I have trouble seeing any of the justifications for getting a public CA cert for a name like "Server1" with an internal IP.
You could use your own internal CA, as others have noted. There is overhead to doing so and, being lazy, just buying the public cert may have seemed like an option.
However, one could simply use a real DNS entry, and all would be fine. Ex. server1.int.my-domain.com. Setup the "int.my-domain.com" on dns servers that all your internal hosts can see (they're all internal, so that can't be TOO difficult, and it doesn't hurt if that's visible from external). It's really quite easy to setup DNS, and it's cheaper, and it'll work with the CA just fine, and will work if/when you move the service to a public IP, or if you adopt an internal CA, etc etc etc. Why NOT do this? You can even host your DNS for free somewhere online.
That's crazy talk. maybe in a small shop a tablet PC could be entrusted to such an important role. In the larger environments I don't think that would fly. Risk team would never allow it.
... is that the same risk team that would authorize the purchase of a public cert for "Server1"?
I think the original point was that it takes almost nothing to sign certs. There need not be any significant investment.
Anyone else with a different pattern from the three above (including mine)?
Sun-Thu is when you go out for dinner/drinks/fun because on Fri/Sat all the good places are too packed all types of annoying people. Fri/Sat is when you relax after your long and taxing week, take in some TV, drop off/pick up your laundry, etc.
It's a self-service check-in, it's already a mindless robot.
Though I fail to see how replacing the dumb kiosk with a more intelligent avatar will really make anything better, I don't really want the kiosk to ask me how my day is going, or tell me I better bundle up because it's going to be a cold day in Chicago, I just want to check in as quickly and easily as possible.
This.
Using some supposedly intelligent avatar instead of a clear, simple, and well designed UI ranks right up there with the automated call interfaces that ask you to speak your answers instead of pressing the number buttons on your phone. People complained because pushing numbers sucked; RCA was incorrect; we ended up with a system 10x's as frustrating that takes 3x's longer to operate.
I've found the self-service check-in's to be rather good, but the physical integration of them has left a lot to be desired. IE. there is no line for them.. there's just a bunch of them scattered about. Then you still have to take your bags somewhere, and figuring out where that line is, and how it differs from the line that includes getting your ticket, is often a complete mess. You often have to wade back through all the folks wandering around the kiosks to find the front of the new line. It should be a LOT simpler and organized much better... though I'm sure this is a per-airport, and possibly per-airline, issue, so YMMV.
At which point, anyone in the world could very very easily DOS your car.
Nope. The car should only accept PIN attempts from pre-registered devices. So in order to DOS your car, the DOSer would have to first steal your cell phone.
Which is basically what I described immediately following that. As long as the registration is something that is not trivial to spam (thus my suggestion for a challenge response akin to DH), then that'd do fine.
But what is the protocol on the wire? One doesn't *have* to go through the app. If the protocol only has a pin in it, then it doesn't matter what app requirements they make. The client must be uniquely and securely identifiable before that 3 strikes and your locked out stuff goes into place, and it has to have some level of complexity to register a client. These are solved problems in public cryptography but, from the sounds of their "hack", I doubt the existing protocol has space for these extra features.
Tesla should not have allowed the PIN to be brute forced. The PIN should be stored by the car, not by the app, and it should have a 30 second lock-out after 3 wrong attempts, and then double the lock-out time for each additional wrong attempt. This is Security 101.
At which point, anyone in the world could very very easily DOS your car.
There are ways around that, but the naive and very very common implementation you describe is trivial to DOS. I'd hope that the users key could still get them in and get an override, but the app should use much stronger auth to avoid DOS issues (ex. challenge response with something that requires largish compute time for the client in order to register and calculate a very large shared key - ie. this would be a one time registration per client app; then use the lock out on a per-registered-client basis; thus is would be costly to generate more client ids, and the lock out would make each only worth a few bad tries before forcing re-handshake). PIN would still be used on top of that (adds another factor, and something easily set/changed on the car side).
I just noticed a couple days ago that newegg.com is also accepting bitcoin. Not sure how long they've been doing that, but it made me wonder how many other places where. The list in TFS was a surprise to me.
About half of Apple's employees are retail employees (working in Apple stores). Only about 40,000 work as developers, testers, etc.
This is what I was wondering about the most when I read the summary (not just apple though). Within Microsoft, I'm guessing there are many different groups, and many are fairly well defined. There's all the runnning-a-business cruft (management, marketing, helpdesk, support, etc), and the various product breakdowns (xbox, office, windows, vs, surface, etc etc etc). Ditto for all those other companies. I'd love to see a headcount of people that actually make stuff per product per company, and the count of those that are getting laid off. I'm actually surprised by how small the headcounts are - I assumed there'd be a ton more overhead (like all the apple people working in retail).
