packet on my PC? How can the owner of a web site say that I cannot take a screen shot on my own PC or photograph the screen? Copyright law can prevent me from displaying that content anywhere else or showing to other people, sure, but otherwise it's mine.
It's like the owner of the mall tries to refuse access to people who ride the bus instead of walking there.
It is the right of every property owner to determine if your access to their property constitutes a crime or not. This is simple common sense.
It is the right of every property owner to determine if your access to their property constitutes a crime or not. This is simple common sense.
It may seem like common sense to you, but it is not true. It is especially not true if the person is a tenant or has some previously agreed living arrangement, or if the property is otherwise open to the public.
There are many laws surrounding access to private property that is otherwise open to the public to enter, shopping malls for example. The mall's owner's cannot arbitrarily declare that some behavior on their property is a criminal act and have you arrested for that. Suppose the mall decided to disallow wearing a name badge. They can tell people with name badges to leave and not return, and then that person could be arrested for trespassing if they return. But the mall cannot declare wearing a name badge to be a crime and have people arrested for name badge wearing. And what this case is saying, Congress cannot delegate that law-making ability to the owners of malls, nor to web sites. The Constitution's delegation of powers rule does not allow that.
Basically I agree with you about abusive bots, and this case document does state that these researchers scripts are designed to mimic an actual person typing and clicking, and they claim that their automated scripts should cause no impact or minimal impact. (point 96 or so)
Excessive/abusive access (whether by bots or groups of people) does need better rules regulating it. Right now the CFAA addresses that too vaguely. And that should not be something in a TOS for one site but not another, it should be for all sites.
As for this "Determining if "uber" or "airbnb" are illegally discriminating is not an "academic research" problem. ", you're just plain wrong there. You're right that it is a legal problem, but studying laws and their impact on society is exactly among the things academic institutions are supposed to do.
Yep, what you said. If you do get a chance, read the case and just skip down to points 173-179. To my eyes this is the most important part of the case, and it addresses a big question: Why does Facebook get to decide that using an alias on their website is a federal crime? The case also points out that the TOS can be changed at any time, so even if you read it, your initially legal conduct could be criminalized at any time while you're using the web site.
The Challenged Provision Represents an Unconstitutional Delegation of Authority to Private Parties
173. The Challenged Provision delegates to website owners the legislative power to determine which conduct is criminal. 174. The Challenged Provision makes it a federal crime to visit a website in a manner that “exceeds authorized access.” The private parties that draft terms of service determine the conditions under which access is authorized; as a result, they wield the power to define the conduct that violates the Challenged Provision, including conduct that occurs subsequent to accessing a website or is unrelated to any legitimate access restriction. 175. The Challenged Provision does not merely provide for the enforcement of private contractual arrangements: It renders conduct a separate, federal crime if it violates a website’s ToS. 176. The private processes through which terms of service are drafted and approved are closed and nontransparent, with no requirement for public comment or participation. Because terms of service can be and are constantly revised, members of the public lack even the most basic notice that revisions are in progress, and have no right to participate in defining what terms of service require. 177. The government retains no control over the lawmaking process because terms of service prohibitions, drafted by private parties without public input, effectively become criminal prohibitions backed by federal law. The Challenged Provision allows private parties unilaterally and undemocratically to define the conduct that constitutes a crime. 178. The Challenged Provision fails to notify ordinary people of what conduct is criminal because there is no requirement that ToS be drafted with the requisite clarity or precision required for defining conduct that is criminal. 179. For these reasons, the Challenged Provision’s delegation of the legislative power to private parties completely removes the lawmaking function from the political process and from the mechanisms for democratic accountability, and is unconstitutional.
I don't see in the actual lawsuit anything about swiping collected data, nor is the suit suggesting accessing website data other than through the normal access a person typing at a keyboard using the site in a normal way would do. In other words, it isn't about mass data grabbing from servers behind the web site. What the complaint is covering is very narrowly defined behavior.
It's about violating TOS access to websites that forbid using dummy accounts, bots to do testing, scraping (saving screenshots in this case), or violating TOS with non-disparagement clauses. The complaint says that on-line access that may violate a TOS should not be covered under the CFAA, and that the penalties are far too harsh.
