Does the Tesla have these transmitters and receivers? Clearly, there is technology that could be used but if it is not in a Tesla at the moment, the computer can't use it. I think LIDAR is the way to go, especially if solid state LIDARs become reality.
I can't answer to the specifics, but multiple accidents (including this one w/ death) indicate that the directed RF isn't narrow enough AND being directed at the correct heights to cover all situations. More coverage needed with more xmits/detects. A bitmap, if you will.
I agree with you on LIDAR, but there's a catch. Lower frequency directed RF is easier to measure doppler with. LIDAR would require very high precision electronics. Well, actually, the cars are so expensive already; how's another $10K/safety going to make a difference?;)
Deja Vu. This is sort of like the older days of products like lead paint having to cause many injuries/deaths before action is taken to prevent it. Aw, hell, there is no good way. The alternate is have every kind of warning you can possibly imagine (even the insane "Do not drive this vehicle over a cliff or mountain; do not drive in the direction of bands of 2+ packs of wolves at twilight; do not drive this vehicle while peeing coffee into a cup, bottle, glass, hose, cooler, or any other type of retaining or collection device or object while in AutoDriveIt(r)(c)(sm)(tm) mode; do not pass "Go" unless "Go" is an alternate form of communicating the definition of a traffic device's indication of safe procession.........You will never collect $200 from us because you've already accepted the Arbitration Agreement if you've made it this far into the warning readings.")
That does explain the nasty looks I get because I stick to the posted speed limit.
I get way more than nasty looks. I've been in so many 'accidents' that were not my fault (even the police reports and insurance companies say so) that I started lowering my speed to speed limit, and have installed recording cameras in my car that cover all angles. If you (read anyone reading this) haven't heard of a company called Lexis Nexis that pools data of your driving history that insurance companies use against you, read up on it. Insurance companies don't care "how many accidents have you been in that were your fault" - they care "how many accidents have you been in - period". Apparently driving the speed limit and having assholes plow into you because you were turning in to work, there was fine gravel on the side of the road that even a large pickup truck can't maintain traction on, they wanted you to go faster and were pointing their headlights into your mirror on the RIGHT SIDE, in said gravel, and plowing into you, driving you sideways into a utility pole, is "high risk" to insurance carriers. Not like that ever happened to me or anything *whistles*.. You're supposed to (I'm guessing here) drive over the speed limit, jam on the accelerator and brakes without taking physics into consideration....EVER (even if there's a freshly wet road after a month of dryness and exhaust/dirt accumulation.... and buy a car that will drive over the speed limit for you while you play on your tablet/phone to be considered a "low-risk" driver. Note snark, please.
Side note: Kierthos, you should see all of the idiots that come up on me 20+MPH faster than the speed I'm driving in the right lane and ride my ass, swerving side to side in the "get outta my testosterone/epinephrine-juiced way" maneuver... When there's a left lane wide open.... When they see the camera there's a 90/10 behavioral model: 90%-Stay on ass to show control and superiority, even if you've almost hit me several times and it's recorded before casually backing off at about an inch per minute, and 10%-back WAY OFF and stay in the right lane like I'm recording to show you to your employer and all of your friends on the Internet or some jazz...? Guilt, much? LOL
How would the car have been able to do this? The radar used does not have any vertical resolution, you only get a certain proportion of the radar that is returned, similar to what you get from a overhead sign. The camera would have been able to see the size of the gap but it did not detect the truck either as it was the same colour as the sky.
Directed low-power transmitters and non-POS directional receivers. Not the same antenna, not the same parabolic/whatever design they choose for a reflector dish/etc... Separate. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
I have also heard of the car running into 1/2 open garage doors.
OMG, no. Please don't tell me that the NTSB is going to require that all companies with trailers / high COG vehicles are going to be required to install reflective plates to near ground all around said vehicles as a result of this -vs- Tesla and all others finding their own solution. I see it coming now.
"Waiting for a tesla to drive through a large pane of glass...."
As opposed to human drivers, who are known to masterfully avoid all those frequent large panes of glass that suddenly appear on your way while you are driving on the highway.
