You're right about the stats, but his original premise is sound.
Some of the most dangerous drivers are the ones who consider themselves really good drivers -- what they fail to notice is the chaos they leave in their wake. These drivers rarely get into accidents; the accidents all happen to the people attempting to avoid them or avoid a situation created by their reckless "safe" driving.
You know the people I mean -- the ones that know that roads are limited a good 10mph lower than they're engineered at, to protect the lowest common denominator. The ones who ride the bumper of the person in front of them when they're in a hurry. The ones who token signal (if they bother signalling at all) after they're already changing lanes. The ones who cut the line to their running lights to save fuel, and don't turn their headlights on until it gets hard to see.
While you're right about people not standing for it, a car that has two-way communications hooked up to an autonomous driving system is a car that is capable of the things he says. Will it be used in this way? Highly unlikely in the near term, as there'd be a massive backlash. However, nobody'd stand for constant tracking via cell station data or internet metadata either -- and yet they are. Because that's not the primary use of the technology, it's not visible, and it doesn't impact most people in a day-to-day manner. I can just see an autonomous vehicle, which is stolen and used as a getaway vehicle in a violent robbery drive itself to the nearest precinct and have only a vocal minority say anything untoward about it. It wouldn't be used in more intrusive ways until there's no _viable_ option but to drive such a car. At which point, people will complain, but they'll go along with it.
Until your car reports to the police that you are sleeping, distracted, or inebriated while inside the vehicle. Your car then nicely pulls over and won't let you out until the police arrive. Even better (and more likely) as you head to that rally supporting the first amendment, your car simply refuses to go and takes you to the local strip club.
Well, that's what I thought I read on first glance anyway...
Not that that has a lot to do with your post, but for me the idea that cars will be connected to any kind of network and have any kind of remote capability is a deal breaker for me. I realize that I'm likely to lose this particular issue, but that's my worry. We need less central planning, not more. Given me a fully autonomous self driving car and I'll be happy. But if it in any way is "on the grid", then I'll stick with my dumb-car.
If your "dumb-car" as satnav, it's already on the grid. Personally, I'm hoping for some sort of mesh communication, where cars can communicate with other cars within a certain distance. Only semi-anonymous data would be transferred, but this could improve safety and traffic flow a lot. Sure, stationary devices could "listen in" on the cars' conversations, but that's no different than the stuff that already happens -- just using a different technology.
In fact, I wouldn't call it only 29%, but rather already 29%.
The reason is that the discussion about driverless cars is so new/recent that I wouldn't even have expected that many people saying that they would consider buying a driverless car.
I also noticed that the summary at least conflates driverless cars with stats on driver-assist technologies. I'm pretty sure the group of people who wouldn't use a driverless car doesn't perfectly overlap the group of people who don't like "computer override" devices that prevent a human driver from doing stupid things (the kind of stuff Bosch sells).
Personally, I'm fine with some level of automation (automatic transmission, ABS, proximity warning lights, engine lock, etc.) and I'm looking forward to autonomous cars -- but I don't want a car ignoring my trying to avoid a child on the road by sideswiping the car beside me. There are all sorts of situations humans can drive themselves into that an autonomous system would not prioritize correctly -- and the person would be held responsible. Autonomous cars, on the other hand, wouldn't let themselves get into most of these situations in the first place.
arguing over minor semantics. Yes, they may not add a "Category 6" but that doesn't mean that storms might not be powerful enough that such a classification might be useful the layman in describing something that something is 'off the chart.' Similarly, Tesla's Model S outperformed NHTSA's tests, and is getting special treatment whether they wish to acknowledge it or not.
Writing analysis says this was typed by the same person who typed
Yes, there can be bigger hurricanes and they should have a higher Cat 6 level. More water vapor and more CO2 can influence these storms by how much thermal energy and pressure differences there are in the atmosphere.
Tesla's Model S is just hot. Why would you want to crash it?
The 4 digit pin isnt to keep some hacker from accessing your phone. its to keep a casual acquaintance/friend/coworker/family member from easily getting access to your phone which has private content on it. Even them most vanilla person in the world has personal info. The wilder ones have self-porn. I dont use a password but I also never leave my phone unattended. Also dont have nudity on my phone...
Do you have passwords for other accounts on your phone? Contact info? Addresses, calendar invites? Call logs?
When I saw the link, I thought it meant "road skill", but the page makes it clear that they mean "roads kill". Which is, frankly, nonsense. Roads are completely harmless. Now if they had written "cars kill" then they would at least have an argument (although not a sound one, IMHO, because it is bad driving or other stupid behaviour on the road that kills). But I'm pretty sure that the number of people killed by roads is negligible.
Indeed -- I bet there have been more people killed by a sudden lack of road than there have been killed by roads.