Here's what they're talking about: Researchers want use dummy accounts with the names of people that appear to be some minority group, so that they can see if that group is being discriminated against. As an example, AirBNB, VRBO and such like are prime examples of where that sort of discrimination is in play. Many sites require real names, and non-disparagement clauses would obviously be violated if the research turned up anything.
I especially object to non-disparagement clauses in sites that have an open interface to the public, and although I think that requiring real names is a valid stipulation to use a website, I cannot support that using an alias is a criminal act. The website has the option of cancelling your account if they don't like you much in the same way that the mall can kick you out for not wearing shoes.
Good guess, but clovis was born near the beginning of the baby boomer era. This is what our phone looked like when I was a kid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... We didn't use phone analogies because these things almost never broke. I never saw a broken one, but I suppose it could happen. If one did break, it was probably because a car had run over it. Or a car had knocked down the telephone pole that carried the wires. Lightning could strike the house, but that phone would still work. It might have killed you if you had been holding it, but the survivors could dial for help.
As another ancient-times ramble, I remember that during the time of my first job, the hourly cost of a long-distance call was far greater than my hourly salary, and if I was more than a 20 or so miles from home, it was long distance. If I had to call someone for some information (getting a part number for example), I was losing money.
I'm with you on one thing. These days I'd rather have an internet connection than a car.
Like a broken cell phone that can only text or take pictures, but not make a single call, more than 75 percent of the Earth's land areas have lost some or most of their functions, undermining the well-being of the 3.2 billion people that rely on them to produce food crops, provide clean water, control flooding and more.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not like a broken car, then it doesn't matter.
Contrary to popular belief, most of the time when a rocket launches, it does not go straight up into outer space.
I've never known anyone who thought that satellite launches went straight up. Did any Slashdot readers have that belief before reading this article, or know people who think that?
I know this area well. The satellite view is a bit deceiving. It looks like you should have a clear field of view, but there are hills and trees that can obscure visibility of a pedestrian until they are fully on the sidewalk. And if they are coming across from the park or median quickly, there could be very little time to react. So it's still plausible that there was no way for the a vehicle to avoid the collision.
I see what you mean from the google maps. The news photos shows her bicycle next to the park sign and across the road from the No Pedestrians, Use Crosswalk sign where there's a big cluster of bushes in the median.
So news updates says she was walking her bike across the road. Looking at photos of the incident in the news, here is about where her bicycle was found, but looking back from where she came from. https://www.google.com/maps/@3...
There is a sign that has the "No pedestrians" symbol and that says "Use Crosswalk".
Here's a google map of Curry and Mill. Supposedly the vehicle was driving north. I looked at the weather map and it has not rained there recently. I don't understand why people keep mentioning rain.
It has excellent line of sight visibility, and I believe most human drivers would have seen the pedestrian well in advance and braked to a non-fatal speed. As I understand it, the Uber car uses Lidar and radar, so day/night should not be a concern.
I also wonder what the car did to avoid the collision. Nothing? braked? Waited to the last second to swerve around?
Outside a crosswalk does not always mean jaywalking. In many jurisdictions if you are a certain distance from the next corner it is legal to cross. So she may or may not have been legally crossing.
True that. Traffic laws vary widely among the states and change from time to time. I wonder how the self-driving car manufacturers plan to keep the car's AI updated on all state, county, and city laws in a timely fashion.
For example, In Georgia, a pedestrian is required to use a cross walk ONLY if the segment of road is between two consecutive intersections that have traffic lights. Also, all intersections have a crosswalk, even if one is not painted, there is an implied crosswalk. In Georgia law, cars must always stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and it is illegal to overtake and pass a car stopped at a crosswalk.
In Georgia, cars are required to blow their horns to warn pedestrians, when necessary. (OCGA 40-6-93) And Ga law requires motorists to take extra care around confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated persons (which means the entire City of Savannah in March)
Slashdot Mirror
I was reminded of this one, Steve Martin's new phone book from "The Jerk"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Found it! Q216641
On the wayback machine:
http://support.microsoft.com/s...
It's from May 1999, but I think the bug was found in February.
That does indeed count as being in the 1990's. I suppose it didn't get into popular press until after y2k because, well y2k.
I used to do back-end Win95 support for Microsoft (among other things), but had quit before 1999, so that's my excuse for thinking it came out after y2k.
That's interesting. I would like to see some evidence.
Maybe someone googled for "what operating system runs on old satellites" and didn't realize that the Satellite made by Toshiba is a laptop, not an actual Earth orbiting device.
