That's a good point, and this rule doesn't guarantee that no more disproportional or ineffective laws are passed. What needs to change is the mindset with politicians and the public, and this rule is meant to foster that change.
The automatic repeal goes hand in hand with those questions: additional stricter measures would increasingly fail the question of proportionality.
I'm not so sure it's a smokescreen in this case. Some people genuinely believe that they have to do something "for the children" and that stuff like this is both beneficial and effective.
I think whenever a politicial proposes a new law that limits what we can and cannot do, other politicians (MPs, lords, senators, congressman or what have you) should ask a few simple questions before even considering the law, and journalists should keep asking until they get a satisfactory answer:
- What problem are you trying to solve?
- Is that really a problem?
- How will your law contribute to a solution, and is a proportional measure? (i.e. are the negative effects of the law like loss of freedom in unrelated cases a lot smaller than the expected positive effects)
- How and when will you measure success?
The last part kind of ought to be part of the law, with an automatic repeal in case success is not achieved or evaluated.
He'll just off the rent boy and claim any photos were fabricated. He doesn't have to offer a denial that is even remotely plausible; the state press (pretty much any press in Russia at this point) will print his blatant lies along with a bunch of other stuff to sow confusion, and then simply stop after 2 weeks. Wouldn't be the first time either.
That reminds me of the recent efforts to infiltrate extreme right-wing groups in Germany: at some point there were so many agents and so many agencies involved that no one could be sure anymore who was an agent and who wasn't.
Considering that the alternative is Trump, you guys may want to let this one slide...
Seriously, out of what (for an outsider at least) have been the most interesting presidential nominations in ages, these two clowns emerged as the GOP and Dems candidates? What the hell...
Group passwords should not shared between members of the group either. As a rule, a group member should not give the group password to another person claiming to be in that group; organisations with good security policies have provisions for diseminating, revoking or restoring forgotten group passwords, and a password should only be given out or shared by the authority, not other group members. But yeah, in practice the password will be shared between group members who know each other.
In the past 15 years I don't think I've worked in any organisation where administrator passwords were shared, or root passwords were even in use. For the latter, people use stuff like sudo I believe. And these days even the crappiest home routers allow multiple accounts with administrator rights to be configured. One of the reasons for enforcing the use of individual accounts is audit trails: being able to tell who did what and when. That's doubly important for privileged accounts, which is why sysadmins in particular should receive indidivual accounts rather than share one.
It is almost always that cut and dry; what you describe is an exceptional case. And in that case, you do what is necessary and pay the price. In certain cases, the law actually stipulates provisions for cases like someone breaking down the neighbour's door because he had reason to believe they were in trouble. It's illegal in principle but a judge can set a lower punishment or dismiss after weighing intentions and probable cause for busting down that door.
No. If 1) your company IT policy strictly prohibits sharing your password with anyone, including IT support staff (like many policies do), and 2) you access a database using a co-worker's credentials, then it should be crystal clear to you that this access is unauthorized. And that goes double if you are no longer an employee at that company.
Spot on with point #2. The idea of having people board a pod before the flight comes up every so often, but all it does is move the hassle of finding space in the overhead bins and finding your seat while others try to squeeze by, from the airplane to the lobby. And you're not just spending more time in your crappy economy seat instead of the roomier lobby where you can stretch your legs. Moving the pod into the airplane takes time as well, and that time is added to the boarding procedure: you will have to show up for boarding even earlier.
With that said, they could leave the pod(s) attached to the airplane and board normally, and still eject them in an emergency.
Some libertarians have a naïve belief that in a free market, good honest companies will always prevail over fraudsters. And they are not completely wrong... in the long run. Fraud generally is discovered eventually and bad companies get replaced with better ones, but often not before massive damage has been wrought. And where one fraudster succeeds even for a while, others will try and follow in his footsteps.
Which is why other libertarians do see a role for government to provide some ground rules and provide oversight to actually enforce those rules. Even if only because it's far cheaper than letting fraudsters run wild.
Not every worn out part will cause an unexpected and/or immediate issue. If you take care of the car and regularly inspect it (or have it inspected by someone who knows what he's doing), you will catch most trouble before it happens. And if the car is a popular model, there will be a ton of other owners with advise on what to watch for. Yes, older cars require more maintenance, you can't get away with the usual once a year or 10.000 km service, so I am not surprised the guy spent more on repairs than on the car itself. But if you do that maintenance well, the car will be as reliable as a new one.
