If a robot show up that can climb a 1500 ft. tower and install a microwave dish, I'll be happy to let it do it. But somehow I kinda doubt it...
We won't need that obsolete technology in the future. Mesh networks of IoT electrical outlets will replace it. 1500' towers will just be obstacles to drone delivery vehicles, so they'll all be taken down.
I don't pay $10,000 per year for electricity, and the brainwaves of most posters here wouldn't power my house for two minutes. If you think that solar and wind power generation will be expensive, they won't hold a candle to the cost of brainwave power.
Many airports (Orchard Field in Chicago being one) have automated "rail" systems. Those systems operate in a very limited mode, with very restricted access to the outside of the vehicle or the tracks, and go a mile or two at most. They don't have to deal with surprises so programming them is relatively trivial. They're kind of like the elevators of the train world.
The difference is that when a drunk driver gets into an accident, it is clearly and unambiguously the fault of that specific person. He's an active participant in his own destruction. His decision to do something stupid and illegal caused his accident. Yes, there are innocent participants, too, but there is a well-known cause.
When a driverless car crashes into the wall or a crowd, EVERYONE is an innocent participant. There is no stupid or illegal decision that is the cause of the accident, it's just an innocent party or five who gets hurt.
Oh, but the CAR is at fault, right? The car company is responsible. Of course. How many Audis have had uncontrolled acceleration accidents without Audi actually feeling any pain for their irresponsible decision to let a computer control the throttle? Tesla 'autopilot' is going through the same thing now, isn't it?
Consider the Pinto. No, not one of the pledges in Animal House. The Ford car that is legendary for a fuel tank design leading to fires and deaths in rear-end collisions. According to the fount of all knowldege a design change to fix the problem would have saved 180 deaths and 180 serious burns per year. And yet: "Based on standard procedures used to evaluate field reports, Ford's internal recall evaluation group twice reviewed the field data and found no actionable issue."
To prove that the drunk driver caused the accident is trivial compared to the cost of proving that a car company is at fault, and it takes a lot more accidents to even start that process.
But that's one death vs all of the others where dumb, drunk, distracted, texting, road raging idiots drove their cars into walls, other cars, pedestrians, bikes, etc..
You assume that a failure mode that allows a car to crash into a wall will exist in that car alone, and not in every one of the same model, and probably the manufacturer. (There were 1.5 MILLION Pintos and Bobcats that were recalled for the fuel tank issue, and 12.5 MILLION cars that were subject to the problem.) And not be an unanticipated emergent behaviour that appears in all kinds of autonomous vehicles. I think that optimism is horribly misplaced.
No. There is nothing fair in knowingly taking money with a promise to pay it back and then deciding that it isn't important to actually pay it back. That many people in a recent generation are doing the same thing doesn't make it fair or right.
Things are currently not in their favor.
Yes, things are very much in their favor, with all the people who are talking about amnesty for those loans.
Define "need". At the most basic human needs level (Maslow?) of course you are right.
But at a practical level, I disagree, with an example. I have remote data systems that run 24/7. One is a four hour drive away, another just one hour. Unfortunately, the computers doing the collection are not perfect devices and thus sometimes they crash. Or lock up.
In both locations I have network controllable power switches. (At the four hour away site, I actually have FOUR of them, at four different failure points.) I have lost count of the number of times I've been able to restart the data collection within a few minutes of getting notified that it has stopped, by telling the power switch controlling that computer to reset.
These are all Chinese made "phone home" models that are blocked at the router that I've posted about before.
They are $100 each, but they have so far saved me many times their price in convenience. Do I "need" them? Well, I could drive an hour each way to reset one of the systems, and there are people who I could ask a favor of at the other site, but the former is expensive and means a lot of lost data, and the latter is annoying to people who aren't involved in the data collection and have other things they're paid to do. (Although, when the UNinterruptable power supply proves it isn't I do have to ask -- rare but can't be fixed remotely.)
In some places the accident would be considered their fault at least if you could find a whiteness to say, "he waved that guy"
I do not want to gamble my money and/or life on finding a witness who would support my claim, if there even was one. I often don't see the tiny waving gestures and I'm looking at them. The glare on their windshield, or it's just a small wiggle of the fingers of a hand still holding the wheel. I never see anyone sticking their arm out the window making an overt gesture.
I have considered actually getting out of the car and making a grand sweeping bow to show the "generous" time wasters that they ought to obey the law and proceed, but I've not quite gotten that annoyed yet.
I see you were very careful not to quote or allude to the very first words from my post: "To each their own."
I actually initially wrote those words into my response, in the part about you being free to refuse medical treatment from anyone who you didn't think was working in their "core competency", but it appears I edited them out as extraneous (which they were in your post, too.) It doesn't matter whether the cabbie has CPR/AED training, you can refuse his help -- an implicit "to each his own".
