Why is there a car in the adjacent lane in a high-speed situation with objects that can conceivably exhibit behaviour that could cause in impact faster than you can do a controlled break? Sounds like you're driving too fast and tailgating someone while you're passing someone else. How about, you know, not doing that? Accident avoided.
Use your imagination. Some other potential causes of that situation: accidents in other lanes resulting in quick and unexpected vehicles/debris/people in your lane, mechanical failure of other vehicles, animals or people in the road that you're not able to see, which results in someone swerving into your lane and hitting the brakes. Following too closely isn't the only thing that causes accidents.
The trick to avoid serious accidents is to do your best to ensure you're in a controllable situation as much as possible.
The difficult problem is that sometimes you don't get the luxury of doing that, and unexpected situations can be created faster than you're able to react.
These are not meant to be complete and valid for all situations, it's just to give an idea of how such "laws" could be formulated, in the form of a decision tree that self-driving cars would be able to follow, without having to make complex judgment calls or difficult moral decisions. And I can well imagine that a basic set of such rules will be set into law so that all self-driving cars will follow the same basic protocol.
I'm not criticizing your protocol as I know it's merely hypothetical, but even under those rules there would still need to be complex judgment calls. For instance, the proper response to an impending accident might be to sideswipe the car in the adjacent lane, but only if it's actually a vehicle that could take the hit, as opposed to a motorcycle. Or it might be slamming into a guardrail if one is present, or running off the road completely but only if there's a sufficently wide shoulder without a deep ditch, or not if there's a bicyclist present that you'd want to avoid under almost all circumstances. Are you pulling a trailer? Then perhaps a completely different set of rules would need to apply. From a legal perspective - is it better to cause a lesser accident that imposes serious liability on you in order to avoid a more serious one in which you would not be found at fault? The computer has the advantage of a much quicker response time than a person, but it needs to be aware of all of the relevant factors at all times, and I don't know if automated vehicles are quite to that point yet.
Driving is a far more complex activity than a lot of people realize, and safe automated control of a 3500 pound vehicle at 60 mph is a *hard* problem.
I suspect that the nudie scanner that doesn't work is entering the polygraph zone.
I suspect you're right. I get tagged in the millimeter wave machine almost every time I walk through, when there's nothing there it should be triggering on. It's a multi-million dollar boondoggle.
Sai - should they deny the motion, what do you intend to do next? Like others here, I appreciate the lengths you've gone to get rid of this illegal, silly nonsense.
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris using Ubuntu at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
Most open source projects just don't have enough people with enough time to devote to that last 10%.
Then on top of that, you'll sometimes find that the project leader isn't interested in fixing blatant usability issues. Hell, with some projects it's hard enough getting legitimate bug fixes accepted, much less a UI change that someone will take as a personal affront to their self-esteem.
This. The problem isn't that languages aren't expressive, intuitive, or simple enough, it's that the overall problem of distilling a general and sometimes nebulous set of requirements into a fundamental specific sequence of actions for a computer isn't something that can be defined as a general algorithm. The human brain can't even get it right much of the time, and its processing ability far exceeds that of any computer.
If this were a clearly linked phenomena, it would most likely have been scientifically observed already.
It sounds to me kind of like the situation with rogue waves. They were reported by sailors for centuries, and despite this many scientists still expressed skepticism that they actually existed until 1995 when one was recorded with instrumentation. They've since been found all over the place now that we can examine huge swaths of the oceans. Previously it was sheer luck if you were there when one spawned.
Very true. I've seen photos where thieves cut a hole in the wall, wrapped a chain around the safe, and yanked it out of the floor with a truck, to be taken somewhere where they have time to cut it open with a torch.
In my day we had ergonomists and human factors people, with some actual basis in science.
This is where a lot of UI design falls down, I think. It's easy to make a UI look pretty. It's a different story when it comes to usability and actually streamlining whatever task the software is supposed to accomplish. So much time is spent on the visuals, and precious little on the flow.
Keeping it on your person or in a safe deposit box isn't really an option for rifles, shotguns, or other long guns. A cabinet isn't as secure as a safe, but it isn't "totally unsecured", and I'd argue it's a damn sight more secure than being in a car's glovebox.
Lots of people lock them in cabinets instead of safes. Cabinets are fine for keeping the kids out, but won't keep out a determined burglar. Even a thousand-pound safe that's bolted to the floor isn't 100% secure.
Unless they case your place and wait until no one's home to break in, having a reasonable idea that there are firearms to be had. Not everyone has the cash to lock their guns up in a good safe.
If the light beam is too strong, it clearly no longer depicted the quantum characteristics needed to secure the key exchange. I don't really see where the problem is here since it is easy to determine the exchange can no longer be trusted due to high luminosity.