If you decide to get an old car and you need it to run reliably, it's essential that you learn how to take care of it or find a mechanic whom you can rely on. And learning how to work on your car is another good way to save money. I'm pretty handy with tools but didn't know much about cars until I decided to learn; I've probably saved €4000 or so in repairs on our ancient Mercedes 500 (which we keep
for sentimental reasons), and another €2000 or so repairing the old Jaguar (which we keep because it's such an unbelievably good ride).
Depends. I think people will buy fewer cars or perhaps different cars. You may still want to buy the car for your daily commute, but it'll be just that: a daily driver. Not a truck for when you need to haul stuff every so often, or a large sedan for the family holidays; for those rare eventualities you'll just rent something. And that second car that the wife uses twice a week for shopping? Better just rent that too.
There will still be reasons for people to want ownership of their car. For one, you can leave your stuff in it. Or perhaps you just prefer a particular model, like a convertible (those will be gone from the rental lot as soon as the weather turns nice).
If these things start carrying drugs, they will certainly get hit by a lot of people. The 12 year old kids on bicycles are cheaper, less hassle and more dependable. Plus they provide a good career path into your criminal organisation. Kind of like a summer internship...
According to Juncker, the Chairman of the European Commission, Brexit is also threatening to upset the leaders of other planets. No kidding, no missing context, no metaphor. Well, the guy isn't called "Druncker" for nothing.
And if it gets out of that valley, perhaps it'll start to drink like us:
- Morgan: Regarding last week's delivery, why did it take twice as long as usual?
- Bender: Martini drinking contest with the autopilot. I would have beat him too this time, but we ran out of olives.
- Leela: Look, I can explain.
- Morgan: Do you really think you can explain why you left port without a full compliment of olives? I think not.
In the Netherlands we have one of the most comprehensive public transport systems, but even here it's pretty rare to find door to door transportation. For a good while my commute was almost literally door-to-door, a single train journey with 3 minute walks on either end, which was brilliant. Then I changed jobs and had to take the same train a bit further, then ride the tram... As soon as you have to change trains or buses, public transport starts to suck, especially if you need to be on time. It easily adds another 15 minutes to your journey, and I found that on that second job taking the car, traffic jams and all, was the better option. Also because it lets you divert to do other errants on the way to or from work.
Big difference between engaging an "autopilot" feature", or taping a can of coke to your steering wheel in order to defeat the dead man's switch in the driver assist features. People have a great deal of trust in technology and the companies that provide it. And much of our technology is designed to at prevent unsafe use or at least warn us about it. I can see why people would think that "if it really is unsafe to let Tesla do all the driving, they wouldn't have made the autopilot stay on if I let go of the wheel"; the fact that Tesla tell you do stay in control at all times is "just to cover their ass". In contrast, the people that do go out of their way to disable safety features on other cars may not know the risk they are taking, but they are fully aware that they are doing something they shouldn't. And it seems a lot more stupid shit is going on in Tesla cars than in others as a result.
I am a bit surprised about the belief that AIs (or machine learning) will solve all problems given enough data.
I'm surprised at your surprise. As a consultant I see a ton of demand for "big data" specialists. Companies eager to tap into every database and put sensors everywhere, to optimize or automate or whatever. Many of these projects fail in the end. Because big data is not about gathering, storing or querying the data, that problem has been more or less solved. It is about making sense of the data. Many still believe that simply having the data available in a handy dandy graphing tool will somehow magically provide them with useful insights.
The idea is that when you realize you need something, you don't have to memorize it or hunt for a pen to add it to your shopping list. "Alexa, order more detergent", basically the same idea as those electronic Amazon buttons you tape to the washing machine and push to order detergent when you run out. Small conveniences.
In this case however I would expect some sort of parental lock, so Alexa doesn't order new tows whenever your kids cry out for them.
We don't even know yet if it's apples we're comparing against oranges. Meaning that 1 fatality in 130 million miles doesn't constitute much of a data set, and statistically leaves a huge uncertainty in that presumed fatality rate.
What do you think self-driving cabs are? That's right: public transportation. The kind that actually drops you off where you need to be, which sounds like a pretty awesome fix. Not that self driving cars will fully replace subways or trains, but they may very well replace buses and trams with minibuses acting as large, shared taxis.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point, and this rule doesn't guarantee that no more disproportional or ineffective laws are passed. What needs to change is the mindset with politicians and the public, and this rule is meant to foster that change.