Hey, it happens in the cartoons and slap comedy shows/movies. It must happen all of the time in real life, right? Right? Psh.
This is a forseeable consequence of a bad design and Tesla have enjoyed the bad press that goes with it. And yes "autopilot" is a misleading term that only compounds the risk.
A previous article on/. indicated that the driver was reading/goofing/whatever on a phone/tablet and not paying attention. Eyes off road completely. Tesla doesn't deserve bad press for something if that is indeed the case.
I guess that means autopilot will require monitoring of the driver by video and audio, as well as a jet-style black box for data recovery in future autopilot cars.
Plus, we all know that this is only the beginning. When an auto-drive (autopilot) system is perfected years from now, there will be experiments / hacks on a daily basis to attempt to override/fail it. History repeats itself. History repeats itself. Histo...
I'm unsure why you are posting this question; what KermodeBear posted was a disagreement that FB is a dictatorship, and cited points of real dictatorship to back up their disagreement with the notion that FB is a dictatorship.
Are you really this unclear on the situation? How does Facebook stop you from saying what you want to say? If you go on Google+ to say it, or your own blog, or print it up in newsletters, or launch a web site... how is it that Facebook is stopping you from doing those things? Be specific.
And in what way is Facebook "taking your property without your consent?" Be specific. This should be entertaining.
Likewise, on "prohibits you from leaving." Again, be specific about how FB's provisions for you to delete your content and your profile/account are somehow hidden from you (and only you).
And do tell about how Facebook has threatened your livelihood or your life. Or do you mean that you've had repercussions from having posted stupid crap in a public place, and it's impacted your ability to get a job? Yeah, I see.
Are you really this unclear on the situation? How does Facebook stop you from saying what you want to say? If you go on Google+ to say it, or your own blog, or print it up in newsletters, or launch a web site... how is it that Facebook is stopping you from doing those things? Be specific.
And in what way is Facebook "taking your property without your consent?" Be specific. This should be entertaining.
Likewise, on "prohibits you from leaving." Again, be specific about how FB's provisions for you to delete your content and your profile/account are somehow hidden from you (and only you).
And do tell about how Facebook has threatened your livelihood or your life. Or do you mean that you've had repercussions from having posted stupid crap in a public place, and it's impacted your ability to get a job? Yeah, I see.
There isn't any point is even pursuing cash. Whenever you make a change to counteract criminal operations or behaviors, they just come up with another one within "moments". If there were a way to make criminal activity too difficult to engage in, and work around the law, the world would have pretty much be freed of criminal activity long before now.
The general rule with weighted averages is:
1. Piss people off and reduce negative [insert effect or item here] 2. Make people happy and have very strong negatives that result from it 3. Make some people happy and some people pissed, and have more deterrents as well as increased superior work-arounds for the bad. 4. BS people into thinking all is well when actually doing something secretive to limit the "bad people" that will eventually be discovered by all.
Next phase after above outcomes: 1a. Reduced negatives induce increased negatives (Human nature - boredom with experimentation or "posturing"). GOTO 1. 2a. Strong negatives make people unhappy and wanting strong positives put in place to balance it out, resulting in too much positive as an end result. GOTO 2 and drift to 3 after many failed attempts. 3a. The superior work-arounds are more widely used and the "good people" try to strongly oppose it, which results in more "noise" from the middle (people only slightly perturbed by it due to feeling of loss of control) and higher imposition on the "good people" as a side-effect of limiting negatives. GOTO 3. Drift to 4 after many failed attempts. 4b. "Good people" will be pissed that they weren't the ones to make the decision and feel inferior, "bad people" will hear about the other "bad people" being caught and find a work-around. GOTO 3a AND OR 4a UNTIL (I know it's not proper BASIC, but extrapolate, smart ones).
3, 4 and 3a, 4a are more of a downward spiral, as we are living today. People think there's a solution and they already figured it our and refuse to "admit defeat" and come up with something completely and totally different; more posturing, Human nature, and inability to admit one is wrong (for any reason; see psychological embarrassment and inferiority complex).
