NYC should just ask Google to track children in real-time and let drivers know when one is nearby. And especially flag the ones who aren't being watched by an adult; they're way more likely to play in traffic.
A lot of them I don't fully understand, but I'm certain he's not making bombs
There's a lot of steps in making explosives which don't look pretty innocuous if you don't know what you're looking for.
For example, when I was a teen we used to make black powder in large batches. In Canada, a teen couldn't just go into a store and buy it, and even getting hold of large quantities of potassium nitrate was challenging. So we did chemistry using readily available things like fertilizer and drain cleaner.
The end result was large quantities of a controlled substance, but the process looked fairly tame.
They must defend their trademark, and unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way that the courts will recognize it. If they didn't, then anyone could use their non-response to the workbetter domain name as evidence to take their trademark.
It seems to me that if someone else was using the same name for 16 years prior to them and they claim that it's confusingly similar, they're effectively arguing that their trademark is invalid. Either they had a trademark and spent 16 years not enforcing it, or they failed to notice/mention prior art when they applied for it.
Google became better than everyone else but that only happened AFTER they became popular. Altavista was initially as good or better.
From what I recall at the time, Google was initially a good quality engine, but Altavista had a huge lead in the size of their index. At the time, the size of your web page index was considered the biggest factor in search quality and ranking algorithms were... important, but considered secondary. Once Google's bots reached a critical mass, their algorithms won.
One reason why polling companies can't get usable info is that end users tend to be constantly barraged by robocalls,
I suspect that another reason, particularly when you're talking mobile, is that people who answer phones are far less likely to be sitting in a nice, comfortable chair in their living room ready to play 20 questions with whoever calls. If my parents call while I'm out walking the dog or something, I'll chat for a few minutes. If a pollster calls, they're out-of-luck.
The business model of polling is dependent on the willingness of strangers to let pollsters suck away a few minutes of their time for free, and people... just have too much other stuff happening.
Plus, if I'm talking with some Luddite on the phone, how can I check Facebook?
And to suggest there's something otherwise undetectable or irreproducible in the air to distinguish between live music and a sufficiently good recording of that music played back to you...
I generally agree with your premise, but I'd have to say that it's rare that I get marijuana smoke wafting into my face while I'm sitting in my car listening to the radio. Granted, that's just anecdotal evidence, but...
Older applications not targeting M, will show permissions at install time and be granted by default, but the user will be able to revoke them, the platform will just give empty data or fail.
... and for those concerned about old apps failing under those conditions, Cyanogenmod's privacy guard has been doing this for quite some time and I've never heard of an app failing because of it. So it's possible to do it in a safe fashion. Whether that's how Google has actually implemented it remains to be seen.
You said " someone needs to get cracking with that recall" and "It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote". So what precisely do you expect to be recalled due to this case of a person accelerating a car towards a group of people?
What I wrote stands for the situation described in the headline, summary and article. We'd obviously have to allow for physics (i.e. a car won't stop immediately at 70mph, and pedestrians wearing black radar-cloaking clothing at night are probably fucked), but otherwise get it right or get it off the road.
If the car wasn't actually operating autonomously, sure, what I wrote wouldn't be directly applicable to this situation. It's still the right way to handle the failure at it was described.
That's only true if the capability is supposed to be used without supervision
Hm. Legit point, but then you have to ask whether the driver reasonably understands how the assistive technology works well enough to be able to supervise it, and also how easily they can stop the process if things go wrong (i.e. if the assistive technology requires the driver to take their limbs off the wheel, brakes and accelerator in order to work reliably, then it's pretty much guaranteed that they won't be able to act quickly enough to prevent an accident).
It wasn't doing any autonomous movement so your premise is garbage and thus the rest of the post meaningless.
So, you're saying the "self-parking" bit the headline, summary and article describe is a complete red herring and had nothing to do with what the car was actually doing at the time?
If you say so. It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote, it just might not be applicable to the situation that the headline, summary, and article all apparently failed to describe.
