The car in the video is not a Tesla, it's an Uber self-driving car. These seem to not be driving very well as they are also known to drive on the bicycle lane. Uber is denying the red-light issue but says they are working on the bicycle lane one, thus acknowledging there are problems with their self-driving software.
People aren't generally crammed together in their homes or workplaces. Things can still spread, but not easily.
Are you saying that couples don't sleep together and never kiss their children? I think you should check up on this family concept. Even at work people shake hands or even kiss (yeah, certainly not in the US for the latter, though Americans are known to hug sometimes which from a contagion point of view is probably not so different). At least in public transports you don't kiss or shake hands with everyone you come across;-)
Flu shots are based on a guess each year of which flu strains to guard against. They've gotten the guess wrong some years, and people ended up with the flu whether they got the shot or not. If you have a weakened immune system, this is a big problem.
The GP seems to think taking the car is a valid alternative to taking a flu shot. That's just crazy. It's not public transportation you must avoid: it's everyone, starting with your kids if they go to school!
Furthermore in the pictures you would not have seen any trace of a wood fire because you would just not find any wood to burn in Paris.
I was in Paris this summer, when was the last time you were there?
Well, yesterday. And last Monday. And last week. And the week before that. But sure, as someone who has been there for a couple of days six months ago you must have some deep insight lacking to people who live here.
Never mind the wide abundance of trees everywhere, and in the winter so much dead foliage
Yeah, foliage that's been collected a couple of months ago. You know we have those pesky leaf blowers too.
you could keep a campfire going all night every night simply by burning trash people leave along the river pathways every evening. I imagine that's reduced in the winter but there are still a ton of trashcans everywhere you could raid for flammable material.
You should try that next time you're there. The police will be happy to help you save on hotel and food. Good riddance.
Many people drive a car in order not to use public transportation...
This seems like a very American sentiment (i.e. it always seems to be the first thing people say on Slashdot, and only on Slashdot). I don't know any one like that though I guess some of the very rich who would never mix with the plebes think that way. Most people they use their car because, for their particular case, it's the faster means of transport, just as for many others it's the public transport that's the faster and less irritating means of transport.
And people having a car don't really care about saving a couple of euros to travel within Paris/suburbs.
That's certainly true but it makes it less of a hassle for people who are forced to switch means of transportation for a couple of days in the year. Also it removes a reason for them to complain.
When I worked in Paris, I lived in the suburbs surrounding Paris and worked in another one.
Great. Since you're not entering Paris you can take your car as usual. See not a problem for you. Now just stop ranting.
In my car, it was a solid 20 minutes, and I never caught the flu.
There's also flu shots for that. They cost a mere 10€ and 65% of that is reimbursed. By the way, what's the point of going to an office where you are all alone? What? You were not alone at the office? How did your car help you to not catch the flu from your crazy public-transport-using colleagues?
The administrative burden of JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE is far too high and would actually cost you more.
And yet next year it's supposed to get replaced with which is an environmental badge that one will have to have on the windshield to get into Paris on days such as these. Cars will get a different color badge based on the environmental standards they implement. The color coding will make it easy for the police to spot cars that are not allowed and to stop + fine them.
Pretty sure Reuters is one of those fake-news sites the liberals have been hyperventilating about recently, after all it disputes "fact" that he knows.
Well if you had read the article you would have noticed the migrants got evacuated to the countryside a month ago. Furthermore in the pictures you would not have seen any trace of a wood fire because you would just not find any wood to burn in Paris. So no, migrants are not responsible for the wood fires that are in part responsible for the current pollution.
Plus, wood fires have been blamed for pollution for many years and almost got banned two years ago. Are you going to blame the migrants for that too? Now like then the wood fires the article talks about are just lit by people in the chimney of their residential house just because it's nice to sit by the fire when it's cold. But of course don't let a mundane explanation get in the way of your paranoia.
You think the 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary aren't the Democrats?
I don't. To me, and I expect most everyone, the way you used that term referred to the party leaders. Otherwise I don't see why you should be indignant that your fellow compatriots fund initiatives without consulting you first.
Of course it is the Democrats (and Soros) behind this, Stein is just a shill because Hillary made such an issue of contesting an election not being "Presidential".