What's necessary is more admission of lack of knowledge, and learning from mistakes. Dynamic adjustment of solutions, with success and further learning or admission of mistakes in the fix with more resultant fixes, is a must. Be more public about it (knowledge and practices) because the more those with superiority complexes know about it, the more they will openly show their attempts to defeat it, which leads to more available learning from others failures. The "stupid, ignorant, or those living in a state of disconnection from reality or that just plain don't make any sense" will do whatever they want with the information. Don't ignore them, but find common patterns that are "lemming-like" in following and decrease said patterns' solutions in weight. Increase the weight of the ones that seem to make no sense. If it doesn't make sense, it's new. Give it weight. Learn from failure or success and adjust weights accordingly.
I'm not "superior", but it's funny; this post will get modded down by those with superiority complexes because it makes them think for a second that they don't know everything. I don't know everything. Everything is a work in progress except for Universal constants, and hell, we can't even say they are constant if you think long-term.
I'm assuming my do not track preferences would not apply to the Feds though.
A better question is where would they apply? I'm sure there will be some rich-ass political BS merged in at the last moment that grants allowances and exclusions.
Ohhh, that's adorable. Politicians think their opinion^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlaws matters^H to corporations.
I tidied that up a hair. Add in "Now they have a new restriction to overcome without breaking a sweat, and actually, encouragement to be a little less detectable," and I think you're awesome-golden.:)
Yet another "law" that is completely unenforceable and unworkable being paraded in front of us for one reason only, the get gullible people who don't understand the tech in play to vote for someone.
The only rule is you have to make sure there are a set of at least two major business investigations and/or seizures that have taken place after your law goes into effect. That's a lot of work and lost gov't revenue, but hey.. after a few, it can just fall by the proverbial wayside and it was still a success. The world is a better place now, and [I] am an awesome politician for MAKING that happen. Go Team America!
PHB:...so I, a small online marketing firm, am not allowed to TELL anyone that I'm harvesting this data anymore? I have to say that I'm following the law and not? Ah, shucks. Well, that's fine. I'll just sell a "unique" data set product with "cutting-edge" sources. No big deal. Hey, Jen, tell the guys to start working on that.
Jen: Already did. They said it'll be done in a few hours.
I am sometimes embarrassed to be in the same species as these idiots. Ok, Hillary and Carly Gnarly, how about we remove all medicine from the stores to help ensure those ter'rists don't have anything to help fight their diseases, thus eradicating them? Wanna try that? I mean, how could it NOT work?
I have a one-track mind, but I keep it that way because if I don't, I start to see all of the interoperations, weak points, lack of planning, failures, laziness, and all else that factors in (no pun int.) to the problem solving of huge issue that are beyond my control. Well, without a complete 'reboot' (read: eradication of all failures with a 'clean' boot where different preventative measures can be attempted). I, as a result, should NOT be a politician or in office. I would slow everything down and keep everyone from agreeing that there is no good, happy, and profitable solution to every problem. Oops, that last sentence earned me mod-down because it's effing true and people hate to face reality.
If you look past the political and law enforcement bantering, you will find that none of the defined terrorist attacked would have been stopped by the government being able to crack encryption. Most of them, I stipulate most may have been stopped by general police work and knowing the community, rather then spying on it. Stopping the lone idiosyncratic style may never be stopped, we have had them in the dark past of our history and will have them long into the future. Outlawing encryption or finding ways to break into it hurts all of us more then it helps protect us. The leaders need to understand what they are asking, not seeing to control what they do not understand. The "I get the good encryption to protect me (the government) and you get the bad (everyone else)" no longer will work in this age of free and very good tools.
(.)-(.)
I'll add to this... If encryption is no longer a way of maintaining secure communications, other methods will be designed (or even reused from the past). Smoke signals are a bit obvious, but, come on. There are ways of sharing information securely that no one but those involved can figure out, and you have to discover their involvement before you can even see what you're trying to figure out. Until minds can be read from a distance (or, hell, even read at all), there is no mother-effing point in thinking that destroying encryption will present you with any more useful data. In fact, it guarantees LESS useful data. Oh, and guess what your mentioning of INTENT to destroy encryption just did? Are you TRYING to encourage less use of typical encryption in ter'rist communications? Because you did. Not to say that they're even using it in the first place.
