No, I think the crimial negligence applies to an unsecured network, if that person (the OP to which I was responding in this case) knows the possible consequences of leaving the network open. So a person that doesn't know that you need to secure your network would likely not be convicted, but someone that does likely would.
Leaving the network unsecured in and of itself would not be CN, but once someone commits a crime and the person owning the network knew his network could be used for criminal activity, then you can be faced with the charge.
It's just like the gun; you won't be charged with CN leaving a loaded rifle on your front lawn unless someone actually uses it to commit a crime. You'd be hard pressed to find someone that truely believes leaving a firearm in such a state could never be used criminally.
Possibly, but if its baked into the language or framework, that's one less thing static tools need to worry about, and the developers building the analysis toos can put more effort into finding other potential bugs.
If anything, this is a start to a goverment for the corporations. Did you notice that everyone in the article listed as unhappy are megacorps upset they can't screw consumers anymore? "Traffic shaping" means colluding to make internet access more profitiable for them, and costly to us. Exclusive contracts are a means of keeping a monopoly on cable, when what's really benefical is more than one unit being able to provide cable services (which include TV, internet and phone).
Let's hope nothing comes of this, because if there are major changes, it won't benefit us.
Well, if you read my previous posts, you'll see one of my problems with speed limits is exactly that politicians are making the decision on the limit, not civil engineers.
Finally, there's nothing wrong with a ped being in the crosswalk while the don't cross is flashing. The light should still be red for cars, and flashing don't walk means if you haven't already entered the crosswalk, do NOT do so, but if you have, finish you're crossing quickly. I also think as civil people we would be kinder to someone in a wheelchair in the crosswalk and afford them time. But wheelchair bound people aren't usually the ones being run over in the crosswalk.
I don't know what city you're in, but in one of the cities here, South Burlington, many of the newer crosswalks actually have a countdown telling you how much time you have left to cross. Crossing a four lane road with left and right turn lanes both directions the timer starts at about 10 seconds. That means you have 10 seconds to finish crossing, but you won't be able to start and finish in 10 seconds.. remember, flashing don't walk = yellow light... or do not cross if you haven't entered the intersection already.
In Tennessee, they passed a law a few years ago that allows motorcycles to run red lights, as long as they come to a stop at first and check that it's safe to proceed. The problem was that these lights were "smart lights" which detect vehicles and only change when a vehicle is detected. Of course, they weren't so smart, and couldn't detect motorcycles (and probably lightweight aluminum-bodied cars too), so motorcycles would either have to wait indefinitely or run the light.
Right. And that's fine; it addresses a particular problem for a particular class of vehical. Are you going to argue though that this would be a good idea for everyone, all the time? There's a reason that busy intersections get stop signs removed and replaced with a traffic light; the traffic light actually gets more volume through the intersection more quickly.
If it's 3AM and there's no one there, I see no reason why people should wait several minutes for a light to change. Ideally, lights should be advanced enough to detect traffic in all directions, and make more efficient decisions about how to operate the lights in order to facilitate smooth traffic flow, but since our lights currently basically suck right now, I think it's ok to take their signals as mere suggestions when there's no other traffic present.
There's a difference between running a light and treating a red light as a stop sign in the late hours. I don't necessarly have a problem with the latter, but the former is what was being advocated before.
It's all about risk though. Shooting a firearm actually does have a significant risk of personal injury or death. An attack through an AP will cause stress, possibly financial loss, but that's about it.
They could, but C# developers would crucify them. The community has been very vocal that they DON'T want that feature. Quite frankly, I agree. VB.net has been plagued with problems related to the "on the fly" compliation and letting you change code while the program is running. I don't want to type, fix, type fix. I'd rather get the implementation done and then compile to see if I messed up any syntax. It seems though that between Intellisense and automatic code formatting that I catch most syntax errors anyway. Forget a ; or closing brace somewhere, and watch the formatter screw everything up. Fix the syntax error and reformat, and everything is right again.
I'm not sure how Eclipse manages to get away with this, but it certainly seems to slow things down quite a bit. I can remote desktop to my home computer and use VS2005/8 and notice no more lag than when typign in Notepad, but Eclipse will grind to a halt at times, not to mention having to force it to do it's Intelisense equivolent by hitting ctrl+space.