The automatic repeal goes hand in hand with those questions: additional stricter measures would increasingly fail the question of proportionality.
I'm not so sure it's a smokescreen in this case. Some people genuinely believe that they have to do something "for the children" and that stuff like this is both beneficial and effective.
I think whenever a politicial proposes a new law that limits what we can and cannot do, other politicians (MPs, lords, senators, congressman or what have you) should ask a few simple questions before even considering the law, and journalists should keep asking until they get a satisfactory answer:
- What problem are you trying to solve?
- Is that really a problem?
- How will your law contribute to a solution, and is a proportional measure? (i.e. are the negative effects of the law like loss of freedom in unrelated cases a lot smaller than the expected positive effects)
- How and when will you measure success?
The last part kind of ought to be part of the law, with an automatic repeal in case success is not achieved or evaluated.
He'll just off the rent boy and claim any photos were fabricated. He doesn't have to offer a denial that is even remotely plausible; the state press (pretty much any press in Russia at this point) will print his blatant lies along with a bunch of other stuff to sow confusion, and then simply stop after 2 weeks. Wouldn't be the first time either.
That reminds me of the recent efforts to infiltrate extreme right-wing groups in Germany: at some point there were so many agents and so many agencies involved that no one could be sure anymore who was an agent and who wasn't.
A solid economy is certainly not Putin's first concern. Perhaps the contrary: despots do not thrive in problem-free states.
... and now she's running for President.
Considering that the alternative is Trump, you guys may want to let this one slide...
Seriously, out of what (for an outsider at least) have been the most interesting presidential nominations in ages, these two clowns emerged as the GOP and Dems candidates? What the hell...
Group passwords should not shared between members of the group either. As a rule, a group member should not give the group password to another person claiming to be in that group; organisations with good security policies have provisions for diseminating, revoking or restoring forgotten group passwords, and a password should only be given out or shared by the authority, not other group members. But yeah, in practice the password will be shared between group members who know each other.
In the past 15 years I don't think I've worked in any organisation where administrator passwords were shared, or root passwords were even in use. For the latter, people use stuff like sudo I believe. And these days even the crappiest home routers allow multiple accounts with administrator rights to be configured. One of the reasons for enforcing the use of individual accounts is audit trails: being able to tell who did what and when. That's doubly important for privileged accounts, which is why sysadmins in particular should receive indidivual accounts rather than share one.
It is almost always that cut and dry; what you describe is an exceptional case. And in that case, you do what is necessary and pay the price. In certain cases, the law actually stipulates provisions for cases like someone breaking down the neighbour's door because he had reason to believe they were in trouble. It's illegal in principle but a judge can set a lower punishment or dismiss after weighing intentions and probable cause for busting down that door.
No. If 1) your company IT policy strictly prohibits sharing your password with anyone, including IT support staff (like many policies do), and 2) you access a database using a co-worker's credentials, then it should be crystal clear to you that this access is unauthorized. And that goes double if you are no longer an employee at that company.
Anyone who holds this belief in a "legitimate" role for government cannot, by definition, be a consistent libertarian by my definition.
FTFY.
Spot on with point #2. The idea of having people board a pod before the flight comes up every so often, but all it does is move the hassle of finding space in the overhead bins and finding your seat while others try to squeeze by, from the airplane to the lobby. And you're not just spending more time in your crappy economy seat instead of the roomier lobby where you can stretch your legs. Moving the pod into the airplane takes time as well, and that time is added to the boarding procedure: you will have to show up for boarding even earlier.
With that said, they could leave the pod(s) attached to the airplane and board normally, and still eject them in an emergency.
Some libertarians have a naïve belief that in a free market, good honest companies will always prevail over fraudsters. And they are not completely wrong... in the long run. Fraud generally is discovered eventually and bad companies get replaced with better ones, but often not before massive damage has been wrought. And where one fraudster succeeds even for a while, others will try and follow in his footsteps.
Which is why other libertarians do see a role for government to provide some ground rules and provide oversight to actually enforce those rules. Even if only because it's far cheaper than letting fraudsters run wild.
What kind of rubbish car won't last 6 years?
Not every worn out part will cause an unexpected and/or immediate issue. If you take care of the car and regularly inspect it (or have it inspected by someone who knows what he's doing), you will catch most trouble before it happens. And if the car is a popular model, there will be a ton of other owners with advise on what to watch for. Yes, older cars require more maintenance, you can't get away with the usual once a year or 10.000 km service, so I am not surprised the guy spent more on repairs than on the car itself. But if you do that maintenance well, the car will be as reliable as a new one.