Hopefully your sarcastic little rant about my own personal preferences made you feel better, morally superior, or whatever it is that keeps you ticking.
I pointed out the danger TO YOU and the poor logic of your position. Many people's lives are saved by people who are acting outside their "core competency", but as I already said, if you wish those people not to assist you in an emergency, you are free to say so. And I even told you what you need to do to cover the times when you are unconscious. You're welcome.
In any case, I find your response rather ironic in the context of the broader discussion about what decisions government should universally make for people
I'm sorry, but you not wanting a cabbie to perform CPR on you has nothing to do with "decisions government should... make", it has to do with decisions YOU make.
(you know, the part you flatly ignored)
No, if you read really carefully you will note that I replied to your comment about requiring everyone to have an AED, too. I avoided (but didn't ignore) the issue of the government requiring things because that wasn't what I replied to initially and haven't made any claims that they should (or should not, for that matter) require something. You want to argue about "government control", and that's not what I'm here to discuss so I'm avoiding it.
I replied to your expressed desire that cabbies not assist you by providing CPR when necessary. Your link that talks about the low success rate of CPR is just rationalizing away the fact that it is successful at times, and is a stopgap measure until an AED can be located and used, and until professional medical help arrives. That you would rather sit gasping for breath clutching your chest while the cabbie tries to get you through traffic to a hospital so someone with a "core competency" can help is, as you say, "to each his own", and something that I've already said is your right.
And to maintain that right after you have passed out, you need to express that in some tangible form. Here's a bit of news that comes up in every first responder class I've had. We cover the legalities, and the bit about "to each his own" and that people can refuse emergency medical assistance. Someone always asks "what do you do if you have a patient who is [bleeding to death/having a serious heart attack/other potentially life threatening condition] and they say 'no' when you ask if you can help them?" The answer is "let them [bleed/arrest/whatever] until they pass out, then help them. The assumption is that the unconscious person would want assistance and there is implicit approval." So, if you truly wish only "core competency" people helping you, you need to make it clear in a legal way. Should I google the location of a tattoo parlor close to you, or do you realize the poor logic of your position by now?
No. If you short the live to the neutral, you throw a breaker.
Yes, you would. But the switching circuit does not have a path from live to neutral. Here is a site that shows a simple dimmer circuit. Note that the load is in series with the triac, so there is no input to the triac that will cause it short hot to neutral, and if the triac shorts it will at worst leave the controlled device (load) powered all the time.
Now, the entire control circuitry does, of course, have a connection from hot to neutral, but this connection is not switched and cannot be forced to create a short circuit. It has fixed components that draw enough current to control the triac, but nothing that a remote attacker can break. It can physically fail and create a short, which is why you have breakers. In the example I linked to, if the capacitor shorts you would have the resistors across the 230 mains, which would probably cause them to burn out and create an open circuit. It would also connect the diac input to the neutral, putting it in a non-conducting state. If the resistors shorted out (a very unlikely failure mode for resistors) you'd put full line voltage across the cap (probably making it explode -- an open circuit) and turn the diac on, turning on the triac. The final result would be the load is powered all the time.
But failure cannot be caused by invalid control inputs from a hacker.
Startup mentality means get your product or app out as fast as possible so there's no time to waste on quality.
Time to market, and cost. If your switch costs twice as much as someone else's, guess which most consumers will buy? Development costs money. Security development is an almost invisible benefit in a device that hasn't gotten to market yet. It's only a liability afterwards.
At least they're only gaining control over an on-off switch.
Only. They're also gaining control over what you've plugged into that switch. (The whole purpose of having a network controlled switch is so you can control something that is plugged into it.) Plug in a coffee pot, heater, or anything else that can cause problem when turned on inappropriately, you've got a problem.
The fine summary also commented that the firmware could be hacked to become part of a botnet. That's a problem even if you don't have anything plugged in.
the varistor
Dimming is not done using a varistor. Or a rheostat (variable resistor.) That's so horribly inefficient and would create enourmous heat problems. It's done using a triac. The dimming is accomplished by turning the triac on later and later in the cycle of the AC current. The less of the full cycle you let through, the "dimmer" the output. This requires only an on-off device which can be very efficient and create extremely little heat. (No heat when off, very low on resistance and thus very little dissipation when on.)
short circuiting
When an AC line switch "short circuits", the worst that happens is the device that is plugged in is "on" always. There is no pathway for a true short circuit in the controlled switch. (Yes, the dimming or switching circuit can fail and create a short, but unlikely, and not as part of improper control.)
oscillating loads in many locations at once in tune with the grid to mess up phase balancing
The latency in the network would make this hard.
oscillating loads very quickly
The fastest switching will be 16 (or 20) ms -- once the dimmer circuit fires the triac, it doesn't shut off until the next zero crossing. That can damage power supplies in connected devices, but unlikely to damage the grid.
I couldn't think of anything useful to do with it so threw it in a box.