Any vehicle that is capable of any kind of autonomous movement that doesn't include pedestrian (or dog, or cat, or cyclist) detection is defective, period.
Any auto manufacturer that makes such a vehicle is 100% liable for any deaths or injuries that happen during said autonomous movement, period.
This isn't rocket science. This should be considered "seat belt saves lives" level of mandatory.
Now, someone needs to get cracking with that recall...
Not sure it's all that big of a deal, really. The USA has a history of ignoring the inconvenient parts of trade deals or any rulings against them, anyway.
Security's motto: We break stuff, put ALL the burden on the users, walk away AND we get paid for it!
This is pretty much what happens when "Security" is a separate business group. Security-oriented admin groups can usually manage to balance security versus operational requirements, but if your only job is making things more secure and there's zero penalty for making things non-functional, well... honestly, I'd probably do the same thing.
At least, assuming these tweets are ranked appropriately.
Down near the bottom, with the ad spammers.
But really... what the fuck, Google? The most "useful" kinds of tweets are the ones who reference the authoritative material that you'd want to see instead of any tweet about it. As a means to add to the page rank of good (i.e. referenced) pages tweets might be valuable, but otherwise twitter activity is pretty much the definition of irrelevant.
I'm not sure I'm following. If we're non-POSIX, then what read(2) are we talking about? Also, that sizeof is by definition 1
POSIX defines sizeof(char)==1. But C itself doesn't necessarily *require* sizeof(char)==1, just that char is the smallest non-bitfield type. Theoretically, sizeof(char)==4 could be legit on some architectures. In practice, I doubt there's a non-trivial C program on the planet that would function on such a platform, but it's there.
The *point* of this being that the bug wasn't specifically that sizeof(char)==2, but that sizeof(char) was apparently variable within one trivial function in thousands of lines of code, and that throwing a trivial assertion in front of it was enough to change the value back to what it was supposed to be.
If a no-op changes behavior of your program, then yes, it's either a compiler bug
Exactly. In this case, it was the optimizer losing its shit. I wouldn't try to diff optimized and non-optimized ASM output from the compiler these days, but at the time it wasn't too horrible.
If that was indeed mid-late 90's MSVC++, then that makes it slightly easier to believe, yes;)
It was still better than g++ on the DEC Alpha around that same time, but that's setting the bar pretty low.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh? Worse than mono AM radio? Worse than cassette tape? Yeah, we believe you Neil...
NYC should just ask Google to track children in real-time and let drivers know when one is nearby. And especially flag the ones who aren't being watched by an adult; they're way more likely to play in traffic.
Pervasive surveillance... it's for the children!
In the 80's you *could* still buy it, but they asked enough questions that it wasn't smart to become repeat customers.
There's a lot of steps in making explosives which don't look pretty innocuous if you don't know what you're looking for.
For example, when I was a teen we used to make black powder in large batches. In Canada, a teen couldn't just go into a store and buy it, and even getting hold of large quantities of potassium nitrate was challenging. So we did chemistry using readily available things like fertilizer and drain cleaner.
The end result was large quantities of a controlled substance, but the process looked fairly tame.
I feel your pain; I have fiber running down the edge of my property, and the best Internet I can get is fixed wireless.
It seems to me that if someone else was using the same name for 16 years prior to them and they claim that it's confusingly similar, they're effectively arguing that their trademark is invalid. Either they had a trademark and spent 16 years not enforcing it, or they failed to notice/mention prior art when they applied for it.
From what I recall at the time, Google was initially a good quality engine, but Altavista had a huge lead in the size of their index. At the time, the size of your web page index was considered the biggest factor in search quality and ranking algorithms were... important, but considered secondary. Once Google's bots reached a critical mass, their algorithms won.
Honestly, I find that far less annoying than people who refer to their SUV as a "truck"...
I suspect that another reason, particularly when you're talking mobile, is that people who answer phones are far less likely to be sitting in a nice, comfortable chair in their living room ready to play 20 questions with whoever calls. If my parents call while I'm out walking the dog or something, I'll chat for a few minutes. If a pollster calls, they're out-of-luck.