So you're saying Stein cannot possibly consider Hillary to be the lesser evil and couldn't possibly decide to verify that Hillary lost on her own. As for the funding it cannot possibly be the over 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary either. For you it really has to be some conspiracy. Just because... ???
Open source would be better than closed source (more far more audit-able both before and after the election, and likely cheaper in the long run), however I agree, the current approaches to electronic voting machines are worse than paper, and still would be even if open sourced.
All it will do is provide a bunch of blueprints and source code for the administration to trot out while the machines will be running... something. Don't think for an instant that you will be allowed to check what the actual machines are running because that would be a gaping security hole. So open-source is useless as far as electronic voting is concerned.
2) Open source voting machines mean that anyone can inspect the hardware and software to find bugs. That makes it far easier for criminals to discover vulnerabilities and tamper with elections. Having open source voting machines virtually guarantees that criminals will be able to exploit vulnerabilities and have a much easier time rigging elections.
That argument has been debunked over and over. The real argument against open-source in elections is that all it will do is provide a bunch of blueprints and source code for the administration to trot out while the machines will be running... something. Don't think for an instant that you will be allowed to check what the actual machines are running because that would be a gaping security hole. So open-source is useless as far as electronic voting is concerned.
Democracy severely restricted? Nothing like that in the book; separate states have their own governments, and ANYBODY can get Federal citizenship by putting in a 2-year tour of Federal service. You can't buy a franchise, you have to EARN it - but it's open to EVERYONE. If you have one eye and one hand and an IQ of 80, they'll find something for you to do for two years.
So anybody EXCEPT tetraplegics, disabled, and anybody who opposes the war. And you think that's democracy. Sad!
If I hire you to clean up "Heinrich von Sturm and the Russian Underground of Science" (which has gotten such praise as "readable") and publish it on Amazon, you're doing it under license and it's legal. If you get a copy and do that by yourself, it's illegal.
According to your first post Amazon would be the one doing the distribution, not me. So Amazon would be infringing on your exclusive distribution rights, not me. A lot of "pirates" would love your interpretation of copyright law!
A DMCA takedown request doesn't prevent you from distributing your work. It informs somebody else that continuing to distribute your work is legally risky, and the somebody else has to decide whether to take your stuff down or face possible liability.
By this definition nobody distributes their copyrighted work themselves: editors, printing companies and transporters do it for book authors, music companies, cd printing plants and transporters do it for musicians, etc. So by your definition it's essentially impossible to interfere with the author's exclusive distribution right. That's nonsensical.
Noting that ‘repeat’ means to do something “again or repeatedly” while an ‘infringer’ is “[s]omeone who interferes with one of the exclusive rights of a copyright,” the Court of Appeals goes on to broaden the scope significantly.
“Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense in the sense that a plaintiff is not required to prove unlawful intent or culpability, and a user does not have to share copyrighted works in order to infringe a copyright,” its opinion reads.
That's an interesting copyright infringement definition. I know the MPAA or RIAA are not liable under the DMCA when they misuse it to take down the video of a bird singing or a Ubuntu iso file. But in doing so they are interfering with the copyright holder's exclusive distribution right and thus are 'infringing' based on plain copyright law and thus could be sued on that basis. Furthermore we know they abuse the DMCA regularly and thus they are 'repeat infringers' so their ISP should cut off their Internet access, even if they don't illegally share copyrighted works. Sounds promising...
The bigger question is: what did he do with all this data?
Stash it in his basement? As insurance for something?
Use it for blackmail?
Sell it to foreign spies?
Leak select items to the press?
He certainly did not publish it wholesale or we would have heard about it.
Dumbass to you too sir. (I didn't know this was a greeting. Must be an american idiom)
People do this in their homes, you know, where they receive their mail. If people are coming into your home and strongarming you, you have some other serious issues to contend with.
A lot of people have spouses or parents coming into their homes ready to play the peer-pressure or wholesale strong-arming game. After all if 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence how many would merely be forced to vote for the right party? How many cases of unprovable vote coercion would even be reported? How many would be investigated?
As to getting a meeting where everyone brings their blank ballots, there is no way to keep that shit secret! It will be found out, and the law will be on their ass! It's not going to happen, so you can put your tinfoil hat down, this isn't a hollywood movie.
Indeed this is different and not a hollywood movie. It's history. While what happened in Chile did not involve mail-in it qualifies as strong-arming on a scale large enough to clear the "no way to keep that shit secret!" threshold. And yet it worked for decades...