Control fans, or turn lights and radios on and off to simulate the presence of a resident. Unless you walk up and ring my doorbell you don't know if I'm home or not. (Or am I sitting behind the door with a 45 waiting for you?) That's what I use my X10 controls for. I also have a few lights that I always control with X10 just for convenience. One runs my lava lamp, which for some reason needs a slight bit of dimming to reduce the heat or all the lava floats on the top.
What is confusing about this article is that it somehow bypasses the NAT protections. How does an outside hacker connect to a device that doesn't have a routable address and no external appearance on the Internet? Is it the device's fault if the owner puts a port forwarding tunnel into the router so outsiders can connect to something inside?
I'd love to take a road trip with my friends where we can all have a beer and play cards or something.
So that none of you would be able to take control when a system failure hands control of the vehicle off to the human.
The answer to your problem does not require autonomous vehicles and the promises of performance that are required to make the system work. His name is "Arther", and he's a chauffeur. Or it's a train or bus. How many such trips do you make today?
I don't like driving, I don't like being driven - I just don't like being in cars.
Yes, I get that. So if you don't like being in one, why would you get in one tomorrow?
a risky grind in which the casual inattention of others could result in my messy death.
But you'll be happy when relying on the promises of computer engineers that the system will be safe. There has never been a case of unexpected consequences despite assurances from the technical experts that a system is safe and reliable. You'll be glad when the knowledge of how to drive is no longer required and you wind up with carloads of people who are either untrained or incapable of driving the vehicles when the system fails.
Look up the phrase "emergent behaviour". Consider the unknown interactions that will occur between the autonomous vehicles and the human-piloted ones on the highways. (Personally, until I read that there would be two drivers in each driverless Uber car, I was thinking that Pittsburgh would be a great vacation destination. I'd have plenty of entertainment as I figure out ways of making the Uber cars misbehave. I there weren't enough of them passing by on their own, there's an app that will summon them upon demand!)
And before you try the "you aren't as smart as the engineers who are designing these systems" (often phrased as "don't you think they've thought of that?") argument, the answer is that you don't have to be as smart as an engineer to know that there will be unanticipated results, and I know there are things they haven't thought about.
Risks Digest teaches us both. As does watching the amazing movie of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse. Or understanding the number of aircraft crashes due to a jackscrew failure in a professionally-designed safety-certified horizontal stabilizer. Lithium battery fires in 787s?
Its a little worse than that even, see that rule is actually suffixed with "if it is safe to do so" or similar language.
And in Oregon it is further suffixed with "or slow down". The amount to slow down, is, IIRC, a matter for the judgement of the officer who pulls you over for "not enough". Safest to pull over.
or it might be if that person has acknowledged you and is waving you in.
It is NEVER safe to base your driving decisions on "someone waving you in." If someone else has the right of way, you let them have it. About the first time someone waves you ahead and then tries running into you because you are failing to yield them the right of way, you'll learn to never trust such "generous" offers. I suspect many people are just trying to be nice, but it's wasting everyone's time when they do that, and some of them are actually being malicious. No, it's better to wait until the person with the right of way wakes up and decides to proceed, even if that means you're both stopped waiting for the other guy.
I think I'd rather everyone just stick with their core competency and have the driver (who is already presumably rolling down the road with me in the car) reroute to someone who does life-saving measures for a living and has the proper equipment.
From your link: "One simple reason for such gloomy results may be the logistic impossibility of responding to a broadly disseminated, quasirandom event that causes death within minutes." I'd rather the cabbie have training to recognize cardiac arrest and be able to do more than just honk the horn at other cars blocking his access to a hospital or fire station.
And from your link: "At best, CPR represents a placeholder." Yes, that's true. I think most trained people understand that. That's why we're trained to summon (or have someone summon) professional medical help prior to starting CPR. And why we, to the best of our ability, do not let a patient who has revived after CPR just get up and walk away. But even as a placeholder, and with the potential damage that improper CPR can cause, it can keep someone alive until that help arrives.
And then why not require everyone to have an AED on hand too, just in case?
You will note that I made no comment about requiring anything. I replied only to the flippant comment about not wanting cabbies to do CPR. I thought I was clear on that.
But you make an excellent point. The prices of AEDs have fallen drastically, so instead of CPR certifications it should be an AED certification. There is no question that AED use saves lives. But if you don't have an AED handy (or it is not usable or doesn't work) then CPR is a placeholder. It has a small percentage of success, but success is life compared to someone dying. So CPR should not be ignored.
As to your "retail store", I see no issue with them having CPR/AED certified people on staff in case of emergency. I think any company that will 1) accept that liability and 2) accept that cost should be applauded.