Don't get me started down the road of the emails and other first, second, and third party information that has been HANDED to the government and practically gift-wrapped (pardon my extreme amplification of method) that was ignored, resulting in successful ter'rist activity.
Those who suggest workarounds have no understanding of the implications or the technical challenges. They just desire something and expect everyone else to figure it out for them.
I see what you're doing there. Mentioning all presidents' campaign speeches and the resulting lack-of or reverse action. Nice move.:)
Okay, okay, there were maybe two, perhaps three ex-presidents that did good with the least loss from others, but they don't count in the overall statistics. No one who is like them will ever, EVER make it into office again because they're too easy to find dirt on. They live their lives like normal people under normal circumstances. We can't have that in office!
Let's get this out of the way, pre-emptively: Carly is a worthless pile of human garbage, a perpetual leech on humanity's ass, and a shining example of everything that can go wrong in a Capitalist society. Did I forget anything?
What do they call people that operate on the path of, "Hey, [he] did it. That means I can do it, too!" That word.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the Tesla have these transmitters and receivers? Clearly, there is technology that could be used but if it is not in a Tesla at the moment, the computer can't use it. I think LIDAR is the way to go, especially if solid state LIDARs become reality.
I can't answer to the specifics, but multiple accidents (including this one w/ death) indicate that the directed RF isn't narrow enough AND being directed at the correct heights to cover all situations. More coverage needed with more xmits/detects. A bitmap, if you will.
I agree with you on LIDAR, but there's a catch. Lower frequency directed RF is easier to measure doppler with. LIDAR would require very high precision electronics. Well, actually, the cars are so expensive already; how's another $10K/safety going to make a difference? ;)
Deja Vu. This is sort of like the older days of products like lead paint having to cause many injuries/deaths before action is taken to prevent it. Aw, hell, there is no good way. The alternate is have every kind of warning you can possibly imagine (even the insane "Do not drive this vehicle over a cliff or mountain; do not drive in the direction of bands of 2+ packs of wolves at twilight; do not drive this vehicle while peeing coffee into a cup, bottle, glass, hose, cooler, or any other type of retaining or collection device or object while in AutoDriveIt(r)(c)(sm)(tm) mode; do not pass "Go" unless "Go" is an alternate form of communicating the definition of a traffic device's indication of safe procession.........You will never collect $200 from us because you've already accepted the Arbitration Agreement if you've made it this far into the warning readings.")
That does explain the nasty looks I get because I stick to the posted speed limit.
I get way more than nasty looks. I've been in so many 'accidents' that were not my fault (even the police reports and insurance companies say so) that I started lowering my speed to speed limit, and have installed recording cameras in my car that cover all angles. If you (read anyone reading this) haven't heard of a company called Lexis Nexis that pools data of your driving history that insurance companies use against you, read up on it. Insurance companies don't care "how many accidents have you been in that were your fault" - they care "how many accidents have you been in - period". Apparently driving the speed limit and having assholes plow into you because you were turning in to work, there was fine gravel on the side of the road that even a large pickup truck can't maintain traction on, they wanted you to go faster and were pointing their headlights into your mirror on the RIGHT SIDE, in said gravel, and plowing into you, driving you sideways into a utility pole, is "high risk" to insurance carriers. Not like that ever happened to me or anything *whistles*.. You're supposed to (I'm guessing here) drive over the speed limit, jam on the accelerator and brakes without taking physics into consideration....EVER (even if there's a freshly wet road after a month of dryness and exhaust/dirt accumulation.... and buy a car that will drive over the speed limit for you while you play on your tablet/phone to be considered a "low-risk" driver. Note snark, please.
Side note: Kierthos, you should see all of the idiots that come up on me 20+MPH faster than the speed I'm driving in the right lane and ride my ass, swerving side to side in the "get outta my testosterone/epinephrine-juiced way" maneuver... When there's a left lane wide open....