The map does tell you what the best method of transportation is in various parts of the world though.
I'd say he's already got himself an award winning documentary lined up. Not sure what Hollywood itself would do with the whole story. There seems like there are mixed themes here, and Hollywood likes keeping their messages simple and hitting you over the head with them.
I suggest you go to a rape counseling center, and ask the women there is they care that the man who raped them may face the possibility of being raped in prison.
Go ask an adult survivor of child abuse if they feel upset that their uncle/father/priest/etc may be subjected to rape in prison.
Keep a running tally of which one are as horrified as you are, and which one feel it is the least that should happen to them. Report back here when you are done.
Done that; there are some people who have been so traumatized that even the subject of rape to anyone causes them to wall themselves off. There are others who consider their attackers so inhuman for doing the things they did that they take vindictive pleasure in the concept of their attacker being subjected to what they dished out. There are others who have healed more, who just want it all to stop, and share the same sadness (not horror) that this is perpetuated in prison.
You see, most of those rapists in prison, if you dig into their past, were sexually abused themselves. Being sexually abused seems to snap something in the brain that allows you to easily see people as "not human". Recovering from that is extremely difficult, and some people turn to a life of crime/abuse as their coping mechanism.
So my original point stands: it says something about the perspective US citizens (or at least some vocal minorities as I said) have on human dignity. Dehumanization never ends well; forgiveness is MUCH tougher (and some things may never be fully forgiven, especially if the person never really showed any regret or sorrow about what they did), but it's the best way to break the chain.
and he/she's going to have problems getting a job with a Dishonorable Discharge. ..
with millions of supporters, this seems highly unlikely.
Actually, it seems to me that the gender change request lines him/her up for a possible book once (s)he's out. There's probably movie rights to be sold too.
How sad is it that prison rape and rape in general is such a joke in the US that one of the first comments on any forum when somebody talks about prisoner well-being is that they not drop the soap, because HA-HA some maleficent goon might RAPE them?
Tells us a lot about how the US prison system thinks of human dignity.
Tells us a lot more about how US citizens think of prisoner dignity. It's always seemed to me that to the vocal minority at least, and possibly the vast majority of Americans, people stop being human when they're locked up in Jail. Innocent until proven guilty, but once proven guilty (of anything), suddenly all human rights and freedoms go out the door, because nobody "normal" could be guilty of anything....
I recommend that anyone making prison rape jokes go visit a few prisons and talk to people... inmates AND staff. Visit a few different places; low, medium, and high if they'll let you in.
That wasn't the only part of the summary that was wrong; about the only part that was correct was the part that stated that they were able to perform an XOR in graphene with 3 FETs due to negative differential resistance.
And who gave him those documents? I find it extremely hard to believe that a mere private would be granted access to that many of those kinds of sensitive documents as a matter of course. Someone else provided him with them, a superior officer probably, and THAT is the person who should be in prison.
Did you just start following this case? He worked in Information Systems; the only thing preventing him from accessing the documents was protocol. Since the case went public, they've added technical safeguards.
That said, I think whoever was responsible for implementing safeguards on the data during the restructuring that pooled all this data in the first place should have to answer for their inept actions as well. Their lack of oversight is what enabled Manning to get his hands on all the data in the first place. And it's not like it wasn't foreseeable or preventable.
I still have a high value network of around 200 people.
I DO wish that LinkedIn would let you indicate WHEN you knew your contacts though... when you needed to link the connection to the employment position you held at the time, that was sort-of there, but after the "group links" took hold, this became impossible to mine for your own contacts, let alone others' contacts. My 200 list still has people on it that I haven't talked to in 5-10 years.
Not to mention the comments section had the standard trolls and offtopic comments, which weren't deriding anything. Of course, it could be argued that these are bots, not people....
Oh, and I actually added some non-derisive comments; but really -- anyone cryogenically stored isn't likely to be resuscitated in the way they expect. They may be a great archaeological study some day, assuming the freezers don't break down first (unlikely).
I just had another thought: what happens to your estate when you become a popsicle? I presume that since you died, it passes on via your executor. This means that when you come back, you are a legal non-entity, and basically belong to the Cryonics Institute... I sense a SciFi movie plot developing here.... and zombies.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right about the stats, but his original premise is sound.
Some of the most dangerous drivers are the ones who consider themselves really good drivers -- what they fail to notice is the chaos they leave in their wake. These drivers rarely get into accidents; the accidents all happen to the people attempting to avoid them or avoid a situation created by their reckless "safe" driving.
You know the people I mean -- the ones that know that roads are limited a good 10mph lower than they're engineered at, to protect the lowest common denominator. The ones who ride the bumper of the person in front of them when they're in a hurry. The ones who token signal (if they bother signalling at all) after they're already changing lanes. The ones who cut the line to their running lights to save fuel, and don't turn their headlights on until it gets hard to see.
