This comment is spot on, and I'd like to echo what I have argued is the most salient point: The needs of aging baby boomers. Boomers are starting to lose the ability to drive, and have the money and the clout to make autonomous vehicles happen. A second market is commuters, like myself. If I could spend the two hours a day I'm stuck in traffic doing something else that would be worth thousands. For those who are getting ready to say, "live closer to your work, duh", that would cost me $15,000 to $20,000 thousand a year. A $20,000 premium on a driverless car, spread out over four years, would be a bargain.
This. SSNs were never intended to be secret, in fact the first SSNs were easily guessable because they used a location ad grouping structure that could be easily guessed if you knew the birth location and date of the individual. Companies have used them, pretty much in defiance of the law, simply out of convenience. If private industry needs a secure identifier, private industry should make one.
Is anyone else a little bothered by the idea that the government needs to "do something" about inaccurate news? As much as the line that "censorship means the government does it, not private corporations" has some kernel of truth, this seems to very quickly lead the way to a system where the government forces the corporations to do the censoring, with the former retaining deniability and the latter squashing more and more "fake" opinions in an attempt to keep up with nebulous demands.
Most of these are reasonable, but you are way off on tobacconists. I can't imagine why you think more locations are going to start selling cigarettes, almost all gas stations/convenience stores/general retailers already do, and have for some time. What is starting to happen is stores that used to sell them are getting out of the business, Target was the first major retailer some time back, but more recently CVS stopped selling tobacco products. Others likely aren't far behind. If anything, in the future smokers will have to go to a tobacconist because there won't be other options.
So from what I can gather, they seem to be talking about something that behaves like a flexible protein that they can control from outside the solution. I would be curious to see how "general use" their devices are, I would assume they'd be relatively specific to the reaction.
The problem is not just that we don't have a society-wide system that allows for this, we don't even have a small scale system that works under these principles that we can model society after. Off the top of my head, the only "work-optional" systems I can think of are college undergrads and hereditary aristocracy, neither of which shows much promise as a good model for our social system moving forward.
Perhaps as a professor, you are also aware of radiation, which is also deadly to healthy tissues and cells. The trick in both this treatment and radiation is to control the application and only target the tumor.
How on earth did you fuck up the math that badly? The number you are looking for is 58 million, not 58 billion. C'mon man, simple logic should tell you you're wrong. Comcast is in the business of laying cables, correct? So their assets, in part, would be those buried cables. By your estimate, Comcast would own less than 2000 miles of buried cable, total. But somehow you got through that entire second half of the post without noticing your numbers were insane.
I'm way to late and nobody's going to see this, but the real point of video vs text is that it's harder to copy video without acknowledging the original source. This is why the news networks love it. CNN can write a story, I can scrape it with a bot and put it on my website, with my ads and no credit to them-no problem. I can also take CNN's video and host it, but when I do it obviously came from CNN. Even if I use it to push my ads, the viewer knows it's not my content, and will be more likely to look straight to the source next time. This logic applies even moreso to people who do instructional material, why put a bunch of effort into a text that will be shamelessly copied and used on some scammy website? With a video the content is inherently connected with name recognition and is easily traced back to the creator.
I hate it because I would rather read, but I understand why it's happening.
I'm sure there will be loads of posts here denouncing the NSA for this, because it is in fact creepy and invasive. However, this kind of thing is *exactly* what they should be doing. "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a figure who created a economy-changing product, and as a result holds assets that value in the billions. Their motivations, ideology, and state ties were unknown, though they maintained they were not an American. It's completely reasonable for government to find out who this person is, and determine if they were and ally, an enemy, or neither. Now that they know they can act accordingly.
I feel android has made this worse recently, with the move to broad "categories" of permissions. Originally it seemed pretty easy to determine when an app was asking for something it didn't need, now it seems every permission has at least one area that could lead to something malicious, and the user is left wondering what the app is actually going to do.
Plot twist: FaceBook can't tell her, because they don't know. They've long ago given control of this functionality to machine learning algorithms and primitive AI and they have no idea what it's doing either.
I can see this being really useful in intermodal transport, where queuing up is a huge chuck of time and haul distances are usually short and in crowded conditions. The difficulty would be that from what I've seen the profit margins are low and the bulk is done by very small private companies, so finding capital to buy in might be an issue.
More easily, I can see large package delivery companies eating this up. Capital wouldn't be a problem, and they have the analytics to ensure they are implementing EV trucks where it will give them the most savings.