The business model of polling is dependent on the willingness of strangers to let pollsters suck away a few minutes of their time for free, and people... just have too much other stuff happening.
Plus, if I'm talking with some Luddite on the phone, how can I check Facebook?
I generally agree with your premise, but I'd have to say that it's rare that I get marijuana smoke wafting into my face while I'm sitting in my car listening to the radio. Granted, that's just anecdotal evidence, but...
Sparkly... sparky... whoops. Honest mistake.
For a second there I thought you might have a good point. Then you kept typing and showed that you're just another asshole.
What I wrote stands for the situation described in the headline, summary and article. We'd obviously have to allow for physics (i.e. a car won't stop immediately at 70mph, and pedestrians wearing black radar-cloaking clothing at night are probably fucked), but otherwise get it right or get it off the road.
If the car wasn't actually operating autonomously, sure, what I wrote wouldn't be directly applicable to this situation. It's still the right way to handle the failure at it was described.
Hm. Legit point, but then you have to ask whether the driver reasonably understands how the assistive technology works well enough to be able to supervise it, and also how easily they can stop the process if things go wrong (i.e. if the assistive technology requires the driver to take their limbs off the wheel, brakes and accelerator in order to work reliably, then it's pretty much guaranteed that they won't be able to act quickly enough to prevent an accident).
So, you're saying the "self-parking" bit the headline, summary and article describe is a complete red herring and had nothing to do with what the car was actually doing at the time?
If you say so. It doesn't invalidate anything I wrote, it just might not be applicable to the situation that the headline, summary, and article all apparently failed to describe.
Any vehicle that is capable of any kind of autonomous movement that doesn't include pedestrian (or dog, or cat, or cyclist) detection is defective, period.
Any auto manufacturer that makes such a vehicle is 100% liable for any deaths or injuries that happen during said autonomous movement, period.
This isn't rocket science. This should be considered "seat belt saves lives" level of mandatory.
Now, someone needs to get cracking with that recall...
Well, without knowing the language I suppose it might compile, but I'm pretty sure it'd croak on the third statement.
Not sure it's all that big of a deal, really. The USA has a history of ignoring the inconvenient parts of trade deals or any rulings against them, anyway.
This is pretty much what happens when "Security" is a separate business group. Security-oriented admin groups can usually manage to balance security versus operational requirements, but if your only job is making things more secure and there's zero penalty for making things non-functional, well... honestly, I'd probably do the same thing.
At least, assuming these tweets are ranked appropriately.
Down near the bottom, with the ad spammers.
But really... what the fuck, Google? The most "useful" kinds of tweets are the ones who reference the authoritative material that you'd want to see instead of any tweet about it. As a means to add to the page rank of good (i.e. referenced) pages tweets might be valuable, but otherwise twitter activity is pretty much the definition of irrelevant.
I feel like a school janitor sometimes...
3 (different) house keys, shed key, car key/dongle, minivan key, van key, carabiner, Gerber Curve, bottle opener, sparkplug gapper (AKA flat screwdriver which fits everything), nano LED light.
That's all I can remember, anyway.
Name diseases after serial/mass killers and cults, with some consideration given to their body counts.
POSIX defines sizeof(char)==1. But C itself doesn't necessarily *require* sizeof(char)==1, just that char is the smallest non-bitfield type. Theoretically, sizeof(char)==4 could be legit on some architectures. In practice, I doubt there's a non-trivial C program on the planet that would function on such a platform, but it's there.
The *point* of this being that the bug wasn't specifically that sizeof(char)==2, but that sizeof(char) was apparently variable within one trivial function in thousands of lines of code, and that throwing a trivial assertion in front of it was enough to change the value back to what it was supposed to be.
Exactly. In this case, it was the optimizer losing its shit. I wouldn't try to diff optimized and non-optimized ASM output from the compiler these days, but at the time it wasn't too horrible.
It was still better than g++ on the DEC Alpha around that same time, but that's setting the bar pretty low.
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...