Based on Bob's Uber profile statistics we have determined that he took 7 after-hours rides to the red light district during recent months. Please find attached 10% discount coupon for a ride to lawyer's office.
I am Information Security practitioner and not an expert in this field, because nobody is. My experiences is that nobody knows what they are doing, most information systems are not secure in mistaken belief that nobody would bother breaking them, others are just secure enough to deter low-knowledge attacks. Almost everyone practices what is known proportional value deterrent, but treat high-value systems as truly isolated when so many side-channels exist.
If malicious AI ever shows up, we are screwed. We have zero hope of securing any information system from it. The only hope is that it won't end us because there is a good chance that a lot of hardware that AI might need will go dark.
I had to read TFA to figure out what isostatic is.
"Bizarrely enough, if we wanted to reach the Earth’s mantle, our best bet would be to dive down to the ocean floor and dig there; we’d “only” have to go through maybe 3 km of crust, as opposed to upwards of 25 km atop the Himalayas. This concept is known as isostatic compensation, and was actually uncovered by the famed British astronomer George Airy."
In Russia, there is no such thing as independent large corporation, there are only nominally privately owned, and formally state owned corporations. While Kaspersky does some good work, they should be treated the same way as NIST is in USA, with a primary mission to protect and advance state interest.
This will make password cracking that much easier. My understanding is that space-time tradeoff drastically changes with increased bandwidth for RAM. I am not smart enough to derive a formal proof, but I think a number of key-stretching functions just bit the dust.
Both views are simplifications. What you should be asking is as following, as people under 25 as they get older, still care about pointless shiny in their cars?
When I was under 25 I made some very questionable stylistic and functional choices for my auto, now as I got older I grew out of it.
I still remember how awful early consumer operating systems were. They crashed, they had ridiculous requirements, and bad design. While all of this was unfortunate, the improvements were to the primary purpose of these systems.
For cars, the awfulness of digital platform is for secondary purposes - these systems do not improve how the car drives, yet implications for your safety when something goes wrong are much higher.
I drive roadsters that can stop on a dime. If I stand on my brakes because I hallucinated a wall in the middle of the highway, I can guarantee that people behind me will rear-end me. Would you say there were following me too close and are at fault?
Driving requires a great deal of prediction, it is simply not feasible to drive 100% defensively in most urban environments. People will cut in front of you, you will never merge or change lanes, you will never turn left at a light. If other drivers start acting irrationally (or different-rationally like AI), the accidents will drastically increase. AI not only has to drive well, it also has to drive somewhat like a human, or other humans will keep crashing into it.
Big issue with AI controlled cars in a human-dominated traffic is that AI doesn't react the same way people do. Sure, all-AI traffic would likely be more efficient and less prone to accidents, but we are nowhere near this. Instead we have AI that to humans is hard to predict.
For example, huge puddle on the road, most humans would unwisely drive through it. What would AI do? No idea, and I wouldn't want to be driving behind it when that happens. What about a hobo at the end of the offramp begging for change? Would AI freak out about pedestrian on the road? No idea, and I wouldn't want to be driving behind it to see what happens.
I have an idea for a possible application - variable airline fees. Using this sensor, you can maximize shareholder value by increasing various airline fees just short of inducing murderous rampage in the flyers. If we have access this technology, we can fine-tune this down to unprecedented resolution.
You are misinformed. Catalytic converters are mandatory in US and EU since 80s, any car that doesn't have one from factory is already classic collectable that already exempt from testing.
You ignoring deterrent effect of inspections. I lived in two different states - one that requires emission inspections, and another that does not. In the state that did not require inspections, the suggested fix for a plugged catalytic converter issue was a straight pipe welded in its place.
You fail to account that majority of metabolic costs is simply to run your body. It takes about 1500 cal to sit on your ass all day, more if you move off your couch. If it takes 2500 calories to bike to work, vs 1800 calories to drive + gas, then the math is not that clear. Plus, you are over-simplifying by assuming that non-vegetarian diet is all-meat.
To simplify, lets imagine cradle to grave car ownership. Which scenario generates more pollution?
Scenario A: Purchase car A, drive it for 15 years, drop it off at a junk yard.
Scenario B: Purchase car A, drive it for 7.5 years, drop it off at a junk yard. Purchase car B, drive it for 7.5 years, drop it off at a junk yard.
We can see that in both scenarios first 7.5 years are the same. For the next 7.5 years, the question is as follows - given 7.5 years worth of technology improvements, does improved efficiency of operation of car B offsets its manufacturing?
It is clear from this example that improvement has to be drastic to offset manufacturing results.
It is almost always has less environmental impact to keep driving less efficient older car. This is counter-intuitive, but only because manufacturing is done out-of-sight while tailpipe pollution is more in-your-face. Read up on carbon footprint of car manufacturing, it is larger than tailpipe emissions for its entire expected life. As such, leasing new Prius every 2 years is arguably less environmentally friendly that driving around in 70s-era muscle car.
First, Beyond Economical Repair is based on replacement value, not on actual value of the asset. For example, you can have $0 value car, it is still more economical to spend $499 to repair it than $500 for a replacement vehicle. If you work on your car yourself, then 500$ will buy you A LOT of parts.