I, too, do not believe that any satellite is running Windows 95. To say the least, Win95 has not been optimized for power efficiency or running on resource-poor radiation hardened microprocessors, memory and support chips. Considering the Win95 is just a gui on top of MSDOS, running just MSDOS would make far more sense than Win95. Who would be using a mouse and looking at the screen on a satellite? Would they be using PCAnywhere on a space dial-up modem link?
Furthermore, Windows 95 has a timer wraparound bug that causes a crash every 49.7 days, and that bug wasn't found until the early 2000's, so anyone that used Win95 as a space OS has a dead satellite.
Win95 was used on the ground. Here's some info from people who were involved in all that back then.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-t...
Also, I'm not seeing any evidence in the article that "hacking a satellite is surprisingly easy".
our early solar system had a large amount of those, not just one. a lot of them are still around, further away after Jupiter flung them out. others shredded. still that would be long before multicellular life on earth came around
And some are still around. Some planetary scientists say that the large rocky moons of Jupiter and Saturn were originally inner orbit planets that were captured during the Grand Tack.
Here's an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
O'Really!?
And what do you collect in that database?
People who are known that they statistically roll more sixes than you?
Lol, yes, those people. And it would also include people who earn more money than I, which is almost everyone on this continent.
Actually, you shouldn't put high-rollers into databases, they go into binders. It's the same way that one may have binders full of women.
As the topic says, but I repeat: What is a high-roller database?
A database is an organized collection of information, generally thought of as being held on a computer with a well-defined structure and method of access.
Childeric says hello, and also he says you owe him $48.15 because you snuck out before the bar tab was closed.
I say kudos to you. I never got anything over on him.
This is once again an example of Slashdot summary disease.
Summary says: "Crocodiles (believed to be descended from dinosaurs) also can't recognize the taste of toxic plants " etc
Except that the actual paper does not say that crocodiles descended from dinosaurs. This is what the paper says:
Since crocodilians are descendent from the same creatures that gave rise to dinosaurs, this creates the opportunity to evaluate the tenability of the proposition that dinosaurs went extinct due to an inherent inability to learn to avoid eating toxic plants
The funny thing about crocodiles is that they are evolutionarily less like lizards and are evolutionarily the closest living relative to birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Crocodilians evolved in the Triassic as part of the Archosaur group which is crocodiles, non-avian dinosaurs, birds.
So it's not completely ridiculous to use crocodiles in their experiment.
Except there's this one. I had forgotten about it due to the thought that a single bone is more likely to be a re-buried bone, and also because I forget a lot of stuff lately. Decide for yourself.
http://palaeo-electronica.org/...
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/201...
And they point out that not only did dinosaurs start to disappear before the asteroid impact -- they continued to "gradually disappear for millions of years afterward."
If dinosaurs survived for millions of years after the asteroid impact, then very clearly the impact did not kill them. The asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs any more than the Black Death killed humanity. No, Trump will kill humanity. Trump will kill us dead. Trump!
There's zero evidence that dinosaurs existed after the asteroid. The article referred to by Slashdot, the Biotic Revenge Hypotheses has this citation for their "continued to survive" claim:
Sakamoto, M., Benton, M.J., and C. Venditti. 2016. Dinosaurs in decline tens of millions of years before their final extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(18):5036–5040
But the Sakamoto article says this about that: "The fossil record shows that dinosaurs existed to the K-Pg boundary but did not survive into the Cenozoic"
So, bzzzzt wrong answer.
BTW, good talk ... see you around.
Whether I two-finger type in my userid "clovis" or use a vbscript sendkey to send the same string, the http/TCP/IP packet that arrives at the web site is indistinguishable.
That's nice but irrelevant.
How can the owner of a web site say that I cannot take a screen shot on my own PC or photograph the screen?
My God, are you never going to stop with this nonsense? They can't. And you know they aren't trying.
I'm not inventing these things. They are discussed in the complaint. You clearly have not read it.
The fact that you are creating thousands of packets containing fake names over a few hours pretending to want to rent an apartment on airbnb and sending them to the airbnb servers is the relevant bit.
Where did you get the idea that the researchers are creating thousands of packets containing fake names over a few hours?
Did you make that up, or do you have a source?
I suppose the other thing that is bothering me is that the private property that is being regulated is mine.