While you're right about people not standing for it, a car that has two-way communications hooked up to an autonomous driving system is a car that is capable of the things he says. Will it be used in this way? Highly unlikely in the near term, as there'd be a massive backlash. However, nobody'd stand for constant tracking via cell station data or internet metadata either -- and yet they are. Because that's not the primary use of the technology, it's not visible, and it doesn't impact most people in a day-to-day manner. I can just see an autonomous vehicle, which is stolen and used as a getaway vehicle in a violent robbery drive itself to the nearest precinct and have only a vocal minority say anything untoward about it. It wouldn't be used in more intrusive ways until there's no _viable_ option but to drive such a car. At which point, people will complain, but they'll go along with it.
Until your car reports to the police that you are sleeping, distracted, or inebriated while inside the vehicle. Your car then nicely pulls over and won't let you out until the police arrive. Even better (and more likely) as you head to that rally supporting the first amendment, your car simply refuses to go and takes you to the local strip club.
Well, that's what I thought I read on first glance anyway...
Three letters: NSA
Not that that has a lot to do with your post, but for me the idea that cars will be connected to any kind of network and have any kind of remote capability is a deal breaker for me. I realize that I'm likely to lose this particular issue, but that's my worry. We need less central planning, not more. Given me a fully autonomous self driving car and I'll be happy. But if it in any way is "on the grid", then I'll stick with my dumb-car.
If your "dumb-car" as satnav, it's already on the grid. Personally, I'm hoping for some sort of mesh communication, where cars can communicate with other cars within a certain distance. Only semi-anonymous data would be transferred, but this could improve safety and traffic flow a lot. Sure, stationary devices could "listen in" on the cars' conversations, but that's no different than the stuff that already happens -- just using a different technology.
Yeah; I can just imagine the hacks people will pull off with automated control systems. I just hope that autonomous vehicles will drive better than this:
http://www.gpsbites.com/top-10-list-of-worst-gps-disasters-and-sat-nav-mistakes
In fact, I wouldn't call it only 29%, but rather already 29%.
The reason is that the discussion about driverless cars is so new/recent that I wouldn't even have expected that many people saying that they would consider buying a driverless car.
I also noticed that the summary at least conflates driverless cars with stats on driver-assist technologies. I'm pretty sure the group of people who wouldn't use a driverless car doesn't perfectly overlap the group of people who don't like "computer override" devices that prevent a human driver from doing stupid things (the kind of stuff Bosch sells).
Personally, I'm fine with some level of automation (automatic transmission, ABS, proximity warning lights, engine lock, etc.) and I'm looking forward to autonomous cars -- but I don't want a car ignoring my trying to avoid a child on the road by sideswiping the car beside me. There are all sorts of situations humans can drive themselves into that an autonomous system would not prioritize correctly -- and the person would be held responsible. Autonomous cars, on the other hand, wouldn't let themselves get into most of these situations in the first place.
arguing over minor semantics. Yes, they may not add a "Category 6" but that doesn't mean that storms might not be powerful enough that such a classification might be useful the layman in describing something that something is 'off the chart.' Similarly, Tesla's Model S outperformed NHTSA's tests, and is getting special treatment whether they wish to acknowledge it or not.
Writing analysis says this was typed by the same person who typed
Yes, there can be bigger hurricanes and they should have a higher Cat 6 level. More water vapor and more CO2 can influence these storms by how much thermal energy and pressure differences there are in the atmosphere.
Tesla's Model S is just hot. Why would you want to crash it?
Nice trolling submission.
My category scale goes to 11
64 should be a high enough category for any hurricane.
The 4 digit pin isnt to keep some hacker from accessing your phone. its to keep a casual acquaintance/friend/coworker/family member from easily getting access to your phone which has private content on it. Even them most vanilla person in the world has personal info. The wilder ones have self-porn. I dont use a password but I also never leave my phone unattended. Also dont have nudity on my phone...
Do you have passwords for other accounts on your phone? Contact info? Addresses, calendar invites? Call logs?
Something you have, something you are, something you know.
Seems like this involves 2 "something you have"s. Added alongside facial recognition, and it'd be fairly secure. But by itself....
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
That's useless. Fifty years ago the got us to the Moon, and look where they are now!
To the Moon, Alice!
When I saw the link, I thought it meant "road skill", but the page makes it clear that they mean "roads kill". Which is, frankly, nonsense. Roads are completely harmless. Now if they had written "cars kill" then they would at least have an argument (although not a sound one, IMHO, because it is bad driving or other stupid behaviour on the road that kills). But I'm pretty sure that the number of people killed by roads is negligible.
Indeed -- I bet there have been more people killed by a sudden lack of road than there have been killed by roads.