Blinding detectors is kind of a tell-tale sign that something is wrong and parties should stop transmitting.
FTA: "An intuitive countermeasure to our attack is to add a power monitor to the analysis station that detects if the incoming light is too bright. If such an anomaly is detected, Alice and/or Bob are alerted and discard the relevant measurement outcomes. This modified Franson interferometer would not be vulnerable to the specific attack as described so far; however, it does not solve the postselection loophole, which is the actual issue at hand."
I disagree. It's not essential. There are still communities in the US without telephone service. Why didn't the government intervene there? Because telephone service isn't essential either. I think you're not understanding the definition of the word essential. It means absolutely necessary.
Under the definition you're using, power, water, and sewer aren't "essential" either. Plenty of people in the U.S. live without them, after all. You can always dig a well or put in a septic system, right?
Like I said in the OP, our governments can't even provide essential services properly.
My experience doesn't bear that statement out. When I lived in Orlando, I got power/water from the Orlando Utilities Commission, a wholly-owned municipal utility. I had a frigging hurricane come directly over me and didn't lose power at all. The total number of power problems I experienced over 8 years could have been counted on one hand. Where I live now, my electric utility is Florida Power & Light, a subsidiary of a public corporation that trades on the NYSE. I had multiple power blips and voltage sags every week for three years, and a few months back when FP&L finally decided to come out and replace the corroded 35-year old underground cabling between the transformer and my house, they tacked it together, sealed my meter with clear plastic and tape, and left bare cabling (i.e. no conduit) running 60 feet across my back yard for *three weeks* until they could get a contractor to come out and dig the trench. They flagged the cable run, but if the lawn guy had run over it accidentally it would have been a bad scene.
Competition means they need to lower prices and improve service. Compare the offerings of any of the big ISPs in a location with Google Fiber versus an area without Google Fiber.
And yet somehow, even after lowering prices to remain competitive, the incumbent ISPs are still turning a profit. Imagine that!
Slashdot Mirror
Why is there a car in the adjacent lane in a high-speed situation with objects that can conceivably exhibit behaviour that could cause in impact faster than you can do a controlled break? Sounds like you're driving too fast and tailgating someone while you're passing someone else. How about, you know, not doing that? Accident avoided.
Use your imagination. Some other potential causes of that situation: accidents in other lanes resulting in quick and unexpected vehicles/debris/people in your lane, mechanical failure of other vehicles, animals or people in the road that you're not able to see, which results in someone swerving into your lane and hitting the brakes. Following too closely isn't the only thing that causes accidents.
The trick to avoid serious accidents is to do your best to ensure you're in a controllable situation as much as possible.
The difficult problem is that sometimes you don't get the luxury of doing that, and unexpected situations can be created faster than you're able to react.
These are not meant to be complete and valid for all situations, it's just to give an idea of how such "laws" could be formulated, in the form of a decision tree that self-driving cars would be able to follow, without having to make complex judgment calls or difficult moral decisions. And I can well imagine that a basic set of such rules will be set into law so that all self-driving cars will follow the same basic protocol.
I'm not criticizing your protocol as I know it's merely hypothetical, but even under those rules there would still need to be complex judgment calls. For instance, the proper response to an impending accident might be to sideswipe the car in the adjacent lane, but only if it's actually a vehicle that could take the hit, as opposed to a motorcycle. Or it might be slamming into a guardrail if one is present, or running off the road completely but only if there's a sufficently wide shoulder without a deep ditch, or not if there's a bicyclist present that you'd want to avoid under almost all circumstances. Are you pulling a trailer? Then perhaps a completely different set of rules would need to apply. From a legal perspective - is it better to cause a lesser accident that imposes serious liability on you in order to avoid a more serious one in which you would not be found at fault? The computer has the advantage of a much quicker response time than a person, but it needs to be aware of all of the relevant factors at all times, and I don't know if automated vehicles are quite to that point yet.
Driving is a far more complex activity than a lot of people realize, and safe automated control of a 3500 pound vehicle at 60 mph is a *hard* problem.
Really? Such a professional-sounding headline. "Compromised" might have offered a little more credibility rather than years-old teen l33t speak.
Nah, you'll have to go to the post office in your flying car to get the hoverboard.
And with all the crap they're pulling with the telemetry and whatnot in Windows 10, they seem hell-bent on losing that as well.
I suspect that the nudie scanner that doesn't work is entering the polygraph zone.
I suspect you're right. I get tagged in the millimeter wave machine almost every time I walk through, when there's nothing there it should be triggering on. It's a multi-million dollar boondoggle.
Sai - should they deny the motion, what do you intend to do next? Like others here, I appreciate the lengths you've gone to get rid of this illegal, silly nonsense.
and one that the industry is not understanding.