I think I'd rather everyone just stick with their core competency
If you are conscious, you are free to refuse treatment from anyone whose "core competency" is not emergency medical services. That includes the fireman or policeman who is trying to save your life. It includes the network manager who only volunteers as a member of one of the best mountain rescue units in the country, but may wind up sitting next to you on the airplane and doing CPR on you for an hour while the airplane makes its way to an airport to turn you over to people whose "core competency" makes you more comfortable (but perhaps dead.)
If you are not conscious, then do you really care if the cabbie's "core competency" is using that AED or doing CPR, as long as he's trained to do either or both? It doesn't really take a "core competency" in emergency medical services to do CPR or use an AED, but to each their own. Perhaps you should tattoo "DNR unless you are board certified in emergency medicine" on your chest just to be safe.
I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of cabbies I've had who I would want to perform CPR on me.
I can count on the fingers of no hands the number of cabbies I would want to need to perform CPR on me. If I've had a heart attack in someone's cab the number of cabbies I would want to perform CPR goes way up.
It's actually not ride sharing, it's transportation services. Only if the driver was going where you were going (or the vicinity of) can you call it sharing. If the driver is going someplace only because you're paying him to do so, it's a service. It isn't a "ride" for him. For him it's a paycheck.
But yes, a totally free-market transportation service would be between you and the operator (who may be the driver, or the driver's employer) and nobody else. It doesn't stop being a free market just because an employer is involved, so the fact that Uber regulates their own rates doesn't change anything. The driver in your first scenario is regulating his rates, too.
Yeah, they are totally not a taxi company but just two people sharing a ride because they're going the same way.
Even when the cars have no drivers.
Oh, you missed the funniest part of this article. These "driverless" vehicles will actually have TWO drivers -- one to take over when (not if) the car gets into trouble, and one to take notes. When a Pittsburgh Uber car shows up to give you a ride, the slogan will be "move to the back of the car", the front seats are for Uber employees.
So:
Yeah, they are totally not a taxi company but just three people sharing a ride
Standard logical fallacy: "all A is B does not mean "all B is A". You changed the context from "underage children", which does include teenagers, but also includes four and five year olds. You changed the context so you could accuse someone of being a pervert because he gives his teenage children baths. That's pathetic.
Nowhere did you say that the kid downloading the pics can be charged with possession of kiddie porn,
Sh*t, another lie. Here's what I wrote:
I fucking quoted you directly from YOUR OWN POSTING. Not only do you not read what you reply to, you don't read what you, yourself, write. That's it. You've lied about what I said, you've lied about what you said. You have nothing of value to say.
You agreed to a contract without reading it, and without taking any effort to read it. You can control the font sizes, it's your responsibility. Ignorance is no excuse.
"Seems reasonable that they presented it that way so that you would be disinclined to read it. Not valid!"
Every contract is presented in a way that people are disinclined to read them. How they present it is up to you in the long run.
Nowhere did you say that the kid downloading the pics can be charged with possession of kiddie porn,
Because in the context of that statement there was no reference to anyone downloading anything. You limited your statement to an uploader, so I did too. It should have been obvious that when I say the UPloader can be charged, I already assume the DOWNloader can be. You tried making it look like I had said that they cannot, which makes the implication of your statement a lie. Had you read my clear statement about the UPloader being chargeable, you would not have told me to watch TV to learn that the uploader could be charged.
putting a lie to your claim in your reply that you said:
Perhaps YOU need to take your own advice and read your own posts? Or invest in a time machine so you can fix things retroactively.
And if you download that same pic, especially if you believed that was what was going on, you can be charged. You had intent. You had the pics. You are not a cop doing it as part of your job. That's all that's needed.
I didn't say what you quote me as saying. You are lying. In any case, there was no reference to anyone downloading the image, so "if you download that same pic" is a retroactive addition to the context -- perhaps your attempt at a time machine?
You really don't have a grasp on the discussion here, do you?
If the judge has to put on his or her reading glasses to read it, it's too small to hold up in court.
On a web-page EULA, the font is as small or as large as you want it to be. If you make it too small to read, it is YOUR fault and the implicit agreement still holds. Ignorance of how to configure your web browser to view text is not an excuse.
You started this by referring to "underage kids". The OP replied in context, and now you turn it creepy by changing to "teenage". Of course, you can resort to ad hominem after you change the context that way, so it's a win for you.
So, I'm an adult, I borrow your phone to make a phone call or for another purpose - guess what - you do NOT have the legal right to monitor my communications.
Assuming your conditional hypothesis is correct, guess what? I get the detailed phone records so I know the number you called and for how long. I don't need a subpoena or a court order. My phone, my rules. If you don't like it, don't bother asking. It won't matter, because I wouldn't trust you not to abuse my hospitality by doing something illegal, so I'd never loan you my phone to start with.
Slashdot Mirror
If a robot show up that can climb a 1500 ft. tower and install a microwave dish, I'll be happy to let it do it. But somehow I kinda doubt it...