You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession.
It's not just a few bad eggs. It's all the other eggs that support the bad eggs, cover up their lies, refuse to hold the bad eggs accountable for their actions. So many of the eggs are rotten in this way, often without even realizing it, that any egg that does try to speak up will get broken and thrown out in no time.
Voting machines should be open-source coded in assembly language to run directly on the hardware, and the hardware should be open source
Open-source software and hardware is useless for voting computers. What matters is allowing voters to verify that the hardware and software used on election day is the one that was audited. But of course nobody in their right mind would allow a random voter to hook up a hardware probe or run his own code(*) on the voting computer on election day!
(*) I hope you were not thinking of letting the (lying?) voting computer audit itself!
Voting machines should be simple devices for counting votes, not full blown computers running a general purpose OS. With a bare minimum of functionality there is less attack surface and less need to patch anything.
Even the simplest electronic voting machine can cheat and yet even they cannot be audited by voters on election day. So you're telling us that voters should trust the people they are voting out of office to organize fair elections! That's quite insane.
Right. Patched or unpatched does not make much difference. The important thing is that they run a full blown OS, specifically Windows XP, which means 45 million lines of proprietary unauditable code (trade secret). And that's not counting all the other software the manufacturer added on top of it to turn it into a voting computer.
So an attacker has a wealth of juicy targets: the display driver, touchscreen controller, hundreds of drivers, etc. Anything he changes will be a straw in the middle of a haystack... even more so if he works for the manufacturer or is part of the team that defines the reference software platform.
Plus none of that matters for the voter: he will never be allowed to run a debugger or hook up a hardware monitor on election day to verify that the voting machine has not been tampered with, and with good reason since that would allow him to tamper with it. So even a knowledgeable voter will never be able to verify that the voting computer used on election day has not been hacked, which is totally unlike the situation for regular paper ballots boxes.
Housewives hoping that the washing machines of the future will give them more free time may be in for a disappointment. Increased productivity is one of the expected benefits of washing machines, but a new study claims that they will have little impact. The study showed that nearly 36 percent of Americans housewives say they would be so apprehensive using a washing machine that they would only watch the load. Meanwhile, UK housewives were even more cautious at 44 per cent. "Currently, in the US, the average housewife spends about an hour a day washing -- time that could potentially be put to more productive use," said Mike Sikav, research professor at the University of Michigan Washing Research Institute. "Indeed, increased productivity is one of the expected benefits of washing machines."
Slashdot Mirror
The car in the video is not a Tesla, it's an Uber self-driving car. These seem to not be driving very well as they are also known to drive on the bicycle lane. Uber is denying the red-light issue but says they are working on the bicycle lane one, thus acknowledging there are problems with their self-driving software.
People aren't generally crammed together in their homes or workplaces. Things can still spread, but not easily.
Are you saying that couples don't sleep together and never kiss their children? I think you should check up on this family concept. Even at work people shake hands or even kiss (yeah, certainly not in the US for the latter, though Americans are known to hug sometimes which from a contagion point of view is probably not so different). At least in public transports you don't kiss or shake hands with everyone you come across ;-)
Flu shots are based on a guess each year of which flu strains to guard against. They've gotten the guess wrong some years, and people ended up with the flu whether they got the shot or not. If you have a weakened immune system, this is a big problem.
The GP seems to think taking the car is a valid alternative to taking a flu shot. That's just crazy. It's not public transportation you must avoid: it's everyone, starting with your kids if they go to school!
Furthermore in the pictures you would not have seen any trace of a wood fire because you would just not find any wood to burn in Paris.
I was in Paris this summer, when was the last time you were there?
Well, yesterday. And last Monday. And last week. And the week before that. But sure, as someone who has been there for a couple of days six months ago you must have some deep insight lacking to people who live here.
Never mind the wide abundance of trees everywhere, and in the winter so much dead foliage
Yeah, foliage that's been collected a couple of months ago. You know we have those pesky leaf blowers too.
you could keep a campfire going all night every night simply by burning trash people leave along the river pathways every evening. I imagine that's reduced in the winter but there are still a ton of trashcans everywhere you could raid for flammable material.
You should try that next time you're there. The police will be happy to help you save on hotel and food. Good riddance.
Many people drive a car in order not to use public transportation...