Seriously though, what's so difficult about the memory management model of C? I find it hard to think of anything much simpler. The great thing about C (IMHO) is that if you didn't write it, it won't happen.
Exactly. Don't write that statement to free memory, and you have a memory leak. Its an important line that needs to be everywhere, so why not have a tool that does it for you, ensuring you CANNOT forget it? That's one less kind of bug I need to hunt down, and I get my work done quicker.
Whats needed is some really good logging though I'm not sure how to produce evidence grade logging information (ie tamper proof)
That's realtively easy. I should say "almost tamper proof" though. Have a computer that is just a network log server as its only function. Everything sends logs to that computer.
Good point. Its similar to leaving a rifle, loaded with the safety off in your front yard vs. locking it up in your house. The former would probably be considered criminal neglect, the latter would not.
An unsecured access point is not as dangerous as a firearm. Accordingly, while I think it reasonable for government to insist upon RTFMing (so to speak) for a firearm, its more reasonable to be understanding of someone that plugged in thier AP and didn't secure it. The latter is never directly responsible for someone's death. Let's keep some perspective here.
Yes, they should RTFM. However, that doesn't mean its ok for you (in the general sense) to assume they won't mind you using their network just because its unsecured.
It's illegal for me to cross the street outside of a crosswalk or against a signal even when there is no traffic around. This is ridiculous and stupid, as such a thing is perfectly safe to do, but you seem to have no problem with this ridiculous and stupid law.
I understand that point, however a car travels quickly and you might not be in a good position to see an oncoming vehical. Put another way, should we allow running red lights late at night when there's no traffic around?
Believe me, if there really isn't a car anywhere in sight, I don't care where or when you cross. The problem is that we're not talking about such cases, we're talking about the risk of car hitting a person. My particular gripe is that peds cross regardless of signal or crosswalk and there ARE lots of cars around. I know because I'm driving at the time.
I'm not sure how we can codify things so that you can ignore signals when there are "no cars around" but not otherwise.
It is illegal for me to speed even when conditions allow and traffic is not at unsafe levels. This is ridiculous and stupid, and you rightly rail against it.
My arguement against the speed limits though is that there are many studies that prove limits (especially lower than they should be) actually increase the accident rate. If lower limits did lower the accident rate, I would be for them, but the opposite is true.
I haven't seen anything that suggests having designated crosswalks and signals increase the chances of an accident though. I also reconize that there is a lot of traffic, and we do need some order for it the flow nicely. Letting peds cross willynilly prevents this, just as not having traffic lights would lead to major problems.
The fact that you have a blanket objection to one but have no problem with the other is my complaint, not the apples and oranges comparison you made above.
I object to one because there is evidence that what we are doing now increases accident rates. I haven't seen evidence that cross signals increase accident rates anymore than a traffic light would.
The fact that you will blame the vulnerable pedestrian (who very likely has the right of way) because he might have broken a law, but refuse to place any blame on the heavily armored driver who is definitely breaking the law is ridiculous.
Notice I purposely setup the scenario of the pedistrian being in the street. The roads are built for cars, and peds don't belong in them except for designated crosswalks.
I've never seen the law written that allows pedestrians to enter a crosswalk whenever they want and expect all traffic to stop. If you can show me one, I'll conside that point, but I'll still argue its a non-sensical law. Cars should not run down someone in a crosswalk, nor should peds enter a crosswalk unless the road is clear or they have a signal telling them they can.
Well, the thread at the point I jumped in was hoping the car would be sold here in the US.
I know about making the roads diagonal makes them less steep... just enough to let the car get up it at all though, typically. If you need to make a road diagonal, I doubt this car will be able to claim it any faster than you could walk.
If speed limits were set by civil engineers, I would have much less of a problem with them. The truth is that they are not. There's evidence that raising limits does not lead to increased accident risk, and there is evidence that setting them lower than the speed people would choose if there were no limit DOES increase accidents.