We won't need that obsolete technology in the future. Mesh networks of IoT electrical outlets will replace it. 1500' towers will just be obstacles to drone delivery vehicles, so they'll all be taken down.
I don't pay $10,000 per year for electricity, and the brainwaves of most posters here wouldn't power my house for two minutes. If you think that solar and wind power generation will be expensive, they won't hold a candle to the cost of brainwave power.
Many airports (Orchard Field in Chicago being one) have automated "rail" systems. Those systems operate in a very limited mode, with very restricted access to the outside of the vehicle or the tracks, and go a mile or two at most. They don't have to deal with surprises so programming them is relatively trivial. They're kind of like the elevators of the train world.
Could some glitch run a car into a wall? Maybe.
The difference is that when a drunk driver gets into an accident, it is clearly and unambiguously the fault of that specific person. He's an active participant in his own destruction. His decision to do something stupid and illegal caused his accident. Yes, there are innocent participants, too, but there is a well-known cause.
When a driverless car crashes into the wall or a crowd, EVERYONE is an innocent participant. There is no stupid or illegal decision that is the cause of the accident, it's just an innocent party or five who gets hurt.
Oh, but the CAR is at fault, right? The car company is responsible. Of course. How many Audis have had uncontrolled acceleration accidents without Audi actually feeling any pain for their irresponsible decision to let a computer control the throttle? Tesla 'autopilot' is going through the same thing now, isn't it?
Consider the Pinto. No, not one of the pledges in Animal House. The Ford car that is legendary for a fuel tank design leading to fires and deaths in rear-end collisions. According to the fount of all knowldege a design change to fix the problem would have saved 180 deaths and 180 serious burns per year. And yet: "Based on standard procedures used to evaluate field reports, Ford's internal recall evaluation group twice reviewed the field data and found no actionable issue."
To prove that the drunk driver caused the accident is trivial compared to the cost of proving that a car company is at fault, and it takes a lot more accidents to even start that process.
But that's one death vs all of the others where dumb, drunk, distracted, texting, road raging idiots drove their cars into walls, other cars, pedestrians, bikes, etc..
You assume that a failure mode that allows a car to crash into a wall will exist in that car alone, and not in every one of the same model, and probably the manufacturer. (There were 1.5 MILLION Pintos and Bobcats that were recalled for the fuel tank issue, and 12.5 MILLION cars that were subject to the problem.) And not be an unanticipated emergent behaviour that appears in all kinds of autonomous vehicles. I think that optimism is horribly misplaced.
They want things to be fair.
No. There is nothing fair in knowingly taking money with a promise to pay it back and then deciding that it isn't important to actually pay it back. That many people in a recent generation are doing the same thing doesn't make it fair or right.
Things are currently not in their favor.
Yes, things are very much in their favor, with all the people who are talking about amnesty for those loans.
If there is UBI for them then they are not totally worthless.
Giving people free money doesn't give them worth. It gives them money.
No one really needs either new gadget.
Define "need". At the most basic human needs level (Maslow?) of course you are right.
But at a practical level, I disagree, with an example. I have remote data systems that run 24/7. One is a four hour drive away, another just one hour. Unfortunately, the computers doing the collection are not perfect devices and thus sometimes they crash. Or lock up.
In both locations I have network controllable power switches. (At the four hour away site, I actually have FOUR of them, at four different failure points.) I have lost count of the number of times I've been able to restart the data collection within a few minutes of getting notified that it has stopped, by telling the power switch controlling that computer to reset.
These are all Chinese made "phone home" models that are blocked at the router that I've posted about before.
They are $100 each, but they have so far saved me many times their price in convenience. Do I "need" them? Well, I could drive an hour each way to reset one of the systems, and there are people who I could ask a favor of at the other site, but the former is expensive and means a lot of lost data, and the latter is annoying to people who aren't involved in the data collection and have other things they're paid to do. (Although, when the UNinterruptable power supply proves it isn't I do have to ask -- rare but can't be fixed remotely.)
In some places the accident would be considered their fault at least if you could find a whiteness to say, "he waved that guy"
I do not want to gamble my money and/or life on finding a witness who would support my claim, if there even was one. I often don't see the tiny waving gestures and I'm looking at them. The glare on their windshield, or it's just a small wiggle of the fingers of a hand still holding the wheel. I never see anyone sticking their arm out the window making an overt gesture.
I have considered actually getting out of the car and making a grand sweeping bow to show the "generous" time wasters that they ought to obey the law and proceed, but I've not quite gotten that annoyed yet.
I see you were very careful not to quote or allude to the very first words from my post: "To each their own."
I actually initially wrote those words into my response, in the part about you being free to refuse medical treatment from anyone who you didn't think was working in their "core competency", but it appears I edited them out as extraneous (which they were in your post, too.) It doesn't matter whether the cabbie has CPR/AED training, you can refuse his help -- an implicit "to each his own".