In places where it'd make the most sense to have it drop you off at work (big cities, where parking is both limited and expensive), it won't work for 99% of the local population anyway.... where does the car park when it gets home?
99% of the population doesn't live in Manhattan. LA, Chicago, Atlanta, and many others have people drive in from Long Island (or Jersey), where people do have houses on land with driveways and (often) garages.
I didn't say 99% did live in big cities. I said that, of those in big cities, the majority there could not make use of this. FWIW, more than 1% of the population of USA lives in LA. Nearly 3% live in NYC.
Using my car like a Taxi would be great.
For who? Do you want random people getting in your car without any supervision and doing who knows what in there? On the flip side, who wants to get in a driverless car and allow the owner to control what happens to them remotely (I'm assuming you would not allow them to choose its course, else they could easily strand it anywhere they like... talk about inconvenience). Besides, real taxi drivers tend to handle queries like, "hey, I need to get to that theater down by atlantic... you know the one?" much better than I'd expect your personal driverless car to do.
And the fuel to get it home is less than the cost of parking.
That's extremely subjective. I'm quite certain that parking is free for employees at the vast majority of employment sites. The times when it costs money, you're often in a large city (as you noted, most people don't live in NYC). Within large cities, if you have a garage, you're likely to be living outside the city. If you're making that commute, then: a) there's a higher likelyhood of tolls exceeding the cost of gas b) gas cost will be higher if you're that far away c) WE'D BE DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF CARS ON THE ROAD!
How is that not a down side? (you stated there were none)
What happens when the car breaks down with no one in it?
Depends on the "break down". Most people would take that to mean the engine lost power. The car would coast onto the shoulder and wait for assistance.
Getting in the way of everyone else, and likely during rush hour. If it had a driver, he would get out, possibly ask for help, and push the car to a safe location. Without a driver, everyone else is up shit creek until the tow truck comes.
What happens when it's in an accident? (where's the owners? who is responsible? how to get it off the road? etc)
The answer to all of those is the same as any other accident where the driver is incapacitated. We managed to solve it for an unconscious driver. But you are too stupid to solve it for a missing (benevolant) driver? We've even solved it for driverless cars now (hit and runs with the car left behind).
Most accidents do not result in an unconscious driver, and hit and runs are a rare percentage of accidents. If a driver is there, even if unconscious, you have immediate access to their ID and, likely, their contacts (via their phone). Driverless car - it's just going to sit there and clog up the road way until the tow truck comes.
what's the point of having it?
To get places faster, safer, and more efficiently,...
No need for driverless for any of these.
...while freeing up time for other activities.
Like what? Picking your kids up from school? Busses solved that ages ago. We don't need every parent sending their driverless cars around to pick up their kids individually, wasting loads of resources, clogging the roads, making it far easier for kids to be irresponsible (let along easier for the kid to take the wrong car and end up who knows wh
The point of having it is very simply that people screw up eventually....
No. That's not the point being discussed. We're talking about driverless cars, not cars that can drive themselves. There is a fine line between them, but it has a very significant side effects.
The cars google has been testing for a long while on the actual highways... they're cars that can drive themselves while on the highway. They do not start out on their own, empty of a passenger, and make the whole trip as a programmed route (though they now have some that can do that).
The newer automation allows the car to do things on its own with no one inside it (zero or more people).
Both have the same potential for positive safety impact while driving. However, driverless has a whole lot of side effects for all the myriad of edge cases where it stops working or does weird stuff or is misused or abused etc.
In both of your examples, a driverless car is not mentioned. Your 1hr drive to work, and your 6hr drive to your family, can both be done with self driving cars that are not driverless. I'm fine with that; I'd encourage that especially for the long highway trips where many fatal and near fatal accidents happen due to drivers getting bored, dozing off, getting distracted, all while cruising along at high speeds. Computers are quite good at handling that type of situation - damn near perfect.
I'm much more concerned with the downsides to driverless cars, like what all the assholes will do with them when they are even slightly inconvenienced (stopping at a store with no good parking spots - just set it to drive around the lot in circles indefinitely until your done; ditto to avoid paying for temporary parking). The benefits of driverless do not come close to out weighing the negatives.
For me, the biggest attraction of a driverless car is that I could go to work, then send it home. Or send it to pick the kids up from school.
I can't believe how many people seem to actually want this! There are countless issues with having driverless cars sharing our roads but, even if we ignore those, I still wouldn't want to send my car back home empty after its dropped me off, or trust it and my kids to have it take them home from school. Allowing it to park in a mall parking lot or something... maybe, but that's a whole lot of lazy with very very little benefit, and it could be solved more efficiently by automating the parking lot itself (ex. use something akin to drive trough car washes).