When they see the camera there's a 90/10 behavioral model: 90%-Stay on ass to show control and superiority, even if you've almost hit me several times and it's recorded before casually backing off at about an inch per minute, and 10%-back WAY OFF and stay in the right lane like I'm recording to show you to your employer and all of your friends on the Internet or some jazz...? Guilt, much? LOL
How would the car have been able to do this? The radar used does not have any vertical resolution, you only get a certain proportion of the radar that is returned, similar to what you get from a overhead sign. The camera would have been able to see the size of the gap but it did not detect the truck either as it was the same colour as the sky.
Directed low-power transmitters and non-POS directional receivers. Not the same antenna, not the same parabolic/whatever design they choose for a reflector dish/etc... Separate. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
- Ham radio guy
I think obstacles that are empty below 3 ft confuse the car.
http://bgr.com/2016/05/11/tesla-model-s-summon-crash/
I have also heard of the car running into 1/2 open garage doors.
OMG, no. Please don't tell me that the NTSB is going to require that all companies with trailers / high COG vehicles are going to be required to install reflective plates to near ground all around said vehicles as a result of this -vs- Tesla and all others finding their own solution. I see it coming now.
"Waiting for a tesla to drive through a large pane of glass...."
As opposed to human drivers, who are known to masterfully avoid all those frequent large panes of glass that suddenly appear on your way while you are driving on the highway.
Hey, it happens in the cartoons and slap comedy shows/movies. It must happen all of the time in real life, right? Right? Psh.
So... it was going 74 mph at the time of the crash... was this after any kind of braking? What was the speed before any braking was applied?
(I'm going to take a guess it was a LOT over 74mph)
I see it now. Basic feature of future auto-anything cars will be a plane-type black box w/ audio and video recording.
This is a forseeable consequence of a bad design and Tesla have enjoyed the bad press that goes with it. And yes "autopilot" is a misleading term that only compounds the risk.
A previous article on /. indicated that the driver was reading/goofing/whatever on a phone/tablet and not paying attention. Eyes off road completely. Tesla doesn't deserve bad press for something if that is indeed the case.
I guess that means autopilot will require monitoring of the driver by video and audio, as well as a jet-style black box for data recovery in future autopilot cars.
Plus, we all know that this is only the beginning. When an auto-drive (autopilot) system is perfected years from now, there will be experiments / hacks on a daily basis to attempt to override/fail it. History repeats itself. History repeats itself. Histo...
I'm unsure why you are posting this question; what KermodeBear posted was a disagreement that FB is a dictatorship, and cited points of real dictatorship to back up their disagreement with the notion that FB is a dictatorship.
Are you really this unclear on the situation? How does Facebook stop you from saying what you want to say? If you go on Google+ to say it, or your own blog, or print it up in newsletters, or launch a web site ... how is it that Facebook is stopping you from doing those things? Be specific.
And in what way is Facebook "taking your property without your consent?" Be specific. This should be entertaining.
Likewise, on "prohibits you from leaving." Again, be specific about how FB's provisions for you to delete your content and your profile/account are somehow hidden from you (and only you).
And do tell about how Facebook has threatened your livelihood or your life. Or do you mean that you've had repercussions from having posted stupid crap in a public place, and it's impacted your ability to get a job? Yeah, I see.
Are you really this unclear on the situation? How does Facebook stop you from saying what you want to say? If you go on Google+ to say it, or your own blog, or print it up in newsletters, or launch a web site ... how is it that Facebook is stopping you from doing those things? Be specific.
And in what way is Facebook "taking your property without your consent?" Be specific. This should be entertaining.
Likewise, on "prohibits you from leaving." Again, be specific about how FB's provisions for you to delete your content and your profile/account are somehow hidden from you (and only you).
And do tell about how Facebook has threatened your livelihood or your life. Or do you mean that you've had repercussions from having posted stupid crap in a public place, and it's impacted your ability to get a job? Yeah, I see.
There isn't any point is even pursuing cash. Whenever you make a change to counteract criminal operations or behaviors, they just come up with another one within "moments". If there were a way to make criminal activity too difficult to engage in, and work around the law, the world would have pretty much be freed of criminal activity long before now.