Hopefully your sarcastic little rant about my own personal preferences made you feel better, morally superior, or whatever it is that keeps you ticking.
I pointed out the danger TO YOU and the poor logic of your position. Many people's lives are saved by people who are acting outside their "core competency", but as I already said, if you wish those people not to assist you in an emergency, you are free to say so. And I even told you what you need to do to cover the times when you are unconscious. You're welcome.
In any case, I find your response rather ironic in the context of the broader discussion about what decisions government should universally make for people
I'm sorry, but you not wanting a cabbie to perform CPR on you has nothing to do with "decisions government should ... make", it has to do with decisions YOU make.
(you know, the part you flatly ignored)
No, if you read really carefully you will note that I replied to your comment about requiring everyone to have an AED, too. I avoided (but didn't ignore) the issue of the government requiring things because that wasn't what I replied to initially and haven't made any claims that they should (or should not, for that matter) require something. You want to argue about "government control", and that's not what I'm here to discuss so I'm avoiding it.
I replied to your expressed desire that cabbies not assist you by providing CPR when necessary. Your link that talks about the low success rate of CPR is just rationalizing away the fact that it is successful at times, and is a stopgap measure until an AED can be located and used, and until professional medical help arrives. That you would rather sit gasping for breath clutching your chest while the cabbie tries to get you through traffic to a hospital so someone with a "core competency" can help is, as you say, "to each his own", and something that I've already said is your right.
And to maintain that right after you have passed out, you need to express that in some tangible form. Here's a bit of news that comes up in every first responder class I've had. We cover the legalities, and the bit about "to each his own" and that people can refuse emergency medical assistance. Someone always asks "what do you do if you have a patient who is [bleeding to death/having a serious heart attack/other potentially life threatening condition] and they say 'no' when you ask if you can help them?" The answer is "let them [bleed/arrest/whatever] until they pass out, then help them. The assumption is that the unconscious person would want assistance and there is implicit approval." So, if you truly wish only "core competency" people helping you, you need to make it clear in a legal way. Should I google the location of a tattoo parlor close to you, or do you realize the poor logic of your position by now?
No. If you short the live to the neutral, you throw a breaker.
Yes, you would. But the switching circuit does not have a path from live to neutral. Here is a site that shows a simple dimmer circuit. Note that the load is in series with the triac, so there is no input to the triac that will cause it short hot to neutral, and if the triac shorts it will at worst leave the controlled device (load) powered all the time.
Now, the entire control circuitry does, of course, have a connection from hot to neutral, but this connection is not switched and cannot be forced to create a short circuit. It has fixed components that draw enough current to control the triac, but nothing that a remote attacker can break. It can physically fail and create a short, which is why you have breakers. In the example I linked to, if the capacitor shorts you would have the resistors across the 230 mains, which would probably cause them to burn out and create an open circuit. It would also connect the diac input to the neutral, putting it in a non-conducting state. If the resistors shorted out (a very unlikely failure mode for resistors) you'd put full line voltage across the cap (probably making it explode -- an open circuit) and turn the diac on, turning on the triac. The final result would be the load is powered all the time.
But failure cannot be caused by invalid control inputs from a hacker.
Startup mentality means get your product or app out as fast as possible so there's no time to waste on quality.
Time to market, and cost. If your switch costs twice as much as someone else's, guess which most consumers will buy? Development costs money. Security development is an almost invisible benefit in a device that hasn't gotten to market yet. It's only a liability afterwards.
At least they're only gaining control over an on-off switch.
Only. They're also gaining control over what you've plugged into that switch. (The whole purpose of having a network controlled switch is so you can control something that is plugged into it.) Plug in a coffee pot, heater, or anything else that can cause problem when turned on inappropriately, you've got a problem.
The fine summary also commented that the firmware could be hacked to become part of a botnet. That's a problem even if you don't have anything plugged in.
the varistor
Dimming is not done using a varistor. Or a rheostat (variable resistor.) That's so horribly inefficient and would create enourmous heat problems. It's done using a triac. The dimming is accomplished by turning the triac on later and later in the cycle of the AC current. The less of the full cycle you let through, the "dimmer" the output. This requires only an on-off device which can be very efficient and create extremely little heat. (No heat when off, very low on resistance and thus very little dissipation when on.)
short circuiting
When an AC line switch "short circuits", the worst that happens is the device that is plugged in is "on" always. There is no pathway for a true short circuit in the controlled switch. (Yes, the dimming or switching circuit can fail and create a short, but unlikely, and not as part of improper control.)
oscillating loads in many locations at once in tune with the grid to mess up phase balancing
The latency in the network would make this hard.
oscillating loads very quickly
The fastest switching will be 16 (or 20) ms -- once the dimmer circuit fires the triac, it doesn't shut off until the next zero crossing. That can damage power supplies in connected devices, but unlikely to damage the grid.
I couldn't think of anything useful to do with it so threw it in a box.