In places where it'd make the most sense to have it drop you off at work (big cities, where parking is both limited and expensive), it won't work for 99% of the local population anyway.... where does the car park when it gets home? If you've ever tried parking in Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Manhattan, etc, then you know this is not something you want your driverless car doing. Maybe you have enough cash to own/rent your own spot? That's going to cost about as much as taking a car service every day, which is the same sort of drop off type of thing.
You want it to drop you off at work, then go home and take your wife to work? Just have her come with you - no need for the driverless part. Pick up your kids from school? This is what busses are for. What's the advantage here? Busses even come with adult supervision and some minimal assurance of the route and limits of activities that will take place on said trip. Kids not old enough for the buss yet? Then there's no way they're old enough for a driverless car either! Take care of your damned kids.
What happens when the car breaks down with no one in it? (ie. can't pull off the road; whereas normal people would just push it off the road) What happens when it's in an accident? (where's the owners? who is responsible? how to get it off the road? etc) What happens when they're programmed for illegal activities? (drug mule was mentioned elsewhere, for which this is ideally suited) etc... but forget all that... what's the point of having it? The very few things mentioned are not things that will matter to most people, and they'll waste more resources using them in that way.
FWIW, I'll all for computer assisted driving (just like driverless, but requires a licensed driver, and there's some limitations on what it's capable of).
You are clearly imagination challenged. You don't use it to get away. You use it to stash all your stolen stuff in, send it 300 miles away, while you take some other route. Let the cops chase you. You've got no incriminating evidence. you use 10 of them to send explosives to places you aren't going to be. while they're busy responding, you steal whatever. You fill it full of drugs and send it off somewhere. It's the best drug mule ever, BECAUSE it follows all the laws. Why would it ever get pulled over? The FBI is right. The illegal uses are many and varied.
This is one of the first posts that makes sense!
Most of the others on either side of the issue have really really weak arguments and examples. The above drug mule example is excellent!
I don't think there's any need to outlaw all cars with similar tech, but I also don't see any justifiable need for completely driverless cars. Ex. we could allow cars to drive themselves on the highway, but require a human to get the car to the highway. Similar to existing cruise control, it can only kick on once the vehicle is doing over 40mph (or something like that).
They have one that absorbs 99.970% of light (ie. allows 0.030% to pass), and it was created in 2007 (7 years ago). NASA was also working on one at that time using the same VACNT (vertically aligned carbon nano tubes) process, though NASA only reached 99.5% absorption.
There's been others before this as well. I recall my physics teacher back in '94 talking about some really expensive jars of really black stuff, though I can't recall the name of it. It has similar properties as far as the human eye is concerned (it just looked like nothing).
IE: 2003 guiness world record holder is a nickel-phosphorus alloy (reflects 0.35% of visible light). 2008, Rice University + Polytechnic Institute folks made a VACNT that reflected only 0.045% of light.
Allow joggers to skip songs without carrying their smartphones in their hands.
Or they could use voice control. But I doubt holding it in their hands or fishing it out of ones pocket is really all that much worse than trying to fuck around with your watch while jogging. In fact I would bet either of those are easier.
Yeah, still no valid use cases for a smartwatch.
Or just click the "next" button on their headphones. You don't even need fancy bluetooth ones for that. First pair I ran into on an quick amazon search: $20: http://www.google.com/url?q=ht...
Has inline volume slider, and one button. Works like apple headphones. Click button once for play/pause or to answer calls. Click twice to skip to next track Click three times to go back a track
Every set of stereo bluetooth headphones also seem to have these features (and possibly more) as well. If you're using headphones, then you don't need this feature on your watch.
There's a slew of versions of bluetooth wristbands. They all seem to include: * alert when they go out of range of your phone (ie. you leave phone in car or it gets stolen, and it vibrates when you're 5m away) * time/date on display (for any of those with a display... some don't have a display) * caller id displayed (for those with a display) * vibrate on incoming calls * (optionally) vibrate on incoming sms/txt/notifications * basic call handling (answer/hang up)
Personally, I'd feel better about the current "smart watches" if they could stand on their own better. They're a whole lot bulkier than things like the aforementioned bluetooth bracelet, but they don't really bring that many additional features to the table.
My gut tells me that many of the limitations are directly due to the carriers. Ex. watch has apps that proxy to stuff on the phone and vice versa, rather than just going directly to the internet. If they just used the phone for net access (for example), they'd be more useful, but carriers would want to charge for that type of net use (like using a phone's internet access via a laptop... most carriers force you to buy a special plan and pay more for that feature).
But one large dome probably contains 100 times the volume of the individual buildings it encapsulates.