Regarding crosswalks, I don't think anyone would argue removing restrictions on where traffic of any kind may cross or when that traffic can cross would lower accident rates. While not a study, this article seems to suggest that having designated crosswalks and signals decreases the chances of an accident. Of course if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
Finally, it's not a double standard to say shooting someone for no reason is wrong, but shooting them for breaking into your house is acceptable. It's called context.
Thanks for a very good answer to my question. So it can move them, but as I expected it would have problems with inclines. On a highway, I don't think such an underpowered car is a good idea (haven't driven one myself on a highway). In cities with hills, this may cause more backups and traffic problems, because 30 MPH would be sufficent, but then add in wind and road friction, and I assume that would lower the max speed more.
Personally I think cars should be reasonably able to keep up with traffic flow, and that includes on hills. It seems like this car may be able to do that in most situations.
Of course it can. How well it will deal with the six inches of snow that has come down since the plow last came through is a different issue. If the Indian engineers considered muddy roads in the design, it might be OK in snow.
Yes, saftey is a concern I have with this car.
Anyway, I live in Vermont also, and I'd consider using something like this for local driving if it can meet emissions requirements. It's not like you can safely get over 45mph on the roads around here anyway. Not sure I'd take it on I-89 however. At least not until there are a lot of cars like it on the road.
I wonder how well it would do going up Main Street in Burlington. Not very well I'd imagine. I once had an 89 Subaru GL that was 90 HP, and it would struggle going up hills on my way from Philly to Rochester NY. Of course it got even worse when I lost compression in one of the cylinders.
I regularly take I89, and there are plenty of roads you can safely drive higher than 45. US7 in the Grand Isle area (not through the towns of course), the Burlington Beltline. I imagine some parts of US2 as well. Some roads with limits of 45 probably also could be safely driven on at higher speeds
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think the crimial negligence applies to an unsecured network, if that person (the OP to which I was responding in this case) knows the possible consequences of leaving the network open. So a person that doesn't know that you need to secure your network would likely not be convicted, but someone that does likely would.
Leaving the network unsecured in and of itself would not be CN, but once someone commits a crime and the person owning the network knew his network could be used for criminal activity, then you can be faced with the charge.
It's just like the gun; you won't be charged with CN leaving a loaded rifle on your front lawn unless someone actually uses it to commit a crime. You'd be hard pressed to find someone that truely believes leaving a firearm in such a state could never be used criminally.
Oh, and baking it in means anyone using the language will have the feature, vs. only those that bother with an analysis tool.
Possibly, but if its baked into the language or framework, that's one less thing static tools need to worry about, and the developers building the analysis toos can put more effort into finding other potential bugs.
If anything, this is a start to a goverment for the corporations. Did you notice that everyone in the article listed as unhappy are megacorps upset they can't screw consumers anymore? "Traffic shaping" means colluding to make internet access more profitiable for them, and costly to us. Exclusive contracts are a means of keeping a monopoly on cable, when what's really benefical is more than one unit being able to provide cable services (which include TV, internet and phone).
Let's hope nothing comes of this, because if there are major changes, it won't benefit us.
Visual Studio 2005's C# functionality has on-the-fly code editing for minor changes.
Hmm, you seem to be right. It's present in 2008 as well.
Who's hacking? We're talking about an unsecured network here, and why you shouldn't leave it unsecured.
Well, if you read my previous posts, you'll see one of my problems with speed limits is exactly that politicians are making the decision on the limit, not civil engineers.
Finally, there's nothing wrong with a ped being in the crosswalk while the don't cross is flashing. The light should still be red for cars, and flashing don't walk means if you haven't already entered the crosswalk, do NOT do so, but if you have, finish you're crossing quickly. I also think as civil people we would be kinder to someone in a wheelchair in the crosswalk and afford them time. But wheelchair bound people aren't usually the ones being run over in the crosswalk.
I don't know what city you're in, but in one of the cities here, South Burlington, many of the newer crosswalks actually have a countdown telling you how much time you have left to cross. Crossing a four lane road with left and right turn lanes both directions the timer starts at about 10 seconds. That means you have 10 seconds to finish crossing, but you won't be able to start and finish in 10 seconds.. remember, flashing don't walk = yellow light... or do not cross if you haven't entered the intersection already.