Second, your time to fix the car IS free. You don't fix your car instead of working, you do it on top of working. Unless you are making more than mechanic's hourly rate, or are not capable of performing the job, then it doesn't make sense to pay for someone else to do it. You clean your house, you cut your own grass, and you wash your clothing... why this should be any different?
Third, replacement culture leads to disposable cheap goods. This in turn leads to race to the bottom on quality to compete on price point. End result - we all stuck using new, throw-away stuff that generates a lot of waste and manufacturing pollution. In your example - if you have $3000 TV that lasts 10 years and can be fixed, or $1000 TV that lasts 3 years and can't be fixed, given that materials to use both are comparable, which one is more environmentally friendly?
All my points come to following - question of badly-running cars is mostly question of poverty or ignorance. You can't solve this by making it more expensive to operate cars. If you try to, you will also be hit with a side effect of more disposable cars, that get to "clunker" stage much quicker. "Maintain your car" regulation makes sense (e.g. no check engine), "your car must be no more than X years old or we penalize you a lot" does not.
I disagree with your recommendation, manufacturing and recycling cars is very pollution producing process. While mandating new car use will reduce tailpipe emissions, driving old cars for maximum life, given they are maintained, will result in less total emissions.
Bottom-line - instead of encouraging replacing cars, we should encourage people to keep driving cars for as long as possible, and to maintain them well.
I don't understand the hate for people who groom pets without a license. I mean, I know people who have licenses and are really bad at grooming pets. And a lot of people I know who have no license are good groomers. Why the hate, man? It's a free country you should be allowed to groom pets without a license or insurance if you want...
While I dislike Uber for different reasons, why do we need to regulate/legislate tax drivers in any other way than regular drivers? Is giving rides to others somehow requires a different skill set than driving yourself?
Also, do you insure your house against meteorite strikes? Think of the devastation one could cause! If you somehow to survive one, there would be a smoldering crate where your house used to be. This would financially ruin you for sure!
Slashdot Mirror
"Those of you who are?" You are implying that there are people out there that have to endure open office and do enjoy the experience.
Open Office is an aberration and is a direct result of management-by-trend-chasing practice.
Dear Bob's Wife,
Based on Bob's Uber profile statistics we have determined that he took 7 after-hours rides to the red light district during recent months. Please find attached 10% discount coupon for a ride to lawyer's office.
Sincerely,
Uber's Customer Retention Team.
What about update authentication? Is this signed update? If not, get ready for malware, MitM and all other kinds of nastiness.
I am Information Security practitioner and not an expert in this field, because nobody is. My experiences is that nobody knows what they are doing, most information systems are not secure in mistaken belief that nobody would bother breaking them, others are just secure enough to deter low-knowledge attacks. Almost everyone practices what is known proportional value deterrent, but treat high-value systems as truly isolated when so many side-channels exist.
If malicious AI ever shows up, we are screwed. We have zero hope of securing any information system from it. The only hope is that it won't end us because there is a good chance that a lot of hardware that AI might need will go dark.
I had to read TFA to figure out what isostatic is.
"Bizarrely enough, if we wanted to reach the Earth’s mantle, our best bet would be to dive down to the ocean floor and dig there; we’d “only” have to go through maybe 3 km of crust, as opposed to upwards of 25 km atop the Himalayas. This concept is known as isostatic compensation, and was actually uncovered by the famed British astronomer George Airy."
In Russia, there is no such thing as independent large corporation, there are only nominally privately owned, and formally state owned corporations. While Kaspersky does some good work, they should be treated the same way as NIST is in USA, with a primary mission to protect and advance state interest.
This will make password cracking that much easier. My understanding is that space-time tradeoff drastically changes with increased bandwidth for RAM. I am not smart enough to derive a formal proof, but I think a number of key-stretching functions just bit the dust.
Both views are simplifications. What you should be asking is as following, as people under 25 as they get older, still care about pointless shiny in their cars?
When I was under 25 I made some very questionable stylistic and functional choices for my auto, now as I got older I grew out of it.
I still remember how awful early consumer operating systems were. They crashed, they had ridiculous requirements, and bad design. While all of this was unfortunate, the improvements were to the primary purpose of these systems.
For cars, the awfulness of digital platform is for secondary purposes - these systems do not improve how the car drives, yet implications for your safety when something goes wrong are much higher.
Dear Blizzard,
If large number of people want to automate or outsource your game experience, then what you have is not a fun game but a chore.
All recent SJW articles were bad enough, now this drivel?!?! Why do editors here hate us so much?
If I kindly ask editors to go fight their gender wars elsewhere, would they need me to draw a map?
I read at -1, and I can personally assure you, that thing is a frequent AC poster here.
Could someone please explain this with a car analogy?
From 3.6 to DRM in just 3 years. Lets wait for the autopsy report.
I drive roadsters that can stop on a dime. If I stand on my brakes because I hallucinated a wall in the middle of the highway, I can guarantee that people behind me will rear-end me. Would you say there were following me too close and are at fault?