As an aside, it's nice to see a long and informative Rei post, it reminds me of the old days.
If you want to have utility protections and perks you don't get to make decisions like that. I used to work in water. Every neighborhood got water, whether they were rich and spent 5k a season filling their pools and watering their lawns, or if they were poor and were constantly having shutoffs done. If they are in the service area, you serve them, full stop. Same water, same infrastructure.
The Agency figured if it could convince those at corruption hotspots, such as customs agents and border guards, to use e-payment methods, then it might curb the amount of cash those agents pocketed every day.
So you're saying this foolproof plan didn't work? Huh.
This is the first thing I thought. Truthfully, the next wave of "put it in your microwave" pranks will probably use this article, long before the actual technology hits the market. iPhone cracked? Microwave it for 4 minutes at 50% power to heal the screen."
Are we going to get an article about how the ACLU is "sticking by Nazis" as well? Just because a company or group doesn't immediately go out of their way to embargo or shut down a group doesn't mean they're in cahoots with them. There is a difference between supporting a group and providing services to that group as part of a general policy of service for all as a matter of principle.
No, that's mostly all wrong. I'll try to fill you in.
Last week, there were protests in Charlottesville, VA that had been organized by a member of the self-described "alt-right". These protests were loosely associated with a planned removal of a confederate statue from a local park, though it would be fair to say that their overall message was broader than that. A majority of the named groups involved were associated with white supremacist or white nationalist views. Also taking part in these protests were a number of people identifying a Nazis and displaying Nazi symbols. The Nazis, in case you don't recall, were a political party that ran Germany during World War II, were avowed enemies of the United States, and were formally abolished in 1945 after the defeat of Germany in that war. It is doubtful that any of the protesters had any actual connection to the Nazi party, and their motivations for associating themselves with a defunct organization that had been until its destruction a grave enemy of the United States are unclear.
The rally was scheduled to begin at noon on the 12th, at the same time counter-protest activities were also scheduled to occur in another location. However, at the rally site violence began to erupt, and with the deteriorating situation the Virginia state police cleared the area where the rally was to take place, and some of the rally participants moved to another location to continue the rally. This is the part you seem to have some awareness of.
The important part, that you seem to be missing, is that later in the day an individual who had taken part in the original rally drove a car into a crowd of counterprotesters, mimicking attacks that have been carried out earlier this year by Islamic terrorists in Europe. There are numerous videos of this incident, which in all aspects seem to show malicious intent. One person was killed, and a number wounded. The driver was taken into custody, and has since been documented as having a long history of idolization of the Nazi party. It is relatively obvious, barring extraordinary evidence to the contrary, that this was an act of politically motivated terrorism.
Which brings us to President Trump. In previous incidents, much scrutiny has been brought to bear on the way presidents address terrorist attacks. President Obama was pilloried for failing to refer to terror attacks by Islamic militants as "radical Islamic terrorism", as many quite rightly saw this as an attempt to disconnect Islam from the incidents and avoid offending Muslim supporters and allies. President Trump took a similar position, refusing to name the ideology associated with the terrorist perpetrator, and many have wondered if he might be in a similar fashion hoping to not offend allies, and thus raising the question of who these allies are. Also in doing so he made an equivalence between the violent but mutual fights of earlier in the day, and the asymmetric, unprovoked attack with the vehicle.
So there you have it. People are upset at Trump because in the face of an obvious, terrorist attack by a person sympathetic to the enemies of America, he chose to give a mealy-mouthed response that avoided assigning any blame or reaffirming any of the shared cultural values of the United States, a response that flies in the face of his reputation as a person who is not afraid to tell it like it is.
The number of emergencies that are expected to occur should be calculated from available data, and then given as a rate (x lives per year), so time frame is unimportant. If this feature is present on android, then looking at the number of lives it saves on that platform and adjusting for the user base should give us a very close estimate. In any case, the number would not exceed the number of deaths from delayed emergency response, which should be available. Calling the number "countless" is sheer hyperbole, mixed with either laziness or deceit.
This is I think is the most important point: In the pre-GPS era, you consulted maps long before you left. You didn't drive to Carolina, then get a map of Carolina. I remember my parents would spend a good hour or two with an atlas prior to long trips planning out exactly how they would get there, familiarizing themselves with the route, and making the necessary notes for the trip.