In Tennessee, they passed a law a few years ago that allows motorcycles to run red lights, as long as they come to a stop at first and check that it's safe to proceed. The problem was that these lights were "smart lights" which detect vehicles and only change when a vehicle is detected. Of course, they weren't so smart, and couldn't detect motorcycles (and probably lightweight aluminum-bodied cars too), so motorcycles would either have to wait indefinitely or run the light.
Right. And that's fine; it addresses a particular problem for a particular class of vehical. Are you going to argue though that this would be a good idea for everyone, all the time? There's a reason that busy intersections get stop signs removed and replaced with a traffic light; the traffic light actually gets more volume through the intersection more quickly.
If it's 3AM and there's no one there, I see no reason why people should wait several minutes for a light to change. Ideally, lights should be advanced enough to detect traffic in all directions, and make more efficient decisions about how to operate the lights in order to facilitate smooth traffic flow, but since our lights currently basically suck right now, I think it's ok to take their signals as mere suggestions when there's no other traffic present.
There's a difference between running a light and treating a red light as a stop sign in the late hours. I don't necessarly have a problem with the latter, but the former is what was being advocated before.
It's all about risk though. Shooting a firearm actually does have a significant risk of personal injury or death. An attack through an AP will cause stress, possibly financial loss, but that's about it.
They could, but C# developers would crucify them. The community has been very vocal that they DON'T want that feature. Quite frankly, I agree. VB.net has been plagued with problems related to the "on the fly" compliation and letting you change code while the program is running. I don't want to type, fix, type fix. I'd rather get the implementation done and then compile to see if I messed up any syntax. It seems though that between Intellisense and automatic code formatting that I catch most syntax errors anyway. Forget a ; or closing brace somewhere, and watch the formatter screw everything up. Fix the syntax error and reformat, and everything is right again.
I'm not sure how Eclipse manages to get away with this, but it certainly seems to slow things down quite a bit. I can remote desktop to my home computer and use VS2005/8 and notice no more lag than when typign in Notepad, but Eclipse will grind to a halt at times, not to mention having to force it to do it's Intelisense equivolent by hitting ctrl+space.
Seriously though, what's so difficult about the memory management model of C? I find it hard to think of anything much simpler. The great thing about C (IMHO) is that if you didn't write it, it won't happen.
Exactly. Don't write that statement to free memory, and you have a memory leak. Its an important line that needs to be everywhere, so why not have a tool that does it for you, ensuring you CANNOT forget it? That's one less kind of bug I need to hunt down, and I get my work done quicker.
Why, righ here, of course.
From wikipedia: "Identity theft is a catch-all term for crimes involving illegal usage of another individual's identity."
Giving you my SSN doesn't give you permission to use it to open accounts in my name for your own benefit. So yes, it is stealing.
Whats needed is some really good logging though I'm not sure how to produce evidence grade logging information (ie tamper proof)
That's realtively easy. I should say "almost tamper proof" though. Have a computer that is just a network log server as its only function. Everything sends logs to that computer.
Good point. Its similar to leaving a rifle, loaded with the safety off in your front yard vs. locking it up in your house. The former would probably be considered criminal neglect, the latter would not.
An unsecured access point is not as dangerous as a firearm. Accordingly, while I think it reasonable for government to insist upon RTFMing (so to speak) for a firearm, its more reasonable to be understanding of someone that plugged in thier AP and didn't secure it. The latter is never directly responsible for someone's death. Let's keep some perspective here.
Yes, they should RTFM. However, that doesn't mean its ok for you (in the general sense) to assume they won't mind you using their network just because its unsecured.
It's illegal for me to cross the street outside of a crosswalk or against a signal even when there is no traffic around. This is ridiculous and stupid, as such a thing is perfectly safe to do, but you seem to have no problem with this ridiculous and stupid law.
I understand that point, however a car travels quickly and you might not be in a good position to see an oncoming vehical. Put another way, should we allow running red lights late at night when there's no traffic around?
Believe me, if there really isn't a car anywhere in sight, I don't care where or when you cross. The problem is that we're not talking about such cases, we're talking about the risk of car hitting a person. My particular gripe is that peds cross regardless of signal or crosswalk and there ARE lots of cars around. I know because I'm driving at the time.