As far as I can tell, it's not one large dome. I looks pretty well thought out. There is one largish dome in the complex, but it's the park part, and who knows if they'll even get to that.
Except with Glass it's easier to do it by casually looking in the direction of the person. I'm fairly certain if someone has their smartphone or camcorder pointed in your direction steadily it's a little more obvious than someone just looking past you who happens to be wearing Glass.
Except with every other inexpensive video only device on market, and especially those designed for the task, it is even easier and more stealthy than Glass. Ex. http://www.newegg.com/Camcorde... Those start around $10. For $45 you can get a pair of sunglasses that look very much like average sunglasses and have a 720p video recorder. http://www.newegg.com/Product/...... and I'm sure all those and more can be found cheaper elsewhere.
This is not a Google Glass hack in any way, shape, or form. It would not surprise me at all if there were more people with "spy" glasses like those above than there are Google Glass owners, and those with "spy" glasses are MUCH more likely to be trying to hide their actions (Glass isn't exactly normal looking).
Your being overly pessimistic. If lawyers are running it, your agreement with them is almost certainly going to include their own escape clauses and a clear contract that you not violate the law. If you are found to be regularly abusing their services (actually breaking the law), then they'll just shitcan you and charge a big fee for doing so.
This sort of business would, IMO, attract many, including the original poster, and many legitimate businesses that may not have in house legal teams competent in this area (that's most businesses). Losing your domain can suck big time for anyone. This would prevent that from happening via trolls, spammers, nefarious uses of the system, mistakes, or just plain phony requests. Any legitimate request could then be easily escalated and handled in a timely manor, since they can just call you if it's legit (filtering out the useless requests).
It *could* be a legal group that helps anyone with sites anywhere, but the added tie to the actual hosting company and services would ensure they don't get jacked with for illegitimate requests.
"Ruin it for everyone else"... I'm sure that was said of every shared hosting thing that's come to light in the past 10 years. Ex. who would put all their servers at risk just to host email for someone else?
SO what you're advocating is for all hosting companies to actually pay for liability insurance and retain a lawyer...
No. Not all hosting companies. I'm saying that I know of none that provide any such service. Insurance and/or your own lawyer isn't the same either - that'll cost a lot more since it's just you paying them, and it'll be hard to find a group that is both competent in that area and not already owned by big content providers.
Ideally, yes. However, I've never seen any actual comments/corrections when people are just asked for them. Maybe that's fine, but I think everyone should be paying attention enough to keep their own notes, rather than relying on the poor schmuck stuck with doing all the notations. Either way is better than the GP's untagged trough of whiteboards pics.
A hosting service is there to run a business, not shield you from the legal process, even if it is being misapplied or abused. Their obligation is to follow the terms of the DMCA and that is all.
Any hosting service that did offer such a protection would need to charge the equivalent of having an attorney on retainer plus enough funds to fight it out, i.e. more than you could afford to pay for such hosting. Even then you wouldn't know if the attorney they hired was any good.
That's actually a pretty good business idea, especially for the thousands of hosting companies that are struggling (or already died) because of the big names taking over the game. Not all of them could do it, but someone could, especially if, within their small ranks of coworkers, partners, and investors, they already know a small legal team that is up for making some extra money. Heck, a law firm could buy up a couple small hosting providers and turn it into just such a thing.
Paper doesn't scale very well. I have a repository for a project that's been going on for a few years and has a few hundred photos of whiteboards. Trying to find one is almost impossible because there's no full-text search for photos of whiteboards.
Then you (or they) are doing it wrong. IMO, any and all meetings should have an agenda, stuff happens (notes/etc), and a follow up summary. That last part is what you appear to be missing. Stick someone in charge of doing the wrap up. (optional) Everyone should send their (brief) notes to that person or group at the end of the meeting. Said person then writes up what was covered, logs the white board pictures and such (obtaining ID's or URL's in the process of doing so), and puts those in their summary doc. FTS (full text search) will find the summary, and you can find the relevant white board pics from there. One could also add a lot more document management stuff (just an example, but knowledgetree can work well), and add comments and tags to each individual whiteboard image. Any text on the whiteboard could be transcribed as well and included in the summary doc and/or the image metadata.
More work? yes. Much more work? no (most of that should already being done, else the meeting was either insubstantial or a huge waste of time... in either of those cases, the summary should be trivial to write: link to previous summary + note of "not much has changed"). Much more useful? yes.
Slashdot Mirror
I have trouble seeing any of the justifications for getting a public CA cert for a name like "Server1" with an internal IP.
You could use your own internal CA, as others have noted. There is overhead to doing so and, being lazy, just buying the public cert may have seemed like an option.