Driving requires a great deal of prediction, it is simply not feasible to drive 100% defensively in most urban environments. People will cut in front of you, you will never merge or change lanes, you will never turn left at a light. If other drivers start acting irrationally (or different-rationally like AI), the accidents will drastically increase. AI not only has to drive well, it also has to drive somewhat like a human, or other humans will keep crashing into it.
Nonprofits don't generate shareholder returns, this doesn't mean that they are prevented from enriching executives via compensation packages.
Big issue with AI controlled cars in a human-dominated traffic is that AI doesn't react the same way people do. Sure, all-AI traffic would likely be more efficient and less prone to accidents, but we are nowhere near this. Instead we have AI that to humans is hard to predict.
For example, huge puddle on the road, most humans would unwisely drive through it. What would AI do? No idea, and I wouldn't want to be driving behind it when that happens. What about a hobo at the end of the offramp begging for change? Would AI freak out about pedestrian on the road? No idea, and I wouldn't want to be driving behind it to see what happens.
I have an idea for a possible application - variable airline fees. Using this sensor, you can maximize shareholder value by increasing various airline fees just short of inducing murderous rampage in the flyers. If we have access this technology, we can fine-tune this down to unprecedented resolution.
You are misinformed. Catalytic converters are mandatory in US and EU since 80s, any car that doesn't have one from factory is already classic collectable that already exempt from testing.
You ignoring deterrent effect of inspections. I lived in two different states - one that requires emission inspections, and another that does not. In the state that did not require inspections, the suggested fix for a plugged catalytic converter issue was a straight pipe welded in its place.
You fail to account that majority of metabolic costs is simply to run your body. It takes about 1500 cal to sit on your ass all day, more if you move off your couch. If it takes 2500 calories to bike to work, vs 1800 calories to drive + gas, then the math is not that clear. Plus, you are over-simplifying by assuming that non-vegetarian diet is all-meat.
To simplify, lets imagine cradle to grave car ownership. Which scenario generates more pollution?
Scenario A: Purchase car A, drive it for 15 years, drop it off at a junk yard.
Scenario B: Purchase car A, drive it for 7.5 years, drop it off at a junk yard. Purchase car B, drive it for 7.5 years, drop it off at a junk yard.
We can see that in both scenarios first 7.5 years are the same. For the next 7.5 years, the question is as follows - given 7.5 years worth of technology improvements, does improved efficiency of operation of car B offsets its manufacturing?
It is clear from this example that improvement has to be drastic to offset manufacturing results.
It is almost always has less environmental impact to keep driving less efficient older car. This is counter-intuitive, but only because manufacturing is done out-of-sight while tailpipe pollution is more in-your-face. Read up on carbon footprint of car manufacturing, it is larger than tailpipe emissions for its entire expected life. As such, leasing new Prius every 2 years is arguably less environmentally friendly that driving around in 70s-era muscle car.
I disagree with a number of your points.
First, Beyond Economical Repair is based on replacement value, not on actual value of the asset. For example, you can have $0 value car, it is still more economical to spend $499 to repair it than $500 for a replacement vehicle. If you work on your car yourself, then 500$ will buy you A LOT of parts.
Second, your time to fix the car IS free. You don't fix your car instead of working, you do it on top of working. Unless you are making more than mechanic's hourly rate, or are not capable of performing the job, then it doesn't make sense to pay for someone else to do it. You clean your house, you cut your own grass, and you wash your clothing... why this should be any different?
Third, replacement culture leads to disposable cheap goods. This in turn leads to race to the bottom on quality to compete on price point. End result - we all stuck using new, throw-away stuff that generates a lot of waste and manufacturing pollution. In your example - if you have $3000 TV that lasts 10 years and can be fixed, or $1000 TV that lasts 3 years and can't be fixed, given that materials to use both are comparable, which one is more environmentally friendly?
All my points come to following - question of badly-running cars is mostly question of poverty or ignorance. You can't solve this by making it more expensive to operate cars. If you try to, you will also be hit with a side effect of more disposable cars, that get to "clunker" stage much quicker. "Maintain your car" regulation makes sense (e.g. no check engine), "your car must be no more than X years old or we penalize you a lot" does not.
I disagree with your recommendation, manufacturing and recycling cars is very pollution producing process. While mandating new car use will reduce tailpipe emissions, driving old cars for maximum life, given they are maintained, will result in less total emissions.
Bottom-line - instead of encouraging replacing cars, we should encourage people to keep driving cars for as long as possible, and to maintain them well.
I don't understand the hate for people who groom pets without a license. I mean, I know people who have licenses and are really bad at grooming pets. And a lot of people I know who have no license are good groomers. Why the hate, man? It's a free country you should be allowed to groom pets without a license or insurance if you want...
While I dislike Uber for different reasons, why do we need to regulate/legislate tax drivers in any other way than regular drivers? Is giving rides to others somehow requires a different skill set than driving yourself?
Also, do you insure your house against meteorite strikes? Think of the devastation one could cause! If you somehow to survive one, there would be a smoldering crate where your house used to be. This would financially ruin you for sure!