Going to a web site and going to a store have something different. I'm using my device at home to access the web site.
The owners of the web site are saying that they have the right to dictate how I use my keyboard and mouse at my house. Whether I two-finger type in my userid "clovis" or use a vbscript sendkey to send the same string, the http/TCP/IP packet that arrives at the web site is indistinguishable. How can the owners of the web site declare it to be a crime to depending upon the method I use to create the packet on my PC?
How can the owner of a web site say that I cannot take a screen shot on my own PC or photograph the screen? Copyright law can prevent me from displaying that content anywhere else or showing to other people, sure, but otherwise it's mine.
It's like the owner of the mall tries to refuse access to people who ride the bus instead of walking there.
It is the right of every property owner to determine if your access to their property constitutes a crime or not. This is simple common sense.
It is the right of every property owner to determine if your access to their property constitutes a crime or not. This is simple common sense.
It may seem like common sense to you, but it is not true.
It is especially not true if the person is a tenant or has some previously agreed living arrangement, or if the property is otherwise open to the public.
There are many laws surrounding access to private property that is otherwise open to the public to enter, shopping malls for example.
The mall's owner's cannot arbitrarily declare that some behavior on their property is a criminal act and have you arrested for that. Suppose the mall decided to disallow wearing a name badge.
They can tell people with name badges to leave and not return, and then that person could be arrested for trespassing if they return.
But the mall cannot declare wearing a name badge to be a crime and have people arrested for name badge wearing.
And what this case is saying, Congress cannot delegate that law-making ability to the owners of malls, nor to web sites.
The Constitution's delegation of powers rule does not allow that.
Basically I agree with you about abusive bots, and this case document does state that these researchers scripts are designed to mimic an actual person typing and clicking, and they claim that their automated scripts should cause no impact or minimal impact. (point 96 or so)
Excessive/abusive access (whether by bots or groups of people) does need better rules regulating it. Right now the CFAA addresses that too vaguely.
And that should not be something in a TOS for one site but not another, it should be for all sites.
As for this "Determining if "uber" or "airbnb" are illegally discriminating is not an "academic research" problem. ", you're just plain wrong there.
You're right that it is a legal problem, but studying laws and their impact on society is exactly among the things academic institutions are supposed to do.
Yep, what you said.
If you do get a chance, read the case and just skip down to points 173-179.
To my eyes this is the most important part of the case, and it addresses a big question: Why does Facebook get to decide that using an alias on their website is a federal crime? The case also points out that the TOS can be changed at any time, so even if you read it, your initially legal conduct could be criminalized at any time while you're using the web site.
The Challenged Provision Represents an Unconstitutional Delegation of Authority to Private Parties
173. The Challenged Provision delegates to website owners the legislative
power to determine which conduct is criminal.
174. The Challenged Provision makes it a federal crime to visit a website in a
manner that “exceeds authorized access.” The private parties that draft terms of service
determine the conditions under which access is authorized; as a result, they wield the
power to define the conduct that violates the Challenged Provision, including conduct
that occurs subsequent to accessing a website or is unrelated to any legitimate access
restriction.
175. The Challenged Provision does not merely provide for the enforcement of
private contractual arrangements: It renders conduct a separate, federal crime if it violates
a website’s ToS.
176. The private processes through which terms of service are drafted and
approved are closed and nontransparent, with no requirement for public comment or
participation. Because terms of service can be and are constantly revised, members of the
public lack even the most basic notice that revisions are in progress, and have no right to
participate in defining what terms of service require.
177. The government retains no control over the lawmaking process because
terms of service prohibitions, drafted by private parties without public input, effectively
become criminal prohibitions backed by federal law. The Challenged Provision allows
private parties unilaterally and undemocratically to define the conduct that constitutes a
crime.
178. The Challenged Provision fails to notify ordinary people of what conduct
is criminal because there is no requirement that ToS be drafted with the requisite clarity
or precision required for defining conduct that is criminal.
179. For these reasons, the Challenged Provision’s delegation of the legislative
power to private parties completely removes the lawmaking function from the political
process and from the mechanisms for democratic accountability, and is unconstitutional.
Points 162-169 are also interesting.
I don't see in the actual lawsuit anything about swiping collected data, nor is the suit suggesting accessing website data other than through the normal access a person typing at a keyboard using the site in a normal way would do. In other words, it isn't about mass data grabbing from servers behind the web site.