Control fans, or turn lights and radios on and off to simulate the presence of a resident. Unless you walk up and ring my doorbell you don't know if I'm home or not. (Or am I sitting behind the door with a 45 waiting for you?) That's what I use my X10 controls for. I also have a few lights that I always control with X10 just for convenience. One runs my lava lamp, which for some reason needs a slight bit of dimming to reduce the heat or all the lava floats on the top.
What is confusing about this article is that it somehow bypasses the NAT protections. How does an outside hacker connect to a device that doesn't have a routable address and no external appearance on the Internet? Is it the device's fault if the owner puts a port forwarding tunnel into the router so outsiders can connect to something inside?
I'd love to take a road trip with my friends where we can all have a beer and play cards or something.
So that none of you would be able to take control when a system failure hands control of the vehicle off to the human.
The answer to your problem does not require autonomous vehicles and the promises of performance that are required to make the system work. His name is "Arther", and he's a chauffeur. Or it's a train or bus. How many such trips do you make today?
I don't like driving, I don't like being driven - I just don't like being in cars.
Yes, I get that. So if you don't like being in one, why would you get in one tomorrow?
a risky grind in which the casual inattention of others could result in my messy death.
But you'll be happy when relying on the promises of computer engineers that the system will be safe. There has never been a case of unexpected consequences despite assurances from the technical experts that a system is safe and reliable. You'll be glad when the knowledge of how to drive is no longer required and you wind up with carloads of people who are either untrained or incapable of driving the vehicles when the system fails.
Look up the phrase "emergent behaviour". Consider the unknown interactions that will occur between the autonomous vehicles and the human-piloted ones on the highways. (Personally, until I read that there would be two drivers in each driverless Uber car, I was thinking that Pittsburgh would be a great vacation destination. I'd have plenty of entertainment as I figure out ways of making the Uber cars misbehave. I there weren't enough of them passing by on their own, there's an app that will summon them upon demand!)
And before you try the "you aren't as smart as the engineers who are designing these systems" (often phrased as "don't you think they've thought of that?") argument, the answer is that you don't have to be as smart as an engineer to know that there will be unanticipated results, and I know there are things they haven't thought about.
Risks Digest teaches us both. As does watching the amazing movie of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse. Or understanding the number of aircraft crashes due to a jackscrew failure in a professionally-designed safety-certified horizontal stabilizer. Lithium battery fires in 787s?
Its a little worse than that even, see that rule is actually suffixed with "if it is safe to do so" or similar language.
And in Oregon it is further suffixed with "or slow down". The amount to slow down, is, IIRC, a matter for the judgement of the officer who pulls you over for "not enough". Safest to pull over.
or it might be if that person has acknowledged you and is waving you in.
It is NEVER safe to base your driving decisions on "someone waving you in." If someone else has the right of way, you let them have it. About the first time someone waves you ahead and then tries running into you because you are failing to yield them the right of way, you'll learn to never trust such "generous" offers. I suspect many people are just trying to be nice, but it's wasting everyone's time when they do that, and some of them are actually being malicious. No, it's better to wait until the person with the right of way wakes up and decides to proceed, even if that means you're both stopped waiting for the other guy.
In Oregon, we call that 'defensive driving'.
I think I'd rather everyone just stick with their core competency and have the driver (who is already presumably rolling down the road with me in the car) reroute to someone who does life-saving measures for a living and has the proper equipment.
From your link: "One simple reason for such gloomy results may be the logistic impossibility of responding to a broadly disseminated, quasirandom event that causes death within minutes." I'd rather the cabbie have training to recognize cardiac arrest and be able to do more than just honk the horn at other cars blocking his access to a hospital or fire station.
And from your link: "At best, CPR represents a placeholder." Yes, that's true. I think most trained people understand that. That's why we're trained to summon (or have someone summon) professional medical help prior to starting CPR. And why we, to the best of our ability, do not let a patient who has revived after CPR just get up and walk away. But even as a placeholder, and with the potential damage that improper CPR can cause, it can keep someone alive until that help arrives.
And then why not require everyone to have an AED on hand too, just in case?
You will note that I made no comment about requiring anything. I replied only to the flippant comment about not wanting cabbies to do CPR. I thought I was clear on that.
But you make an excellent point. The prices of AEDs have fallen drastically, so instead of CPR certifications it should be an AED certification. There is no question that AED use saves lives. But if you don't have an AED handy (or it is not usable or doesn't work) then CPR is a placeholder. It has a small percentage of success, but success is life compared to someone dying. So CPR should not be ignored.
As to your "retail store", I see no issue with them having CPR/AED certified people on staff in case of emergency. I think any company that will 1) accept that liability and 2) accept that cost should be applauded.
