This is only the billionth time that debug code has made it into a production release. It will continue to happen unless there are consequences.
I think I'd like to see a modest fine from the government whenever debug code makes it into a production environment in a way that poses a risk to security or confidentiality.
Not enough to really hurt a business. Just enough to encourage following SOPs so their projects are built correctly before getting shipped out to customers.
It isn't, that's bullshit. AR is VR where you don't draw the background, that's it.
AR content is designed to interact with real-world environments and objects besides the user. Traditional VR is not; it is a wholly-generated environment. There are different words for these things for a reason. If you're chasing 3D-rendered aliens around a 3D-rendered table, it's VR; if you're chasing those aliens around your kitchen table then it's AR.
Perhaps you could call it AR if you have VR where the background is a duplicate of the real world, but I haven't seen anything like that. Most AR systems project their virtual content onto transparent visors. As far as I know, there aren't any AR units on the market that use full VR headsets with LCDs.
Both NoScript 10+ and YesScript2 support Firefox 57+. If the users don't update their plugins after updating the browser, that's not really Mozilla's fault.
The old NPAPI support needed to die---for security reasons. Your attempt to cast a security improvement as a problem is ill-founded, and, quite frankly, idiotic.
I am comparing actual data to their dire predictions made 20 years ago and calling them on their shit. And, I will be the denier.
The IPCC has done exactly this for years. The real outcomes have typically fallen in the "expected" to "bad" ranges, occasionally approaching the "worst case scenario" outcomes.
The data have always fallen on the "bad" end of the scale. In fact, they've put some effort into figuring out why things like ice melt and sea rise consistently end up worse than the predicted mid-range. You may see some improbable claims on occasion, but overall the climate shift has exceeded predictions. Comparing old predictions to new data has consistently shown one thing: the level of alarm is justified, and perhaps it should be higher.
When the expectations are bad outcomes and you consistently meet or exceed those expectations, you need to change what you're doing.
My father-in-law had diabetes for years. Due to co-morbid high blood pressure, he had heart problems that eventually landed him in the hospital.
After that, he finally started listening to the doctors. Within a year, his blood sugar was under control and he was no longer considered diabetic. All he did was switch to a healthier diet. Give up the cookies and ice cream---and know when something is just as bad for you, like fancy Starbucks "coffees". Eat your damn vegetables and stay away from all the carbs.
This is barely news. I don't understand how an expert in the field is treating this as a new development when patients are already being told how to fix the problem. Maybe this is the first study to demonstrate the effect conclusively---in which case, I'm glad it's proven---but I don't understand why this is being hyped.
This was fairly clear cut: they weren't simply ignoring the engineer's comments, but trying to intimidate him with a lawsuit.
Jesus Christ, relax. It's administrative overreach, but it's over now.
Because the AG forced them to admit that they don't have the authority to control the word "engineer", they'll have to knock it off.
you do need to think in terms of removing people.
If there is clear evidence that they intended to silence him, then sure go ahead. Otherwise, just make sure it doesn't happen again.
This is way 99% of government agencies work. Someone does something stupid because there's no rule against it, then someone else writes a policy to ensure it doesn't happen again. If it ever happens again, there are consequences for violating the written policy.
You might even need to think of closing the office altogether.
Now this is straight up stupid. The office exists for a good reason, and it can continue to serve its purpose. If someone can't design or build things safely, he should not be allowed to do it at all.
This is basically an underpowered netbook, regardless of battery life.
The battery life is possible precisely because it is "underpowered". It's called a trade-off, and engineers have to do it all the time.
It should handle web apps, office apps, and basic entertainment just fine, so it is not underpowered in an absolute sense.
Also, LTE replacing private WiFi for sensitive corporate applications? In whose dreams?
A lot of corporate laptops already have cellular internet. The US government uses them on occasion too.
There's this thing called VPN which addresses insecure networks, and a laptop needs it anyway. No external network is safe, so VPN should be the norm even when laptops only had wifi and ethernet.
I can buy 2-3 refurb Thinkpad X-series for the same price.
I would consider one for entertainment while traveling, but I agree that the price is a bit high.
These should be priced comparable to Chromebooks. I expect they'll never reach the bottom of the Chromebook range since Windows is a more demanding OS, but $800 for a decent Windows unit is too high.