However, one could simply use a real DNS entry, and all would be fine. Ex. server1.int.my-domain.com. Setup the "int.my-domain.com" on dns servers that all your internal hosts can see (they're all internal, so that can't be TOO difficult, and it doesn't hurt if that's visible from external). It's really quite easy to setup DNS, and it's cheaper, and it'll work with the CA just fine, and will work if/when you move the service to a public IP, or if you adopt an internal CA, etc etc etc. Why NOT do this? You can even host your DNS for free somewhere online.
That's crazy talk. maybe in a small shop a tablet PC could be entrusted to such an important role. In the larger environments I don't think that would fly. Risk team would never allow it.
... is that the same risk team that would authorize the purchase of a public cert for "Server1"?
I think the original point was that it takes almost nothing to sign certs. There need not be any significant investment.
Anyone else with a different pattern from the three above (including mine)?
Sun-Thu is when you go out for dinner/drinks/fun because on Fri/Sat all the good places are too packed all types of annoying people.
Fri/Sat is when you relax after your long and taxing week, take in some TV, drop off/pick up your laundry, etc.
However, I also had an RC truck in which the wheels were telescoping cylinders with relatively thick rubber-ish strips attached at both ends.
Perhaps one of these? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"telescoping scopes"? It's scopes all the way down?
I suppose you could use spokes.
Not sure telespoking scopes would do any better.
It's a self-service check-in, it's already a mindless robot.
Though I fail to see how replacing the dumb kiosk with a more intelligent avatar will really make anything better, I don't really want the kiosk to ask me how my day is going, or tell me I better bundle up because it's going to be a cold day in Chicago, I just want to check in as quickly and easily as possible.
This.
Using some supposedly intelligent avatar instead of a clear, simple, and well designed UI ranks right up there with the automated call interfaces that ask you to speak your answers instead of pressing the number buttons on your phone. People complained because pushing numbers sucked; RCA was incorrect; we ended up with a system 10x's as frustrating that takes 3x's longer to operate.
I've found the self-service check-in's to be rather good, but the physical integration of them has left a lot to be desired. IE. there is no line for them.. there's just a bunch of them scattered about. Then you still have to take your bags somewhere, and figuring out where that line is, and how it differs from the line that includes getting your ticket, is often a complete mess. You often have to wade back through all the folks wandering around the kiosks to find the front of the new line. It should be a LOT simpler and organized much better... though I'm sure this is a per-airport, and possibly per-airline, issue, so YMMV.
At which point, anyone in the world could very very easily DOS your car.
Nope. The car should only accept PIN attempts from pre-registered devices. So in order to DOS your car, the DOSer would have to first steal your cell phone.
Which is basically what I described immediately following that. As long as the registration is something that is not trivial to spam (thus my suggestion for a challenge response akin to DH), then that'd do fine.
But what is the protocol on the wire? One doesn't *have* to go through the app. If the protocol only has a pin in it, then it doesn't matter what app requirements they make. The client must be uniquely and securely identifiable before that 3 strikes and your locked out stuff goes into place, and it has to have some level of complexity to register a client. These are solved problems in public cryptography but, from the sounds of their "hack", I doubt the existing protocol has space for these extra features.
Tesla should not have allowed the PIN to be brute forced. The PIN should be stored by the car, not by the app, and it should have a 30 second lock-out after 3 wrong attempts, and then double the lock-out time for each additional wrong attempt. This is Security 101.
At which point, anyone in the world could very very easily DOS your car.
There are ways around that, but the naive and very very common implementation you describe is trivial to DOS. I'd hope that the users key could still get them in and get an override, but the app should use much stronger auth to avoid DOS issues (ex. challenge response with something that requires largish compute time for the client in order to register and calculate a very large shared key - ie. this would be a one time registration per client app; then use the lock out on a per-registered-client basis; thus is would be costly to generate more client ids, and the lock out would make each only worth a few bad tries before forcing re-handshake). PIN would still be used on top of that (adds another factor, and something easily set/changed on the car side).
I just noticed a couple days ago that newegg.com is also accepting bitcoin. Not sure how long they've been doing that, but it made me wonder how many other places where. The list in TFS was a surprise to me.
About half of Apple's employees are retail employees (working in Apple stores). Only about 40,000 work as developers, testers, etc.
This is what I was wondering about the most when I read the summary (not just apple though).
Within Microsoft, I'm guessing there are many different groups, and many are fairly well defined. There's all the runnning-a-business cruft (management, marketing, helpdesk, support, etc), and the various product breakdowns (xbox, office, windows, vs, surface, etc etc etc). Ditto for all those other companies. I'd love to see a headcount of people that actually make stuff per product per company, and the count of those that are getting laid off. I'm actually surprised by how small the headcounts are - I assumed there'd be a ton more overhead (like all the apple people working in retail).