Slashdot Mirror
This comment is spot on, and I'd like to echo what I have argued is the most salient point: The needs of aging baby boomers. Boomers are starting to lose the ability to drive, and have the money and the clout to make autonomous vehicles happen. A second market is commuters, like myself. If I could spend the two hours a day I'm stuck in traffic doing something else that would be worth thousands. For those who are getting ready to say, "live closer to your work, duh", that would cost me $15,000 to $20,000 thousand a year. A $20,000 premium on a driverless car, spread out over four years, would be a bargain.
This. SSNs were never intended to be secret, in fact the first SSNs were easily guessable because they used a location ad grouping structure that could be easily guessed if you knew the birth location and date of the individual. Companies have used them, pretty much in defiance of the law, simply out of convenience. If private industry needs a secure identifier, private industry should make one.
Is anyone else a little bothered by the idea that the government needs to "do something" about inaccurate news? As much as the line that "censorship means the government does it, not private corporations" has some kernel of truth, this seems to very quickly lead the way to a system where the government forces the corporations to do the censoring, with the former retaining deniability and the latter squashing more and more "fake" opinions in an attempt to keep up with nebulous demands.
Most of these are reasonable, but you are way off on tobacconists. I can't imagine why you think more locations are going to start selling cigarettes, almost all gas stations/convenience stores/general retailers already do, and have for some time. What is starting to happen is stores that used to sell them are getting out of the business, Target was the first major retailer some time back, but more recently CVS stopped selling tobacco products. Others likely aren't far behind. If anything, in the future smokers will have to go to a tobacconist because there won't be other options.
So from what I can gather, they seem to be talking about something that behaves like a flexible protein that they can control from outside the solution. I would be curious to see how "general use" their devices are, I would assume they'd be relatively specific to the reaction.
Well, now there are.
The problem is not just that we don't have a society-wide system that allows for this, we don't even have a small scale system that works under these principles that we can model society after. Off the top of my head, the only "work-optional" systems I can think of are college undergrads and hereditary aristocracy, neither of which shows much promise as a good model for our social system moving forward.
Perhaps as a professor, you are also aware of radiation, which is also deadly to healthy tissues and cells. The trick in both this treatment and radiation is to control the application and only target the tumor.
Leave it to a copy editor to be searching through the long tail of the comments. Thanks though.
This is honestly next-level supervillain shit. I'm impressed.
How on earth did you fuck up the math that badly? The number you are looking for is 58 million, not 58 billion. C'mon man, simple logic should tell you you're wrong. Comcast is in the business of laying cables, correct? So their assets, in part, would be those buried cables. By your estimate, Comcast would own less than 2000 miles of buried cable, total. But somehow you got through that entire second half of the post without noticing your numbers were insane.
I'm way to late and nobody's going to see this, but the real point of video vs text is that it's harder to copy video without acknowledging the original source. This is why the news networks love it. CNN can write a story, I can scrape it with a bot and put it on my website, with my ads and no credit to them-no problem. I can also take CNN's video and host it, but when I do it obviously came from CNN. Even if I use it to push my ads, the viewer knows it's not my content, and will be more likely to look straight to the source next time. This logic applies even moreso to people who do instructional material, why put a bunch of effort into a text that will be shamelessly copied and used on some scammy website? With a video the content is inherently connected with name recognition and is easily traced back to the creator.
I hate it because I would rather read, but I understand why it's happening.
I'm sure there will be loads of posts here denouncing the NSA for this, because it is in fact creepy and invasive. However, this kind of thing is *exactly* what they should be doing. "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a figure who created a economy-changing product, and as a result holds assets that value in the billions. Their motivations, ideology, and state ties were unknown, though they maintained they were not an American. It's completely reasonable for government to find out who this person is, and determine if they were and ally, an enemy, or neither. Now that they know they can act accordingly.
I feel android has made this worse recently, with the move to broad "categories" of permissions. Originally it seemed pretty easy to determine when an app was asking for something it didn't need, now it seems every permission has at least one area that could lead to something malicious, and the user is left wondering what the app is actually going to do.
Plot twist: FaceBook can't tell her, because they don't know. They've long ago given control of this functionality to machine learning algorithms and primitive AI and they have no idea what it's doing either.
I can see this being really useful in intermodal transport, where queuing up is a huge chuck of time and haul distances are usually short and in crowded conditions. The difficulty would be that from what I've seen the profit margins are low and the bulk is done by very small private companies, so finding capital to buy in might be an issue.
More easily, I can see large package delivery companies eating this up. Capital wouldn't be a problem, and they have the analytics to ensure they are implementing EV trucks where it will give them the most savings.