You don't have to be liberal to have a moral problem with assassination of foreign leaders.
Any sane person who complains about American intelligence agencies is going to focus on the the lack of oversight and accountability. The transparency and accountability will be far, far worse for private intelligence service that reports only to the President.
So Trump wants us to run two completely independent intelligence networks? How is this not insanely wasteful? What happened to those small government principles?
And here is the kicker:
The group reportedly brought in former Marine Corps Lt. Col. Oliver North to sell the idea to Trump.
Their salesman is going to be the poster boy for corruption in the military. The only reason he's not a felon is a technicality, and he admitted his wrongdoing in front of Congress.
I want to believe this is total bullshit. It's coming from Vice, so maybe it's safe to ignore it for the time being.
An 8 hour day to me is just like getting started. I've always been this way.
You realize you are an anomaly, right? Public policy shouldn't be guided by the outliers.
And I sleep 5 hours a day, and that's my limit, which for some reason enrages some people.
Most people wish they could sleep less, but that is generally not possible. You got a lucky roll of the dice. Be grateful for it. Do not expect other people to catch up to you on this---because modern science indicates that it's just not possible.
Meantime, I'm going to do stuff like I always did stuff, because I gotta do stuff - I derive happiness from it.
This is interesting. You appear to enjoy your work in the same fashion as most people enjoy their hobbies or past-times. Perhaps this explains why you experience little stress or mental fatigue while working.
Still, most people do not have jobs like that. I don't know if there's ever been a formal study, but based on my personal experience I'd estimate that fewer than 1/10 people have that level of job satisfaction. I believe it would be best to change things so that most people feel the same way about their work as you do, but that's a whole different problem.
The 40-hour work week was established by law. We can just as easily establish a 30- or 35-hour work week.
We could also remove the overtime exemptions so that managers, programmers, etc are all eligible for overtime. Companies only have the power to treat people like garbage because we let them do it.
Those laws should apply equally to immigrants too. Even if you're more concerned with limiting immigration rather than want to protecting immigrants, it's still a good idea to give them full legal protections. This eliminates some of the incentive to hire them in the first place.
I don't. US copyright laws may be stupid at times, but it's absurd to believe that his intentions included parody at the time. He's free to claim whatever he wants in court, but he bears the burden of proof when he claims fair use.
And if the chatter surrounding this event was "hey man, you can watch the UFC fight for free on the stream"... he's gonna lose so badly.
the courts will have been seeded with people for whom "fair use" means "pay us now or pay us later"
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but there is an established guideline for deciding whether something is fair use. It's not like someone is going to pull a fast one on this guy. The rules have been out there for years.
He's a billionaire in America because the current value of those Bitcoins exceeds one billion dollars.
In case you're pedantic rather than ignorant, I'll remind you that net worth is calculated by converting all assets and liabilities to dollars at current market prices. This is entirely consistent with how traditional stock-and-bonds billionaires are assessed.
We have an AI that can evolve other AIs. (Yes, it's weak AI, not a replacement for a human being---get over it.) That is not the easiest thing to accomplish.
But the sheer level of criticism and dismissal around here is ludicrous. I thought this was a tech site for nerds. Nerds just did something techy. What is all the snark about? Is it just because the average slashdotter is now some unimaginative jackass who can't understand the outer fringe of technology anymore?
If this is so utterly unimpressive, then explain why you haven't done it. If it is so useless, then explain why a tech titan is paying millions to develop it. If you can't provide either explanation, then you probably don't understand what's happening as well as you think you do.
I understand that. In the context of emergency medicine, though, doctors may need to act immediately---before there is an opportunity to verify a DNR order.
Do you want doctors to withhold treatment from unconscious patients until they can verify there is no DNR order for that patient? I don't. If I'm heading to the hospital like that, I want the most effective treatment as soon as I can get it. Most people do; that's why the default requirement is to provide treatment.
Where I live, DNR orders also provide justification for terminating life support. So if you "accidentally" save someone in that condition, you can reverse course as soon as the paperwork comes through.
States have different rules on what is necessary for a legally binding DNR order.
Most states require a patient signature and a witness signature. In some states, the document must be notarized or filed with the Department of Health. Some states actually do recognize DNR tattoos.
Would be nice to have a consistent standard though.
Any type of medical care without consent is criminal assault
You're not a lawyer. Your legal opinion means nothing.