In places where it'd make the most sense to have it drop you off at work (big cities, where parking is both limited and expensive), it won't work for 99% of the local population anyway.... where does the car park when it gets home?
99% of the population doesn't live in Manhattan. LA, Chicago, Atlanta, and many others have people drive in from Long Island (or Jersey), where people do have houses on land with driveways and (often) garages.
I didn't say 99% did live in big cities. I said that, of those in big cities, the majority there could not make use of this.
FWIW, more than 1% of the population of USA lives in LA. Nearly 3% live in NYC.
Using my car like a Taxi would be great.
For who? Do you want random people getting in your car without any supervision and doing who knows what in there? On the flip side, who wants to get in a driverless car and allow the owner to control what happens to them remotely (I'm assuming you would not allow them to choose its course, else they could easily strand it anywhere they like... talk about inconvenience). Besides, real taxi drivers tend to handle queries like, "hey, I need to get to that theater down by atlantic... you know the one?" much better than I'd expect your personal driverless car to do.
And the fuel to get it home is less than the cost of parking.
That's extremely subjective. I'm quite certain that parking is free for employees at the vast majority of employment sites. The times when it costs money, you're often in a large city (as you noted, most people don't live in NYC). Within large cities, if you have a garage, you're likely to be living outside the city. If you're making that commute, then:
a) there's a higher likelyhood of tolls exceeding the cost of gas
b) gas cost will be higher if you're that far away
c) WE'D BE DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF CARS ON THE ROAD!
How is that not a down side? (you stated there were none)
What happens when the car breaks down with no one in it?
Depends on the "break down". Most people would take that to mean the engine lost power. The car would coast onto the shoulder and wait for assistance.
Getting in the way of everyone else, and likely during rush hour. If it had a driver, he would get out, possibly ask for help, and push the car to a safe location. Without a driver, everyone else is up shit creek until the tow truck comes.
What happens when it's in an accident? (where's the owners? who is responsible? how to get it off the road? etc)
The answer to all of those is the same as any other accident where the driver is incapacitated. We managed to solve it for an unconscious driver. But you are too stupid to solve it for a missing (benevolant) driver? We've even solved it for driverless cars now (hit and runs with the car left behind).
Most accidents do not result in an unconscious driver, and hit and runs are a rare percentage of accidents. If a driver is there, even if unconscious, you have immediate access to their ID and, likely, their contacts (via their phone). Driverless car - it's just going to sit there and clog up the road way until the tow truck comes.
what's the point of having it?
To get places faster, safer, and more efficiently, ...
No need for driverless for any of these.
...while freeing up time for other activities.
Like what? Picking your kids up from school? Busses solved that ages ago. We don't need every parent sending their driverless cars around to pick up their kids individually, wasting loads of resources, clogging the roads, making it far easier for kids to be irresponsible (let along easier for the kid to take the wrong car and end up who knows wh
The point of having it is very simply that people screw up eventually. ...
No. That's not the point being discussed. We're talking about driverless cars, not cars that can drive themselves. There is a fine line between them, but it has a very significant side effects.
The cars google has been testing for a long while on the actual highways... they're cars that can drive themselves while on the highway. They do not start out on their own, empty of a passenger, and make the whole trip as a programmed route (though they now have some that can do that).
The newer automation allows the car to do things on its own with no one inside it (zero or more people).
Both have the same potential for positive safety impact while driving. However, driverless has a whole lot of side effects for all the myriad of edge cases where it stops working or does weird stuff or is misused or abused etc.
In both of your examples, a driverless car is not mentioned. Your 1hr drive to work, and your 6hr drive to your family, can both be done with self driving cars that are not driverless. I'm fine with that; I'd encourage that especially for the long highway trips where many fatal and near fatal accidents happen due to drivers getting bored, dozing off, getting distracted, all while cruising along at high speeds. Computers are quite good at handling that type of situation - damn near perfect.
I'm much more concerned with the downsides to driverless cars, like what all the assholes will do with them when they are even slightly inconvenienced (stopping at a store with no good parking spots - just set it to drive around the lot in circles indefinitely until your done; ditto to avoid paying for temporary parking). The benefits of driverless do not come close to out weighing the negatives.
For me, the biggest attraction of a driverless car is that I could go to work, then send it home. Or send it to pick the kids up from school.
I can't believe how many people seem to actually want this!
There are countless issues with having driverless cars sharing our roads but, even if we ignore those, I still wouldn't want to send my car back home empty after its dropped me off, or trust it and my kids to have it take them home from school. Allowing it to park in a mall parking lot or something... maybe, but that's a whole lot of lazy with very very little benefit, and it could be solved more efficiently by automating the parking lot itself (ex. use something akin to drive trough car washes).