I think I'd rather everyone just stick with their core competency
If you are conscious, you are free to refuse treatment from anyone whose "core competency" is not emergency medical services. That includes the fireman or policeman who is trying to save your life. It includes the network manager who only volunteers as a member of one of the best mountain rescue units in the country, but may wind up sitting next to you on the airplane and doing CPR on you for an hour while the airplane makes its way to an airport to turn you over to people whose "core competency" makes you more comfortable (but perhaps dead.)
If you are not conscious, then do you really care if the cabbie's "core competency" is using that AED or doing CPR, as long as he's trained to do either or both? It doesn't really take a "core competency" in emergency medical services to do CPR or use an AED, but to each their own. Perhaps you should tattoo "DNR unless you are board certified in emergency medicine" on your chest just to be safe.
I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of cabbies I've had who I would want to perform CPR on me.
I can count on the fingers of no hands the number of cabbies I would want to need to perform CPR on me. If I've had a heart attack in someone's cab the number of cabbies I would want to perform CPR goes way up.
That's free market ride sharing.
It's actually not ride sharing, it's transportation services. Only if the driver was going where you were going (or the vicinity of) can you call it sharing. If the driver is going someplace only because you're paying him to do so, it's a service. It isn't a "ride" for him. For him it's a paycheck.
But yes, a totally free-market transportation service would be between you and the operator (who may be the driver, or the driver's employer) and nobody else. It doesn't stop being a free market just because an employer is involved, so the fact that Uber regulates their own rates doesn't change anything. The driver in your first scenario is regulating his rates, too.
Yeah, they are totally not a taxi company but just two people sharing a ride because they're going the same way. Even when the cars have no drivers.
Oh, you missed the funniest part of this article. These "driverless" vehicles will actually have TWO drivers -- one to take over when (not if) the car gets into trouble, and one to take notes. When a Pittsburgh Uber car shows up to give you a ride, the slogan will be "move to the back of the car", the front seats are for Uber employees.
So:
Yeah, they are totally not a taxi company but just three people sharing a ride
FTFY.
Children includes teenagers
Standard logical fallacy: "all A is B does not mean "all B is A". You changed the context from "underage children", which does include teenagers, but also includes four and five year olds. You changed the context so you could accuse someone of being a pervert because he gives his teenage children baths. That's pathetic.
And snooping on your kids IS creepy.
It's part of being a parent.
You:
Nowhere did you say that the kid downloading the pics can be charged with possession of kiddie porn,
Sh*t, another lie. Here's what I wrote:
I fucking quoted you directly from YOUR OWN POSTING. Not only do you not read what you reply to, you don't read what you, yourself, write. That's it. You've lied about what I said, you've lied about what you said. You have nothing of value to say.
"This is how it was presented, Mr. Judge."
You agreed to a contract without reading it, and without taking any effort to read it. You can control the font sizes, it's your responsibility. Ignorance is no excuse.
"Seems reasonable that they presented it that way so that you would be disinclined to read it. Not valid!"
Every contract is presented in a way that people are disinclined to read them. How they present it is up to you in the long run.
Nowhere did you say that the kid downloading the pics can be charged with possession of kiddie porn,
Because in the context of that statement there was no reference to anyone downloading anything. You limited your statement to an uploader, so I did too. It should have been obvious that when I say the UPloader can be charged, I already assume the DOWNloader can be. You tried making it look like I had said that they cannot, which makes the implication of your statement a lie. Had you read my clear statement about the UPloader being chargeable, you would not have told me to watch TV to learn that the uploader could be charged.
putting a lie to your claim in your reply that you said:
Perhaps YOU need to take your own advice and read your own posts? Or invest in a time machine so you can fix things retroactively.
And if you download that same pic, especially if you believed that was what was going on, you can be charged. You had intent. You had the pics. You are not a cop doing it as part of your job. That's all that's needed.
I didn't say what you quote me as saying. You are lying. In any case, there was no reference to anyone downloading the image, so "if you download that same pic" is a retroactive addition to the context -- perhaps your attempt at a time machine?
You really don't have a grasp on the discussion here, do you?
If the judge has to put on his or her reading glasses to read it, it's too small to hold up in court.
On a web-page EULA, the font is as small or as large as you want it to be. If you make it too small to read, it is YOUR fault and the implicit agreement still holds. Ignorance of how to configure your web browser to view text is not an excuse.
Also, if you're giving your teenage kids
You started this by referring to "underage kids". The OP replied in context, and now you turn it creepy by changing to "teenage". Of course, you can resort to ad hominem after you change the context that way, so it's a win for you.
So, I'm an adult, I borrow your phone to make a phone call or for another purpose - guess what - you do NOT have the legal right to monitor my communications.
Assuming your conditional hypothesis is correct, guess what? I get the detailed phone records so I know the number you called and for how long. I don't need a subpoena or a court order. My phone, my rules. If you don't like it, don't bother asking. It won't matter, because I wouldn't trust you not to abuse my hospitality by doing something illegal, so I'd never loan you my phone to start with.