The general rule with weighted averages is:
1. Piss people off and reduce negative [insert effect or item here]
2. Make people happy and have very strong negatives that result from it
3. Make some people happy and some people pissed, and have more deterrents as well as increased superior work-arounds for the bad.
4. BS people into thinking all is well when actually doing something secretive to limit the "bad people" that will eventually be discovered by all.
Next phase after above outcomes:
1a. Reduced negatives induce increased negatives (Human nature - boredom with experimentation or "posturing"). GOTO 1.
2a. Strong negatives make people unhappy and wanting strong positives put in place to balance it out, resulting in too much positive as an end result. GOTO 2 and drift to 3 after many failed attempts.
3a. The superior work-arounds are more widely used and the "good people" try to strongly oppose it, which results in more "noise" from the middle (people only slightly perturbed by it due to feeling of loss of control) and higher imposition on the "good people" as a side-effect of limiting negatives. GOTO 3. Drift to 4 after many failed attempts.
4b. "Good people" will be pissed that they weren't the ones to make the decision and feel inferior, "bad people" will hear about the other "bad people" being caught and find a work-around. GOTO 3a AND OR 4a UNTIL (I know it's not proper BASIC, but extrapolate, smart ones).
3, 4 and 3a, 4a are more of a downward spiral, as we are living today. People think there's a solution and they already figured it our and refuse to "admit defeat" and come up with something completely and totally different; more posturing, Human nature, and inability to admit one is wrong (for any reason; see psychological embarrassment and inferiority complex).
What's necessary is more admission of lack of knowledge, and learning from mistakes. Dynamic adjustment of solutions, with success and further learning or admission of mistakes in the fix with more resultant fixes, is a must. Be more public about it (knowledge and practices) because the more those with superiority complexes know about it, the more they will openly show their attempts to defeat it, which leads to more available learning from others failures. The "stupid, ignorant, or those living in a state of disconnection from reality or that just plain don't make any sense" will do whatever they want with the information. Don't ignore them, but find common patterns that are "lemming-like" in following and decrease said patterns' solutions in weight. Increase the weight of the ones that seem to make no sense. If it doesn't make sense, it's new. Give it weight. Learn from failure or success and adjust weights accordingly.
I'm not "superior", but it's funny; this post will get modded down by those with superiority complexes because it makes them think for a second that they don't know everything. I don't know everything. Everything is a work in progress except for Universal constants, and hell, we can't even say they are constant if you think long-term.
END (sorry, had to)
s/crowd-sourcing/crowd-funding/
Whoopsie!
A group of companies should form a NATO-like pact, binding the companies to employ scorched-earth tactics whenever sued by a patent troll.
Carthage must be destroyed!
Now that's a crowd-source idea. I'll throw in $100 a month! Well, as long as I can see the paper trails, literally and figuratively.
- K
"While we don't believe this information has been used inappropriately," said Michael Neidorff, CEO of Centene.
That is the absolute lamest "don't worry" defense I've heard in a decade, hands-down.
So, what, you know an employee took it and wants hush money? No? Then how can you even claim data safety? OMFG.
I'm assuming my do not track preferences would not apply to the Feds though.
A better question is where would they apply? I'm sure there will be some rich-ass political BS merged in at the last moment that grants allowances and exclusions.
Ohhh, that's adorable. Politicians think their opinion^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlaws matters^H to corporations.
I tidied that up a hair. Add in "Now they have a new restriction to overcome without breaking a sweat, and actually, encouragement to be a little less detectable," and I think you're awesome-golden. :)
Yet another "law" that is completely unenforceable and unworkable being paraded in front of us for one reason only, the get gullible people who don't understand the tech in play to vote for someone.
The only rule is you have to make sure there are a set of at least two major business investigations and/or seizures that have taken place after your law goes into effect. That's a lot of work and lost gov't revenue, but hey.. after a few, it can just fall by the proverbial wayside and it was still a success. The world is a better place now, and [I] am an awesome politician for MAKING that happen. Go Team America!
*gag*
PHB: ...so I, a small online marketing firm, am not allowed to TELL anyone that I'm harvesting this data anymore? I have to say that I'm following the law and not? Ah, shucks. Well, that's fine. I'll just sell a "unique" data set product with "cutting-edge" sources. No big deal. Hey, Jen, tell the guys to start working on that.