In places where it'd make the most sense to have it drop you off at work (big cities, where parking is both limited and expensive), it won't work for 99% of the local population anyway.... where does the car park when it gets home? If you've ever tried parking in Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Manhattan, etc, then you know this is not something you want your driverless car doing. Maybe you have enough cash to own/rent your own spot? That's going to cost about as much as taking a car service every day, which is the same sort of drop off type of thing.
You want it to drop you off at work, then go home and take your wife to work? Just have her come with you - no need for the driverless part.
Pick up your kids from school? This is what busses are for. What's the advantage here? Busses even come with adult supervision and some minimal assurance of the route and limits of activities that will take place on said trip. Kids not old enough for the buss yet? Then there's no way they're old enough for a driverless car either! Take care of your damned kids.
What happens when the car breaks down with no one in it? (ie. can't pull off the road; whereas normal people would just push it off the road)
What happens when it's in an accident? (where's the owners? who is responsible? how to get it off the road? etc)
What happens when they're programmed for illegal activities? (drug mule was mentioned elsewhere, for which this is ideally suited)
etc... but forget all that... what's the point of having it? The very few things mentioned are not things that will matter to most people, and they'll waste more resources using them in that way.
FWIW, I'll all for computer assisted driving (just like driverless, but requires a licensed driver, and there's some limitations on what it's capable of).
You are clearly imagination challenged. You don't use it to get away. You use it to stash all your stolen stuff in, send it 300 miles away, while you take some other route. Let the cops chase you. You've got no incriminating evidence.
you use 10 of them to send explosives to places you aren't going to be. while they're busy responding, you steal whatever.
You fill it full of drugs and send it off somewhere. It's the best drug mule ever, BECAUSE it follows all the laws. Why would it ever get pulled over? The FBI is right. The illegal uses are many and varied.
This is one of the first posts that makes sense!
Most of the others on either side of the issue have really really weak arguments and examples. The above drug mule example is excellent!
I don't think there's any need to outlaw all cars with similar tech, but I also don't see any justifiable need for completely driverless cars. Ex. we could allow cars to drive themselves on the highway, but require a human to get the car to the highway. Similar to existing cruise control, it can only kick on once the vehicle is doing over 40mph (or something like that).
I don't understand how this is news, or the darkest material.
Ex. http://www.popsci.com/technolo...
They have one that absorbs 99.970% of light (ie. allows 0.030% to pass), and it was created in 2007 (7 years ago). NASA was also working on one at that time using the same VACNT (vertically aligned carbon nano tubes) process, though NASA only reached 99.5% absorption.
There's been others before this as well. I recall my physics teacher back in '94 talking about some really expensive jars of really black stuff, though I can't recall the name of it. It has similar properties as far as the human eye is concerned (it just looked like nothing).
Here's some more examples:
http://news.nationalgeographic...
IE:
2003 guiness world record holder is a nickel-phosphorus alloy (reflects 0.35% of visible light).
2008, Rice University + Polytechnic Institute folks made a VACNT that reflected only 0.045% of light.
Wake me up when it can give me an electric jolt each time I think about sex.
It's far cheaper and easier to simulate that with off the shelf hardware:
http://www.amazon.com/outlets-...
Or they could use voice control. But I doubt holding it in their hands or fishing it out of ones pocket is really all that much worse than trying to fuck around with your watch while jogging. In fact I would bet either of those are easier.
Yeah, still no valid use cases for a smartwatch.
Or just click the "next" button on their headphones. You don't even need fancy bluetooth ones for that. First pair I ran into on an quick amazon search:
$20: http://www.google.com/url?q=ht...
Has inline volume slider, and one button. Works like apple headphones.
Click button once for play/pause or to answer calls.
Click twice to skip to next track
Click three times to go back a track
Every set of stereo bluetooth headphones also seem to have these features (and possibly more) as well. If you're using headphones, then you don't need this feature on your watch.
FWIW, much of what you want has been available for years. Ex: http://www.aliexpress.com/item...
There's a slew of versions of bluetooth wristbands. They all seem to include:
* alert when they go out of range of your phone (ie. you leave phone in car or it gets stolen, and it vibrates when you're 5m away)
* time/date on display (for any of those with a display... some don't have a display)
* caller id displayed (for those with a display)
* vibrate on incoming calls
* (optionally) vibrate on incoming sms/txt/notifications
* basic call handling (answer/hang up)
Personally, I'd feel better about the current "smart watches" if they could stand on their own better. They're a whole lot bulkier than things like the aforementioned bluetooth bracelet, but they don't really bring that many additional features to the table.