If what you said is true, how can they even touch an unconscious person that comes into the hospital? Especially if a bystander called 911---there would be no indication of consent from the patient at all. This is supposed to be a crime? Nope, this is how it works every day.
States have rules about how to file a DNR and how to verify a DNR. And look, a quick google search shows you what Florida residents need for a legit, legal DNR order:
Tattoos are usually applied by a third party. Tattoos are usually categorized as art rather than official documents. Thus, a tattooed signature will probably not be a legal signature.
You do realize people get DNR tattoos to show off how badass they are, right? I would never do it, but it's a thing. Decorative DNR tattoos may be stupid, but the hospital cannot be sure a patient wants to die as long as the decorative ones exist.
I would do exactly what they did. When you're in a gray area touching on malpractice, negligence, and homicide... well, you don't take chances.
It's also possible for people to change their minds. Apparently, in Florida you file DNR orders with the state. It's good to have an official, documented process when you're making decisions about someone's life. In the article, they even referenced a case where the patient's DNR tattoo did not reflect his current wishes.
If they are terminal and wish to pass, there will be plenty of opportunities to end their care. Case in point, this patient died later that night.
The use of a personal hotspot could have jammed the plane's computers and navigational controls and ended up bringing the plane down.
No, the FAA never tested the safety of in-flight cellular service because the FCC prohibited it.
The problem is that cellular handover is a somewhat intensive process, and your hotspot is going to work like crap anyway. Big planes have a cruising speed of 500+ MPH, so it's going to be handing over frequently---if it will even work at all. Naming the hotspot something stupid is just icing on the cake.
In addition, a horde of cellular handovers happening simultaneously could interfere with the cellular network. This could be especially burdensome on areas surrounding major airports, which also tend to be major population centers.
Basically, no one is interested in doing a lot of expensive testing to make sure cell phones on planes won't cause telecommunication problems, so everyone has to live without their phones for a few hours.
I think you are totally wrong, but I want to be sure I understand Bitcoin processing correctly first.
Whenever you send any money the entire amount gets sent and the change goes to a newly created address.
Just to be clear, it sounds like you're saying the following:
In every Bitcoin transaction, the entire balance of the wallet is tendered. The financial transaction is considered complete when (1) the agreed-upon payment is given to the seller's wallet, (2) the remaining balance is returned to the buyer's wallet, and (3) cryptographic validation of this exchange has been added to the blockchain.
If that is the case, it should be trivial for the authorities to audit the blockchain and correlate payments.
E.g., if I have a wallet with 50 BTC and buy an ounce of a controlled substance, it should be really easy to figure out which wallet belongs to the me vs the seller because the change returned to me will be the much, much larger quantity.
It gets even easier if I withdraw money from an exchange. They will have a record of the BTC deposit, exchange rate, and cash disbursal---which makes it very, very easy to decide which payment was their deposit and which was the returned balance.
There is one thing that the authorities need to do: They need an initial correlation of your payment with a service rendered to you. If they subpoena an exchange or bust a seller who retained names/addresses, that gets the ball rolling.
When faced with law enforcement powers to seize records, Bitcoin is only anonymous if the user is extremely careful. I.e., impenetrable operational security. So maybe Bitcoin can be anonymous in theory, but in practice virtually no one is truly anonymous---only not caught yet, or not worth catching at all. Unless you're paying a hitman, LEOs are much more concerned with catching the sellers rather than the buyers.
The problem today is that data aggregation is happening at an obscene rate. It is the norm for large businesses to affiliate and share data, and some business buy user data specifically to mine it.
In addition to law enforcement officials, we need to consider placing some restrictions on how private organizations can collect, share, and analyze data.
Tesla called out a journalist who ran out of power for skipping a charging station as well as taking a long and undisclosed detour from his supposed route.
I don't know if retail vehicles have the same telemetry as engineering and review vehicles, but I would assume they collect the data until proven otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
This is only the billionth time that debug code has made it into a production release. It will continue to happen unless there are consequences.
I think I'd like to see a modest fine from the government whenever debug code makes it into a production environment in a way that poses a risk to security or confidentiality.
Not enough to really hurt a business. Just enough to encourage following SOPs so their projects are built correctly before getting shipped out to customers.