What the complaint is covering is very narrowly defined behavior.
Here is the actual ACLU Sandvig v. Lynch - Complaint
https://www.aclu.org/legal-doc...
It's about violating TOS access to websites that forbid using dummy accounts, bots to do testing, scraping (saving screenshots in this case), or violating TOS with non-disparagement clauses.
The complaint says that on-line access that may violate a TOS should not be covered under the CFAA, and that the penalties are far too harsh.
Here's what they're talking about: Researchers want use dummy accounts with the names of people that appear to be some minority group, so that they can see if that group is being discriminated against. As an example, AirBNB, VRBO and such like are prime examples of where that sort of discrimination is in play. Many sites require real names, and non-disparagement clauses would obviously be violated if the research turned up anything.
I especially object to non-disparagement clauses in sites that have an open interface to the public, and although I think that requiring real names is a valid stipulation to use a website, I cannot support that using an alias is a criminal act. The website has the option of cancelling your account if they don't like you much in the same way that the mall can kick you out for not wearing shoes.
Good guess, but clovis was born near the beginning of the baby boomer era.
This is what our phone looked like when I was a kid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We didn't use phone analogies because these things almost never broke. I never saw a broken one, but I suppose it could happen.
If one did break, it was probably because a car had run over it. Or a car had knocked down the telephone pole that carried the wires.
Lightning could strike the house, but that phone would still work. It might have killed you if you had been holding it, but the survivors could dial for help.
As another ancient-times ramble, I remember that during the time of my first job, the hourly cost of a long-distance call was far greater than my hourly salary, and if I was more than a 20 or so miles from home, it was long distance.
If I had to call someone for some information (getting a part number for example), I was losing money.
I'm with you on one thing. These days I'd rather have an internet connection than a car.
Like a broken cell phone that can only text or take pictures, but not make a single call, more than 75 percent of the Earth's land areas have lost some or most of their functions, undermining the well-being of the 3.2 billion people that rely on them to produce food crops, provide clean water, control flooding and more.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not like a broken car, then it doesn't matter.
Contrary to popular belief, most of the time when a rocket launches, it does not go straight up into outer space.
I've never known anyone who thought that satellite launches went straight up. Did any Slashdot readers have that belief before reading this article, or know people who think that?
I know this area well. The satellite view is a bit deceiving. It looks like you should have a clear field of view, but there are hills and trees that can obscure visibility of a pedestrian until they are fully on the sidewalk. And if they are coming across from the park or median quickly, there could be very little time to react. So it's still plausible that there was no way for the a vehicle to avoid the collision.
I see what you mean from the google maps.
The news photos shows her bicycle next to the park sign and across the road from the No Pedestrians, Use Crosswalk sign where there's a big cluster of bushes in the median.
So news updates says she was walking her bike across the road.
Looking at photos of the incident in the news, here is about where her bicycle was found, but looking back from where she came from.
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...
There is a sign that has the "No pedestrians" symbol and that says "Use Crosswalk".
Here's a google map of Curry and Mill. Supposedly the vehicle was driving north.
I looked at the weather map and it has not rained there recently. I don't understand why people keep mentioning rain.
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...
It has excellent line of sight visibility, and I believe most human drivers would have seen the pedestrian well in advance and braked to a non-fatal speed. As I understand it, the Uber car uses Lidar and radar, so day/night should not be a concern.
I also wonder what the car did to avoid the collision. Nothing? braked? Waited to the last second to swerve around?
Outside a crosswalk does not always mean jaywalking. In many jurisdictions if you are a certain distance from the next corner it is legal to cross. So she may or may not have been legally crossing.
True that.
Traffic laws vary widely among the states and change from time to time. I wonder how the self-driving car manufacturers plan to keep the car's AI updated on all state, county, and city laws in a timely fashion.
For example, In Georgia, a pedestrian is required to use a cross walk ONLY if the segment of road is between two consecutive intersections that have traffic lights. Also, all intersections have a crosswalk, even if one is not painted, there is an implied crosswalk.
In Georgia law, cars must always stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and it is illegal to overtake and pass a car stopped at a crosswalk.
In Georgia, cars are required to blow their horns to warn pedestrians, when necessary. (OCGA 40-6-93)
And Ga law requires motorists to take extra care around confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated persons (which means the entire City of Savannah in March)