They understand it perfectly. "Not understanding" isn't the same as "refusing to acknowledge what they know to be fact".
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris using Ubuntu at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
Most open source projects just don't have enough people with enough time to devote to that last 10%.
Then on top of that, you'll sometimes find that the project leader isn't interested in fixing blatant usability issues. Hell, with some projects it's hard enough getting legitimate bug fixes accepted, much less a UI change that someone will take as a personal affront to their self-esteem.
Or more to the point, how well will this stuff handle being in a reflow oven?
This. The problem isn't that languages aren't expressive, intuitive, or simple enough, it's that the overall problem of distilling a general and sometimes nebulous set of requirements into a fundamental specific sequence of actions for a computer isn't something that can be defined as a general algorithm. The human brain can't even get it right much of the time, and its processing ability far exceeds that of any computer.
The ROUS will get you every time though.
If this were a clearly linked phenomena, it would most likely have been scientifically observed already.
It sounds to me kind of like the situation with rogue waves. They were reported by sailors for centuries, and despite this many scientists still expressed skepticism that they actually existed until 1995 when one was recorded with instrumentation. They've since been found all over the place now that we can examine huge swaths of the oceans. Previously it was sheer luck if you were there when one spawned.
Very true. I've seen photos where thieves cut a hole in the wall, wrapped a chain around the safe, and yanked it out of the floor with a truck, to be taken somewhere where they have time to cut it open with a torch.
In my day we had ergonomists and human factors people, with some actual basis in science.
This is where a lot of UI design falls down, I think. It's easy to make a UI look pretty. It's a different story when it comes to usability and actually streamlining whatever task the software is supposed to accomplish. So much time is spent on the visuals, and precious little on the flow.
Keeping it on your person or in a safe deposit box isn't really an option for rifles, shotguns, or other long guns. A cabinet isn't as secure as a safe, but it isn't "totally unsecured", and I'd argue it's a damn sight more secure than being in a car's glovebox.
Lots of people lock them in cabinets instead of safes. Cabinets are fine for keeping the kids out, but won't keep out a determined burglar. Even a thousand-pound safe that's bolted to the floor isn't 100% secure.
I think GUIs (when done right) are great 99% of the time. But sometimes a command line is truly da' shizzle, dawg!
Absolutely. Right tool for the job and all.
Registered agents for corporations/LLCs and fictitious name assignments are generally available to the public.
Unless they case your place and wait until no one's home to break in, having a reasonable idea that there are firearms to be had. Not everyone has the cash to lock their guns up in a good safe.
If the light beam is too strong, it clearly no longer depicted the quantum characteristics needed to secure the key exchange. I don't really see where the problem is here since it is easy to determine the exchange can no longer be trusted due to high luminosity.
The paper addresses this.
Blinding detectors is kind of a tell-tale sign that something is wrong and parties should stop transmitting.
FTA: "An intuitive countermeasure to our attack is to add a power monitor to the analysis station that detects if the incoming light is too bright. If such an anomaly is detected, Alice and/or Bob are alerted and discard the relevant measurement outcomes. This modified Franson interferometer would not be vulnerable to the specific attack as described so far; however, it does not solve the postselection loophole, which is the actual issue at hand. "
I disagree. It's not essential. There are still communities in the US without telephone service. Why didn't the government intervene there? Because telephone service isn't essential either. I think you're not understanding the definition of the word essential. It means absolutely necessary.
Under the definition you're using, power, water, and sewer aren't "essential" either. Plenty of people in the U.S. live without them, after all. You can always dig a well or put in a septic system, right?
Like I said in the OP, our governments can't even provide essential services properly.
My experience doesn't bear that statement out. When I lived in Orlando, I got power/water from the Orlando Utilities Commission, a wholly-owned municipal utility. I had a frigging hurricane come directly over me and didn't lose power at all. The total number of power problems I experienced over 8 years could have been counted on one hand. Where I live now, my electric utility is Florida Power & Light, a subsidiary of a public corporation that trades on the NYSE. I had multiple power blips and voltage sags every week for three years, and a few months back when FP&L finally decided to come out and replace the corroded 35-year old underground cabling between the transformer and my house, they tacked it together, sealed my meter with clear plastic and tape, and left bare cabling (i.e. no conduit) running 60 feet across my back yard for *three weeks* until they could get a contractor to come out and dig the trench. They flagged the cable run, but if the lawn guy had run over it accidentally it would have been a bad scene.
Competition means they need to lower prices and improve service. Compare the offerings of any of the big ISPs in a location with Google Fiber versus an area without Google Fiber.
And yet somehow, even after lowering prices to remain competitive, the incumbent ISPs are still turning a profit. Imagine that!