As an aside, it's nice to see a long and informative Rei post, it reminds me of the old days.
Ozymandias is that you?
If you want to have utility protections and perks you don't get to make decisions like that. I used to work in water. Every neighborhood got water, whether they were rich and spent 5k a season filling their pools and watering their lawns, or if they were poor and were constantly having shutoffs done. If they are in the service area, you serve them, full stop. Same water, same infrastructure.
The Agency figured if it could convince those at corruption hotspots, such as customs agents and border guards, to use e-payment methods, then it might curb the amount of cash those agents pocketed every day.
So you're saying this foolproof plan didn't work? Huh.
This is the first thing I thought. Truthfully, the next wave of "put it in your microwave" pranks will probably use this article, long before the actual technology hits the market. iPhone cracked? Microwave it for 4 minutes at 50% power to heal the screen."
Are we going to get an article about how the ACLU is "sticking by Nazis" as well? Just because a company or group doesn't immediately go out of their way to embargo or shut down a group doesn't mean they're in cahoots with them. There is a difference between supporting a group and providing services to that group as part of a general policy of service for all as a matter of principle.
Last week, there were protests in Charlottesville, VA that had been organized by a member of the self-described "alt-right". These protests were loosely associated with a planned removal of a confederate statue from a local park, though it would be fair to say that their overall message was broader than that. A majority of the named groups involved were associated with white supremacist or white nationalist views. Also taking part in these protests were a number of people identifying a Nazis and displaying Nazi symbols. The Nazis, in case you don't recall, were a political party that ran Germany during World War II, were avowed enemies of the United States, and were formally abolished in 1945 after the defeat of Germany in that war. It is doubtful that any of the protesters had any actual connection to the Nazi party, and their motivations for associating themselves with a defunct organization that had been until its destruction a grave enemy of the United States are unclear.
The rally was scheduled to begin at noon on the 12th, at the same time counter-protest activities were also scheduled to occur in another location. However, at the rally site violence began to erupt, and with the deteriorating situation the Virginia state police cleared the area where the rally was to take place, and some of the rally participants moved to another location to continue the rally. This is the part you seem to have some awareness of.
The important part, that you seem to be missing, is that later in the day an individual who had taken part in the original rally drove a car into a crowd of counterprotesters, mimicking attacks that have been carried out earlier this year by Islamic terrorists in Europe. There are numerous videos of this incident, which in all aspects seem to show malicious intent. One person was killed, and a number wounded. The driver was taken into custody, and has since been documented as having a long history of idolization of the Nazi party. It is relatively obvious, barring extraordinary evidence to the contrary, that this was an act of politically motivated terrorism.
Which brings us to President Trump. In previous incidents, much scrutiny has been brought to bear on the way presidents address terrorist attacks. President Obama was pilloried for failing to refer to terror attacks by Islamic militants as "radical Islamic terrorism", as many quite rightly saw this as an attempt to disconnect Islam from the incidents and avoid offending Muslim supporters and allies. President Trump took a similar position, refusing to name the ideology associated with the terrorist perpetrator, and many have wondered if he might be in a similar fashion hoping to not offend allies, and thus raising the question of who these allies are. Also in doing so he made an equivalence between the violent but mutual fights of earlier in the day, and the asymmetric, unprovoked attack with the vehicle.
So there you have it. People are upset at Trump because in the face of an obvious, terrorist attack by a person sympathetic to the enemies of America, he chose to give a mealy-mouthed response that avoided assigning any blame or reaffirming any of the shared cultural values of the United States, a response that flies in the face of his reputation as a person who is not afraid to tell it like it is.
It actually sounds more like the kind of thing you would set up to prevent eavesdropping, maybe just badly designed or calibrated.
The number of emergencies that are expected to occur should be calculated from available data, and then given as a rate (x lives per year), so time frame is unimportant. If this feature is present on android, then looking at the number of lives it saves on that platform and adjusting for the user base should give us a very close estimate. In any case, the number would not exceed the number of deaths from delayed emergency response, which should be available. Calling the number "countless" is sheer hyperbole, mixed with either laziness or deceit.
This is I think is the most important point: In the pre-GPS era, you consulted maps long before you left. You didn't drive to Carolina, then get a map of Carolina. I remember my parents would spend a good hour or two with an atlas prior to long trips planning out exactly how they would get there, familiarizing themselves with the route, and making the necessary notes for the trip.