My gut tells me that many of the limitations are directly due to the carriers. Ex. watch has apps that proxy to stuff on the phone and vice versa, rather than just going directly to the internet. If they just used the phone for net access (for example), they'd be more useful, but carriers would want to charge for that type of net use (like using a phone's internet access via a laptop... most carriers force you to buy a special plan and pay more for that feature).
But one large dome probably contains 100 times the volume of the individual buildings it encapsulates.
As far as I can tell, it's not one large dome. I looks pretty well thought out. There is one largish dome in the complex, but it's the park part, and who knows if they'll even get to that.
Except with Glass it's easier to do it by casually looking in the direction of the person. I'm fairly certain if someone has their smartphone or camcorder pointed in your direction steadily it's a little more obvious than someone just looking past you who happens to be wearing Glass.
Except with every other inexpensive video only device on market, and especially those designed for the task, it is even easier and more stealthy than Glass. ... and I'm sure all those and more can be found cheaper elsewhere.
Ex. http://www.newegg.com/Camcorde...
Those start around $10.
For $45 you can get a pair of sunglasses that look very much like average sunglasses and have a 720p video recorder. http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
This is not a Google Glass hack in any way, shape, or form. It would not surprise me at all if there were more people with "spy" glasses like those above than there are Google Glass owners, and those with "spy" glasses are MUCH more likely to be trying to hide their actions (Glass isn't exactly normal looking).
Your being overly pessimistic. If lawyers are running it, your agreement with them is almost certainly going to include their own escape clauses and a clear contract that you not violate the law. If you are found to be regularly abusing their services (actually breaking the law), then they'll just shitcan you and charge a big fee for doing so.
This sort of business would, IMO, attract many, including the original poster, and many legitimate businesses that may not have in house legal teams competent in this area (that's most businesses). Losing your domain can suck big time for anyone. This would prevent that from happening via trolls, spammers, nefarious uses of the system, mistakes, or just plain phony requests. Any legitimate request could then be easily escalated and handled in a timely manor, since they can just call you if it's legit (filtering out the useless requests).
It *could* be a legal group that helps anyone with sites anywhere, but the added tie to the actual hosting company and services would ensure they don't get jacked with for illegitimate requests.
"Ruin it for everyone else"... I'm sure that was said of every shared hosting thing that's come to light in the past 10 years. Ex. who would put all their servers at risk just to host email for someone else?
SO what you're advocating is for all hosting companies to actually pay for liability insurance and retain a lawyer ...
No. Not all hosting companies. I'm saying that I know of none that provide any such service. Insurance and/or your own lawyer isn't the same either - that'll cost a lot more since it's just you paying them, and it'll be hard to find a group that is both competent in that area and not already owned by big content providers.
Ideally, yes. However, I've never seen any actual comments/corrections when people are just asked for them. Maybe that's fine, but I think everyone should be paying attention enough to keep their own notes, rather than relying on the poor schmuck stuck with doing all the notations. Either way is better than the GP's untagged trough of whiteboards pics.
A hosting service is there to run a business, not shield you from the legal process, even if it is being misapplied or abused. Their obligation is to follow the terms of the DMCA and that is all.
Any hosting service that did offer such a protection would need to charge the equivalent of having an attorney on retainer plus enough funds to fight it out, i.e. more than you could afford to pay for such hosting. Even then you wouldn't know if the attorney they hired was any good.
That's actually a pretty good business idea, especially for the thousands of hosting companies that are struggling (or already died) because of the big names taking over the game. Not all of them could do it, but someone could, especially if, within their small ranks of coworkers, partners, and investors, they already know a small legal team that is up for making some extra money. Heck, a law firm could buy up a couple small hosting providers and turn it into just such a thing.
Paper doesn't scale very well. I have a repository for a project that's been going on for a few years and has a few hundred photos of whiteboards. Trying to find one is almost impossible because there's no full-text search for photos of whiteboards.
Then you (or they) are doing it wrong.
IMO, any and all meetings should have an agenda, stuff happens (notes/etc), and a follow up summary. That last part is what you appear to be missing.
Stick someone in charge of doing the wrap up.
(optional) Everyone should send their (brief) notes to that person or group at the end of the meeting.
Said person then writes up what was covered, logs the white board pictures and such (obtaining ID's or URL's in the process of doing so), and puts those in their summary doc.
FTS (full text search) will find the summary, and you can find the relevant white board pics from there.
One could also add a lot more document management stuff (just an example, but knowledgetree can work well), and add comments and tags to each individual whiteboard image.
Any text on the whiteboard could be transcribed as well and included in the summary doc and/or the image metadata.
More work? yes.
Much more work? no (most of that should already being done, else the meeting was either insubstantial or a huge waste of time... in either of those cases, the summary should be trivial to write: link to previous summary + note of "not much has changed").
Much more useful? yes.