It isn't, that's bullshit. AR is VR where you don't draw the background, that's it.
AR content is designed to interact with real-world environments and objects besides the user. Traditional VR is not; it is a wholly-generated environment. There are different words for these things for a reason. If you're chasing 3D-rendered aliens around a 3D-rendered table, it's VR; if you're chasing those aliens around your kitchen table then it's AR.
Perhaps you could call it AR if you have VR where the background is a duplicate of the real world, but I haven't seen anything like that. Most AR systems project their virtual content onto transparent visors. As far as I know, there aren't any AR units on the market that use full VR headsets with LCDs.
I don't see how that could possibly be the issue.
Both NoScript 10+ and YesScript2 support Firefox 57+. If the users don't update their plugins after updating the browser, that's not really Mozilla's fault.
The old NPAPI support needed to die---for security reasons. Your attempt to cast a security improvement as a problem is ill-founded, and, quite frankly, idiotic.
They've basically stopped making their top end phones
Practically no one needs a Galaxy. Look at the Nexus/Pixel lines, Nokia phones, and OnePlus.
They will probably end up with Snapdragon 845 SoCs next year too. Probably a bit later than Samsung though.
I am comparing actual data to their dire predictions made 20 years ago and calling them on their shit. And, I will be the denier.
The IPCC has done exactly this for years. The real outcomes have typically fallen in the "expected" to "bad" ranges, occasionally approaching the "worst case scenario" outcomes.
The data have always fallen on the "bad" end of the scale. In fact, they've put some effort into figuring out why things like ice melt and sea rise consistently end up worse than the predicted mid-range. You may see some improbable claims on occasion, but overall the climate shift has exceeded predictions. Comparing old predictions to new data has consistently shown one thing: the level of alarm is justified, and perhaps it should be higher.
When the expectations are bad outcomes and you consistently meet or exceed those expectations, you need to change what you're doing.
My father-in-law had diabetes for years. Due to co-morbid high blood pressure, he had heart problems that eventually landed him in the hospital.
After that, he finally started listening to the doctors. Within a year, his blood sugar was under control and he was no longer considered diabetic. All he did was switch to a healthier diet. Give up the cookies and ice cream---and know when something is just as bad for you, like fancy Starbucks "coffees". Eat your damn vegetables and stay away from all the carbs.
This is barely news. I don't understand how an expert in the field is treating this as a new development when patients are already being told how to fix the problem. Maybe this is the first study to demonstrate the effect conclusively---in which case, I'm glad it's proven---but I don't understand why this is being hyped.
This was fairly clear cut: they weren't simply ignoring the engineer's comments, but trying to intimidate him with a lawsuit.
Jesus Christ, relax. It's administrative overreach, but it's over now.
Because the AG forced them to admit that they don't have the authority to control the word "engineer", they'll have to knock it off.
you do need to think in terms of removing people.
If there is clear evidence that they intended to silence him, then sure go ahead. Otherwise, just make sure it doesn't happen again.
This is way 99% of government agencies work. Someone does something stupid because there's no rule against it, then someone else writes a policy to ensure it doesn't happen again. If it ever happens again, there are consequences for violating the written policy.
You might even need to think of closing the office altogether.
Now this is straight up stupid. The office exists for a good reason, and it can continue to serve its purpose. If someone can't design or build things safely, he should not be allowed to do it at all.
This is basically an underpowered netbook, regardless of battery life.
The battery life is possible precisely because it is "underpowered". It's called a trade-off, and engineers have to do it all the time.
It should handle web apps, office apps, and basic entertainment just fine, so it is not underpowered in an absolute sense.
Also, LTE replacing private WiFi for sensitive corporate applications? In whose dreams?
A lot of corporate laptops already have cellular internet. The US government uses them on occasion too.
There's this thing called VPN which addresses insecure networks, and a laptop needs it anyway. No external network is safe, so VPN should be the norm even when laptops only had wifi and ethernet.
I can buy 2-3 refurb Thinkpad X-series for the same price.
I would consider one for entertainment while traveling, but I agree that the price is a bit high.
These should be priced comparable to Chromebooks. I expect they'll never reach the bottom of the Chromebook range since Windows is a more demanding OS, but $800 for a decent Windows unit is too high.
You don't have to be liberal to have a moral problem with assassination of foreign leaders.