If you decide to get an old car and you need it to run reliably, it's essential that you learn how to take care of it or find a mechanic whom you can rely on. And learning how to work on your car is another good way to save money. I'm pretty handy with tools but didn't know much about cars until I decided to learn; I've probably saved €4000 or so in repairs on our ancient Mercedes 500 (which we keep for sentimental reasons), and another €2000 or so repairing the old Jaguar (which we keep because it's such an unbelievably good ride).
Depends. I think people will buy fewer cars or perhaps different cars. You may still want to buy the car for your daily commute, but it'll be just that: a daily driver. Not a truck for when you need to haul stuff every so often, or a large sedan for the family holidays; for those rare eventualities you'll just rent something. And that second car that the wife uses twice a week for shopping? Better just rent that too.
There will still be reasons for people to want ownership of their car. For one, you can leave your stuff in it. Or perhaps you just prefer a particular model, like a convertible (those will be gone from the rental lot as soon as the weather turns nice).
If these things start carrying drugs, they will certainly get hit by a lot of people. The 12 year old kids on bicycles are cheaper, less hassle and more dependable. Plus they provide a good career path into your criminal organisation. Kind of like a summer internship...
According to Juncker, the Chairman of the European Commission, Brexit is also threatening to upset the leaders of other planets. No kidding, no missing context, no metaphor. Well, the guy isn't called "Druncker" for nothing.
And if it gets out of that valley, perhaps it'll start to drink like us:
- Morgan: Regarding last week's delivery, why did it take twice as long as usual?
- Bender: Martini drinking contest with the autopilot. I would have beat him too this time, but we ran out of olives.
- Leela: Look, I can explain.
- Morgan: Do you really think you can explain why you left port without a full compliment of olives? I think not.
In the Netherlands we have one of the most comprehensive public transport systems, but even here it's pretty rare to find door to door transportation. For a good while my commute was almost literally door-to-door, a single train journey with 3 minute walks on either end, which was brilliant. Then I changed jobs and had to take the same train a bit further, then ride the tram... As soon as you have to change trains or buses, public transport starts to suck, especially if you need to be on time. It easily adds another 15 minutes to your journey, and I found that on that second job taking the car, traffic jams and all, was the better option. Also because it lets you divert to do other errants on the way to or from work.
Big difference between engaging an "autopilot" feature", or taping a can of coke to your steering wheel in order to defeat the dead man's switch in the driver assist features. People have a great deal of trust in technology and the companies that provide it. And much of our technology is designed to at prevent unsafe use or at least warn us about it. I can see why people would think that "if it really is unsafe to let Tesla do all the driving, they wouldn't have made the autopilot stay on if I let go of the wheel"; the fact that Tesla tell you do stay in control at all times is "just to cover their ass". In contrast, the people that do go out of their way to disable safety features on other cars may not know the risk they are taking, but they are fully aware that they are doing something they shouldn't. And it seems a lot more stupid shit is going on in Tesla cars than in others as a result.
I am a bit surprised about the belief that AIs (or machine learning) will solve all problems given enough data.
I'm surprised at your surprise. As a consultant I see a ton of demand for "big data" specialists. Companies eager to tap into every database and put sensors everywhere, to optimize or automate or whatever. Many of these projects fail in the end. Because big data is not about gathering, storing or querying the data, that problem has been more or less solved. It is about making sense of the data. Many still believe that simply having the data available in a handy dandy graphing tool will somehow magically provide them with useful insights.
They'll happily run the rider into an obstacle at full speed though...
The idea is that when you realize you need something, you don't have to memorize it or hunt for a pen to add it to your shopping list. "Alexa, order more detergent", basically the same idea as those electronic Amazon buttons you tape to the washing machine and push to order detergent when you run out. Small conveniences.
In this case however I would expect some sort of parental lock, so Alexa doesn't order new tows whenever your kids cry out for them.
We don't even know yet if it's apples we're comparing against oranges. Meaning that 1 fatality in 130 million miles doesn't constitute much of a data set, and statistically leaves a huge uncertainty in that presumed fatality rate.
What do you think self-driving cabs are? That's right: public transportation. The kind that actually drops you off where you need to be, which sounds like a pretty awesome fix. Not that self driving cars will fully replace subways or trains, but they may very well replace buses and trams with minibuses acting as large, shared taxis.