The map does tell you what the best method of transportation is in various parts of the world though.
I'd say he's already got himself an award winning documentary lined up. Not sure what Hollywood itself would do with the whole story. There seems like there are mixed themes here, and Hollywood likes keeping their messages simple and hitting you over the head with them.
Maybe more A&E than Hollywood?
I suggest you go to a rape counseling center, and ask the women there is they care that the man who raped them may face the possibility of being raped in prison.
Go ask an adult survivor of child abuse if they feel upset that their uncle/father/priest/etc may be subjected to rape in prison.
Keep a running tally of which one are as horrified as you are, and which one feel it is the least that should happen to them. Report back here when you are done.
Done that; there are some people who have been so traumatized that even the subject of rape to anyone causes them to wall themselves off. There are others who consider their attackers so inhuman for doing the things they did that they take vindictive pleasure in the concept of their attacker being subjected to what they dished out. There are others who have healed more, who just want it all to stop, and share the same sadness (not horror) that this is perpetuated in prison.
You see, most of those rapists in prison, if you dig into their past, were sexually abused themselves. Being sexually abused seems to snap something in the brain that allows you to easily see people as "not human". Recovering from that is extremely difficult, and some people turn to a life of crime/abuse as their coping mechanism.
So my original point stands: it says something about the perspective US citizens (or at least some vocal minorities as I said) have on human dignity. Dehumanization never ends well; forgiveness is MUCH tougher (and some things may never be fully forgiven, especially if the person never really showed any regret or sorrow about what they did), but it's the best way to break the chain.
Because /. has been going down the tubes for years.
And these days, it appears to be coming back up the tubes too....
and he/she's going to have problems getting a job with a Dishonorable Discharge. . .
with millions of supporters, this seems highly unlikely.
Actually, it seems to me that the gender change request lines him/her up for a possible book once (s)he's out. There's probably movie rights to be sold too.
How sad is it that prison rape and rape in general is such a joke in the US that one of the first comments on any forum when somebody talks about prisoner well-being is that they not drop the soap, because HA-HA some maleficent goon might RAPE them?
Tells us a lot about how the US prison system thinks of human dignity.
Tells us a lot more about how US citizens think of prisoner dignity. It's always seemed to me that to the vocal minority at least, and possibly the vast majority of Americans, people stop being human when they're locked up in Jail. Innocent until proven guilty, but once proven guilty (of anything), suddenly all human rights and freedoms go out the door, because nobody "normal" could be guilty of anything....
I recommend that anyone making prison rape jokes go visit a few prisons and talk to people... inmates AND staff. Visit a few different places; low, medium, and high if they'll let you in.
What a terrible acronym! How are we supposed to say FCXX anyway?
So, I came up with a better one for them:
Federal User Credential Keyfob (for Your Online Utopia)
In Capitalist America, government FCXX you?
That wasn't the only part of the summary that was wrong; about the only part that was correct was the part that stated that they were able to perform an XOR in graphene with 3 FETs due to negative differential resistance.
I thought it was: "the only way to win is to have Yoda as your mentor...."
Win or win not. There is no try.
And who gave him those documents? I find it extremely hard to believe that a mere private would be granted access to that many of those kinds of sensitive documents as a matter of course. Someone else provided him with them, a superior officer probably, and THAT is the person who should be in prison.
Did you just start following this case? He worked in Information Systems; the only thing preventing him from accessing the documents was protocol. Since the case went public, they've added technical safeguards.
That said, I think whoever was responsible for implementing safeguards on the data during the restructuring that pooled all this data in the first place should have to answer for their inept actions as well. Their lack of oversight is what enabled Manning to get his hands on all the data in the first place. And it's not like it wasn't foreseeable or preventable.
I still have a high value network of around 200 people.
I DO wish that LinkedIn would let you indicate WHEN you knew your contacts though... when you needed to link the connection to the employment position you held at the time, that was sort-of there, but after the "group links" took hold, this became impossible to mine for your own contacts, let alone others' contacts. My 200 list still has people on it that I haven't talked to in 5-10 years.
I always thought some of the slashdot editors needed to be instituranalized....
Not to mention the comments section had the standard trolls and offtopic comments, which weren't deriding anything. Of course, it could be argued that these are bots, not people....
Oh, and I actually added some non-derisive comments; but really -- anyone cryogenically stored isn't likely to be resuscitated in the way they expect. They may be a great archaeological study some day, assuming the freezers don't break down first (unlikely).
I just had another thought: what happens to your estate when you become a popsicle? I presume that since you died, it passes on via your executor. This means that when you come back, you are a legal non-entity, and basically belong to the Cryonics Institute... I sense a SciFi movie plot developing here.... and zombies.
whoosh ;)