Any sane person who complains about American intelligence agencies is going to focus on the the lack of oversight and accountability. The transparency and accountability will be far, far worse for private intelligence service that reports only to the President.
So Trump wants us to run two completely independent intelligence networks? How is this not insanely wasteful? What happened to those small government principles?
And here is the kicker:
The group reportedly brought in former Marine Corps Lt. Col. Oliver North to sell the idea to Trump.
Their salesman is going to be the poster boy for corruption in the military. The only reason he's not a felon is a technicality, and he admitted his wrongdoing in front of Congress.
I want to believe this is total bullshit. It's coming from Vice, so maybe it's safe to ignore it for the time being.
An 8 hour day to me is just like getting started. I've always been this way.
You realize you are an anomaly, right? Public policy shouldn't be guided by the outliers.
And I sleep 5 hours a day, and that's my limit, which for some reason enrages some people.
Most people wish they could sleep less, but that is generally not possible. You got a lucky roll of the dice. Be grateful for it. Do not expect other people to catch up to you on this---because modern science indicates that it's just not possible.
Meantime, I'm going to do stuff like I always did stuff, because I gotta do stuff - I derive happiness from it.
This is interesting. You appear to enjoy your work in the same fashion as most people enjoy their hobbies or past-times. Perhaps this explains why you experience little stress or mental fatigue while working.
Still, most people do not have jobs like that. I don't know if there's ever been a formal study, but based on my personal experience I'd estimate that fewer than 1/10 people have that level of job satisfaction. I believe it would be best to change things so that most people feel the same way about their work as you do, but that's a whole different problem.
The 40-hour work week was established by law. We can just as easily establish a 30- or 35-hour work week.
We could also remove the overtime exemptions so that managers, programmers, etc are all eligible for overtime. Companies only have the power to treat people like garbage because we let them do it.
Those laws should apply equally to immigrants too. Even if you're more concerned with limiting immigration rather than want to protecting immigrants, it's still a good idea to give them full legal protections. This eliminates some of the incentive to hire them in the first place.
I could see how it might be "parody"
I don't. US copyright laws may be stupid at times, but it's absurd to believe that his intentions included parody at the time. He's free to claim whatever he wants in court, but he bears the burden of proof when he claims fair use.
And if the chatter surrounding this event was "hey man, you can watch the UFC fight for free on the stream"... he's gonna lose so badly.
the courts will have been seeded with people for whom "fair use" means "pay us now or pay us later"
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but there is an established guideline for deciding whether something is fair use. It's not like someone is going to pull a fast one on this guy. The rules have been out there for years.
He's a billionaire in America because the current value of those Bitcoins exceeds one billion dollars.
In case you're pedantic rather than ignorant, I'll remind you that net worth is calculated by converting all assets and liabilities to dollars at current market prices. This is entirely consistent with how traditional stock-and-bonds billionaires are assessed.
We have an AI that can evolve other AIs. (Yes, it's weak AI, not a replacement for a human being---get over it.) That is not the easiest thing to accomplish.
But the sheer level of criticism and dismissal around here is ludicrous. I thought this was a tech site for nerds. Nerds just did something techy. What is all the snark about? Is it just because the average slashdotter is now some unimaginative jackass who can't understand the outer fringe of technology anymore?
If this is so utterly unimpressive, then explain why you haven't done it. If it is so useless, then explain why a tech titan is paying millions to develop it. If you can't provide either explanation, then you probably don't understand what's happening as well as you think you do.
That's why DNR orders exist in the first place.
I understand that. In the context of emergency medicine, though, doctors may need to act immediately---before there is an opportunity to verify a DNR order.
Do you want doctors to withhold treatment from unconscious patients until they can verify there is no DNR order for that patient? I don't. If I'm heading to the hospital like that, I want the most effective treatment as soon as I can get it. Most people do; that's why the default requirement is to provide treatment.
Where I live, DNR orders also provide justification for terminating life support. So if you "accidentally" save someone in that condition, you can reverse course as soon as the paperwork comes through.
States have different rules on what is necessary for a legally binding DNR order.
Most states require a patient signature and a witness signature. In some states, the document must be notarized or filed with the Department of Health. Some states actually do recognize DNR tattoos.
Would be nice to have a consistent standard though.
Any type of medical care without consent is criminal assault
You're not a lawyer. Your legal opinion means nothing.
