In medium pace busy city traffic, it is common for cars to creep past cyclists in exactly that scenario. Which is fine, until you decide to turn. Without signalling. As a cyclist, I can assure you people do this quite a lot. Now granted, they're so dumb that it doesn't matter what they do with their mirrors, but it doesn't change the fact that if you did that and killed someone, you would be at fault.
That's a slightly different issue - the problem being that most mergers are carried out for the glory of the managers involved rather than the fundamentals.
And your house, work, and supermarket are also on the freeway? Oh, and motorcycles don;t go on freeways, right? What the hell, I don't even know why I'm debating this. You're an idiot.
Umm, no. What causes the traffic jam is the 30% reduction in capacity. At low enough flows, you might be able to avoid it by temporarily lowering speed limits before the merge, but that's rarely practical for any realistic flow.
I suggest you phone up your insurer and tell them you're doing that, because when you kill a cyclist, they'll appreciate knowing that they're going to be able to decline your claim. You really think you're such a fucking genius you thought of something no other motorist did, ever? Thank goodness you're on another continent and I don't have to worry about you.
The only way that would happen is if only the riskiest drivers insist on manual drive. Otherwise, the current risk cost of manual drive will stay roughly the same - in fact, it'll go down because other road users are safer - and insurers don't have a problem taking on risk that they can charge a correct premium for. You will without a doubt see much lower premiums for automatic cars, but that isn't a problem from the insurer's point of view - they're just charging for the extra risk in the same way as if you had speeding tickets or prior claims history.
Sorry, no. Reinsurance is murderously competitive - there are vast sums involved so it's not exactly hard to find people that want a piece of it. And yes, they want to charge as much as they can, but they sure as hell want to understand exactly what the risk is they're taking on.
And your practical method for implementing law based on this is? It's a simple message: don't drink then drive. The limit is to let people have a glass of wine the night before they drive to work, not to let people chuck as many down their neck as they can get away with.
Congratulations, you've learnt to spell "hypothesis". Now for fuck's sake, please get it through your thick head that not all science can be carried out through the classical scientific method. And please don't bother replying - I don't debate with Napoleon.
Not exactly. Their choice can (depending on design) influence the strength of the crypto produced. The difficulty comes in verifying what a particular set of numbers does. For that reason, no, they couldn't efffectively be part of the key.
No, the linked article debunks your legitimate concern, up until the point you produced a peer-reviewed paper debunking the debunking. It's called a myth because it is wrong. We use words like that to describe things that are, well nonsense.
You have a point, but after the last few days worth of NSA revelations I don't think anyone that isn't seriously paranoid is thinking carefully enough. I know bugger all about the implementation of Linux's random, but my question is simply this: what are the consequences if an attacker were able to manipulate rdrand at will? If the answer is not nothing, well, something needs tackled.
Slashdot Mirror
In medium pace busy city traffic, it is common for cars to creep past cyclists in exactly that scenario. Which is fine, until you decide to turn. Without signalling. As a cyclist, I can assure you people do this quite a lot. Now granted, they're so dumb that it doesn't matter what they do with their mirrors, but it doesn't change the fact that if you did that and killed someone, you would be at fault.
Hah. I had a similar experience, except I didn't figure it out.
That's a slightly different issue - the problem being that most mergers are carried out for the glory of the managers involved rather than the fundamentals.
And your house, work, and supermarket are also on the freeway? Oh, and motorcycles don;t go on freeways, right? What the hell, I don't even know why I'm debating this. You're an idiot.
Modelling the future of the planet most definitely is science. And technically, it's even falsifiable. I just don't fancy waiting to find out.
And assholes like you are the reason. FUCK OFF AND DIE.
Umm, no. What causes the traffic jam is the 30% reduction in capacity. At low enough flows, you might be able to avoid it by temporarily lowering speed limits before the merge, but that's rarely practical for any realistic flow.
I suggest you phone up your insurer and tell them you're doing that, because when you kill a cyclist, they'll appreciate knowing that they're going to be able to decline your claim. You really think you're such a fucking genius you thought of something no other motorist did, ever? Thank goodness you're on another continent and I don't have to worry about you.
The only way that would happen is if only the riskiest drivers insist on manual drive. Otherwise, the current risk cost of manual drive will stay roughly the same - in fact, it'll go down because other road users are safer - and insurers don't have a problem taking on risk that they can charge a correct premium for. You will without a doubt see much lower premiums for automatic cars, but that isn't a problem from the insurer's point of view - they're just charging for the extra risk in the same way as if you had speeding tickets or prior claims history.
Sorry, no. Reinsurance is murderously competitive - there are vast sums involved so it's not exactly hard to find people that want a piece of it. And yes, they want to charge as much as they can, but they sure as hell want to understand exactly what the risk is they're taking on.
Look closer. It does. And sorry, I don't debate anyone who claims to be Napoleon.
And your practical method for implementing law based on this is? It's a simple message: don't drink then drive. The limit is to let people have a glass of wine the night before they drive to work, not to let people chuck as many down their neck as they can get away with.
Congratulations, you've learnt to spell "hypothesis". Now for fuck's sake, please get it through your thick head that not all science can be carried out through the classical scientific method. And please don't bother replying - I don't debate with Napoleon.
It's not about driving, it's about reacting. I can drive when I can't even focus both eyes, but I sure as hell can't react to anything on the road.
Congratulations, you've won climate myths #5, #9, and #16 (for starters).
Tiresome analogy is tiresome. And you're rather misrepresenting my question, which is: what if rdrand is actively malicious?
Not exactly. Their choice can (depending on design) influence the strength of the crypto produced. The difficulty comes in verifying what a particular set of numbers does. For that reason, no, they couldn't efffectively be part of the key.
So instead of discussing their approach in detail, you start having a go at someone who accuses you of being unscientific? Debate over.
In terms of the volume of something like an iPhone, it just doesn't. It's purely for the benefit of the consumer.
No, the linked article debunks your legitimate concern, up until the point you produced a peer-reviewed paper debunking the debunking. It's called a myth because it is wrong. We use words like that to describe things that are, well nonsense.
You had me up to the point where you seriously suggest the government could successfully run a billion+ dollar profitable business.
You have a point, but after the last few days worth of NSA revelations I don't think anyone that isn't seriously paranoid is thinking carefully enough. I know bugger all about the implementation of Linux's random, but my question is simply this: what are the consequences if an attacker were able to manipulate rdrand at will? If the answer is not nothing, well, something needs tackled.
Oh yes, climate myth #7. And sorry, but I'm not going to debate autocorrelation of time series with you.
Also, a 1 in 100 event occurring six years apart is still exceptional, but never mind.
RTFL is an option...