Jen: Already did. They said it'll be done in a few hours.
PHB: Better idea than I originally thought!
*faceplant*
Apparently Hillary thinks the same yet no Slashdot story on it.
Hillary Clinton: Stop helping terrorists, Silicon Valley
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
I am sometimes embarrassed to be in the same species as these idiots. Ok, Hillary and Carly Gnarly, how about we remove all medicine from the stores to help ensure those ter'rists don't have anything to help fight their diseases, thus eradicating them? Wanna try that? I mean, how could it NOT work?
I have a one-track mind, but I keep it that way because if I don't, I start to see all of the interoperations, weak points, lack of planning, failures, laziness, and all else that factors in (no pun int.) to the problem solving of huge issue that are beyond my control. Well, without a complete 'reboot' (read: eradication of all failures with a 'clean' boot where different preventative measures can be attempted). I, as a result, should NOT be a politician or in office. I would slow everything down and keep everyone from agreeing that there is no good, happy, and profitable solution to every problem. Oops, that last sentence earned me mod-down because it's effing true and people hate to face reality.
If you look past the political and law enforcement bantering, you will find that none of the defined terrorist attacked would have been stopped by the government being able to crack encryption. Most of them, I stipulate most may have been stopped by general police work and knowing the community, rather then spying on it. Stopping the lone idiosyncratic style may never be stopped, we have had them in the dark past of our history and will have them long into the future.
Outlawing encryption or finding ways to break into it hurts all of us more then it helps protect us. The leaders need to understand what they are asking, not seeing to control what they do not understand. The "I get the good encryption to protect me (the government) and you get the bad (everyone else)" no longer will work in this age of free and very good tools.
(.)-(.)
I'll add to this... If encryption is no longer a way of maintaining secure communications, other methods will be designed (or even reused from the past). Smoke signals are a bit obvious, but, come on. There are ways of sharing information securely that no one but those involved can figure out, and you have to discover their involvement before you can even see what you're trying to figure out. Until minds can be read from a distance (or, hell, even read at all), there is no mother-effing point in thinking that destroying encryption will present you with any more useful data. In fact, it guarantees LESS useful data. Oh, and guess what your mentioning of INTENT to destroy encryption just did? Are you TRYING to encourage less use of typical encryption in ter'rist communications? Because you did. Not to say that they're even using it in the first place.
Don't get me started down the road of the emails and other first, second, and third party information that has been HANDED to the government and practically gift-wrapped (pardon my extreme amplification of method) that was ignored, resulting in successful ter'rist activity.
Those who suggest workarounds have no understanding of the implications or the technical challenges. They just desire something and expect everyone else to figure it out for them.
I see what you're doing there. Mentioning all presidents' campaign speeches and the resulting lack-of or reverse action. Nice move. :)
Okay, okay, there were maybe two, perhaps three ex-presidents that did good with the least loss from others, but they don't count in the overall statistics. No one who is like them will ever, EVER make it into office again because they're too easy to find dirt on. They live their lives like normal people under normal circumstances. We can't have that in office!
There already is a workaround. It's called investigation, surveillance, and basic detective work.
But that costs too much! Running this country is a business, right? Nothing more than that?
</sarcasm>
Let's get this out of the way, pre-emptively: Carly is a worthless pile of human garbage, a perpetual leech on humanity's ass, and a shining example of everything that can go wrong in a Capitalist society. Did I forget anything?
What do they call people that operate on the path of, "Hey, [he] did it. That means I can do it, too!" That word.
I like how "community" comes before "industry" and "people". I'll say no more.
but but but... She's CREATING JOBS that way!
Mind not the fact that more will be destroyed in the process.
</sarcasm>
you CANT have a way around all encryption... Honestly why the hell did she ever run ANY tech company being that uneducated?
This is why I have ZERO respect for any CxO they all are fakers that bulshitted their way to their position.
Borrow one of her campaign speech writers for a day. Really, it would be fun! Tee hee.
You're looking at her when you say this.. You're supposed to be looking at her writers.
LOL