If what you said is true, how can they even touch an unconscious person that comes into the hospital? Especially if a bystander called 911---there would be no indication of consent from the patient at all. This is supposed to be a crime? Nope, this is how it works every day.
States have rules about how to file a DNR and how to verify a DNR. And look, a quick google search shows you what Florida residents need for a legit, legal DNR order:
http://www.floridahealth.gov/a...
So, written and signed DNRs aren't legal? Weird.
Except it isn't one.
Tattoos are usually applied by a third party. Tattoos are usually categorized as art rather than official documents. Thus, a tattooed signature will probably not be a legal signature.
You do realize people get DNR tattoos to show off how badass they are, right? I would never do it, but it's a thing. Decorative DNR tattoos may be stupid, but the hospital cannot be sure a patient wants to die as long as the decorative ones exist.
If THIS isn't good enough, then what could the patient have a POSSIBLY done!?!?!?!
From the very comment you are replying to:
In the article, they even referenced a case where the patient's DNR tattoo did not reflect his current wishes.
I would do exactly what they did. When you're in a gray area touching on malpractice, negligence, and homicide... well, you don't take chances.
It's also possible for people to change their minds. Apparently, in Florida you file DNR orders with the state. It's good to have an official, documented process when you're making decisions about someone's life. In the article, they even referenced a case where the patient's DNR tattoo did not reflect his current wishes.
If they are terminal and wish to pass, there will be plenty of opportunities to end their care. Case in point, this patient died later that night.
The use of a personal hotspot could have jammed the plane's computers and navigational controls and ended up bringing the plane down.
No, the FAA never tested the safety of in-flight cellular service because the FCC prohibited it.
The problem is that cellular handover is a somewhat intensive process, and your hotspot is going to work like crap anyway. Big planes have a cruising speed of 500+ MPH, so it's going to be handing over frequently---if it will even work at all. Naming the hotspot something stupid is just icing on the cake.
In addition, a horde of cellular handovers happening simultaneously could interfere with the cellular network. This could be especially burdensome on areas surrounding major airports, which also tend to be major population centers.
Basically, no one is interested in doing a lot of expensive testing to make sure cell phones on planes won't cause telecommunication problems, so everyone has to live without their phones for a few hours.
I think you are totally wrong, but I want to be sure I understand Bitcoin processing correctly first.
Whenever you send any money the entire amount gets sent and the change goes to a newly created address.
Just to be clear, it sounds like you're saying the following:
In every Bitcoin transaction, the entire balance of the wallet is tendered. The financial transaction is considered complete when (1) the agreed-upon payment is given to the seller's wallet, (2) the remaining balance is returned to the buyer's wallet, and (3) cryptographic validation of this exchange has been added to the blockchain.
If that is the case, it should be trivial for the authorities to audit the blockchain and correlate payments.
E.g., if I have a wallet with 50 BTC and buy an ounce of a controlled substance, it should be really easy to figure out which wallet belongs to the me vs the seller because the change returned to me will be the much, much larger quantity.
It gets even easier if I withdraw money from an exchange. They will have a record of the BTC deposit, exchange rate, and cash disbursal---which makes it very, very easy to decide which payment was their deposit and which was the returned balance.
There is one thing that the authorities need to do: They need an initial correlation of your payment with a service rendered to you. If they subpoena an exchange or bust a seller who retained names/addresses, that gets the ball rolling.
When faced with law enforcement powers to seize records, Bitcoin is only anonymous if the user is extremely careful. I.e., impenetrable operational security. So maybe Bitcoin can be anonymous in theory, but in practice virtually no one is truly anonymous---only not caught yet, or not worth catching at all. Unless you're paying a hitman, LEOs are much more concerned with catching the sellers rather than the buyers.
But what if that join doesn't happen?
The problem today is that data aggregation is happening at an obscene rate. It is the norm for large businesses to affiliate and share data, and some business buy user data specifically to mine it.
In addition to law enforcement officials, we need to consider placing some restrictions on how private organizations can collect, share, and analyze data.
Tesla called out a journalist who ran out of power for skipping a charging station as well as taking a long and undisclosed detour from his supposed route.
I don't know if retail vehicles have the same telemetry as engineering and review vehicles, but I would assume they collect the data until proven otherwise.