I'm not sure how we can codify things so that you can ignore signals when there are "no cars around" but not otherwise.
It is illegal for me to speed even when conditions allow and traffic is not at unsafe levels. This is ridiculous and stupid, and you rightly rail against it.
My arguement against the speed limits though is that there are many studies that prove limits (especially lower than they should be) actually increase the accident rate. If lower limits did lower the accident rate, I would be for them, but the opposite is true.
I haven't seen anything that suggests having designated crosswalks and signals increase the chances of an accident though. I also reconize that there is a lot of traffic, and we do need some order for it the flow nicely. Letting peds cross willynilly prevents this, just as not having traffic lights would lead to major problems.
The fact that you have a blanket objection to one but have no problem with the other is my complaint, not the apples and oranges comparison you made above.
I object to one because there is evidence that what we are doing now increases accident rates. I haven't seen evidence that cross signals increase accident rates anymore than a traffic light would.
The fact that you will blame the vulnerable pedestrian (who very likely has the right of way) because he might have broken a law, but refuse to place any blame on the heavily armored driver who is definitely breaking the law is ridiculous.
Notice I purposely setup the scenario of the pedistrian being in the street. The roads are built for cars, and peds don't belong in them except for designated crosswalks.
I've never seen the law written that allows pedestrians to enter a crosswalk whenever they want and expect all traffic to stop. If you can show me one, I'll conside that point, but I'll still argue its a non-sensical law. Cars should not run down someone in a crosswalk, nor should peds enter a crosswalk unless the road is clear or they have a signal telling them they can.
Well, the thread at the point I jumped in was hoping the car would be sold here in the US.
I know about making the roads diagonal makes them less steep... just enough to let the car get up it at all though, typically. If you need to make a road diagonal, I doubt this car will be able to claim it any faster than you could walk.
Nothings wrong with it, if you only want the people running large corporations deciding how the country should run, while no one else has a voice.
Your right to associate with who you choose ends where it interferes with others' right to associate with whom they choose.
I know you're joking, but does buy it include being able to keep your job for voting a particular way?
If speed limits were set by civil engineers, I would have much less of a problem with them. The truth is that they are not. There's evidence that raising limits does not lead to increased accident risk, and there is evidence that setting them lower than the speed people would choose if there were no limit DOES increase accidents.
Regarding crosswalks, I don't think anyone would argue removing restrictions on where traffic of any kind may cross or when that traffic can cross would lower accident rates. While not a study, this article seems to suggest that having designated crosswalks and signals decreases the chances of an accident. Of course if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
Finally, it's not a double standard to say shooting someone for no reason is wrong, but shooting them for breaking into your house is acceptable. It's called context.
Thanks for a very good answer to my question. So it can move them, but as I expected it would have problems with inclines. On a highway, I don't think such an underpowered car is a good idea (haven't driven one myself on a highway). In cities with hills, this may cause more backups and traffic problems, because 30 MPH would be sufficent, but then add in wind and road friction, and I assume that would lower the max speed more.
Personally I think cars should be reasonably able to keep up with traffic flow, and that includes on hills. It seems like this car may be able to do that in most situations.
Of course it can. How well it will deal with the six inches of snow that has come down since the plow last came through is a different issue. If the Indian engineers considered muddy roads in the design, it might be OK in snow.
Yes, saftey is a concern I have with this car.
Anyway, I live in Vermont also, and I'd consider using something like this for local driving if it can meet emissions requirements. It's not like you can safely get over 45mph on the roads around here anyway. Not sure I'd take it on I-89 however. At least not until there are a lot of cars like it on the road.
I wonder how well it would do going up Main Street in Burlington. Not very well I'd imagine. I once had an 89 Subaru GL that was 90 HP, and it would struggle going up hills on my way from Philly to Rochester NY. Of course it got even worse when I lost compression in one of the cylinders.
I regularly take I89, and there are plenty of roads you can safely drive higher than 45. US7 in the Grand Isle area (not through the towns of course), the Burlington Beltline. I imagine some parts of US2 as well. Some roads with limits of 45 probably also could be safely driven on at higher speeds