This seems like a very American sentiment (i.e. it always seems to be the first thing people say on Slashdot, and only on Slashdot). I don't know any one like that though I guess some of the very rich who would never mix with the plebes think that way. Most people they use their car because, for their particular case, it's the faster means of transport, just as for many others it's the public transport that's the faster and less irritating means of transport.
And people having a car don't really care about saving a couple of euros to travel within Paris/suburbs.
That's certainly true but it makes it less of a hassle for people who are forced to switch means of transportation for a couple of days in the year. Also it removes a reason for them to complain.
When I worked in Paris, I lived in the suburbs surrounding Paris and worked in another one.
Great. Since you're not entering Paris you can take your car as usual. See not a problem for you. Now just stop ranting.
In my car, it was a solid 20 minutes, and I never caught the flu.
There's also flu shots for that. They cost a mere 10€ and 65% of that is reimbursed. By the way, what's the point of going to an office where you are all alone? What? You were not alone at the office? How did your car help you to not catch the flu from your crazy public-transport-using colleagues?
The administrative burden of JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE is far too high and would actually cost you more.
And yet next year it's supposed to get replaced with which is an environmental badge that one will have to have on the windshield to get into Paris on days such as these. Cars will get a different color badge based on the environmental standards they implement. The color coding will make it easy for the police to spot cars that are not allowed and to stop + fine them.
Pretty sure Reuters is one of those fake-news sites the liberals have been hyperventilating about recently, after all it disputes "fact" that he knows.
Well if you had read the article you would have noticed the migrants got evacuated to the countryside a month ago. Furthermore in the pictures you would not have seen any trace of a wood fire because you would just not find any wood to burn in Paris. So no, migrants are not responsible for the wood fires that are in part responsible for the current pollution.
Plus, wood fires have been blamed for pollution for many years and almost got banned two years ago. Are you going to blame the migrants for that too? Now like then the wood fires the article talks about are just lit by people in the chimney of their residential house just because it's nice to sit by the fire when it's cold. But of course don't let a mundane explanation get in the way of your paranoia.
You think the 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary aren't the Democrats?
I don't. To me, and I expect most everyone, the way you used that term referred to the party leaders. Otherwise I don't see why you should be indignant that your fellow compatriots fund initiatives without consulting you first.
Of course it is the Democrats (and Soros) behind this, Stein is just a shill because Hillary made such an issue of contesting an election not being "Presidential".
So you're saying Stein cannot possibly consider Hillary to be the lesser evil and couldn't possibly decide to verify that Hillary lost on her own. As for the funding it cannot possibly be the over 50% of Americans who voted for Hillary either. For you it really has to be some conspiracy. Just because... ???
Open source would be better than closed source (more far more audit-able both before and after the election, and likely cheaper in the long run), however I agree, the current approaches to electronic voting machines are worse than paper, and still would be even if open sourced.
All it will do is provide a bunch of blueprints and source code for the administration to trot out while the machines will be running... something. Don't think for an instant that you will be allowed to check what the actual machines are running because that would be a gaping security hole. So open-source is useless as far as electronic voting is concerned.
2) Open source voting machines mean that anyone can inspect the hardware and software to find bugs. That makes it far easier for criminals to discover vulnerabilities and tamper with elections. Having open source voting machines virtually guarantees that criminals will be able to exploit vulnerabilities and have a much easier time rigging elections.
That argument has been debunked over and over. The real argument against open-source in elections is that all it will do is provide a bunch of blueprints and source code for the administration to trot out while the machines will be running... something. Don't think for an instant that you will be allowed to check what the actual machines are running because
that would be a gaping security hole. So open-source is useless as far as electronic voting is concerned.
Democracy severely restricted? Nothing like that in the book; separate states have their own governments, and ANYBODY can get Federal citizenship by putting in a 2-year tour of Federal service. You can't buy a franchise, you have to EARN it - but it's open to EVERYONE. If you have one eye and one hand and an IQ of 80, they'll find something for you to do for two years.
So anybody EXCEPT tetraplegics, disabled, and anybody who opposes the war. And you think that's democracy. Sad!
My last concern is (as always) how would this system perform in a northern area. I live in Minnesota, where 1/3rd of the year is dark
Last I checked Minnesota was nowhere close to the polar circle so you don't even have one fully dark day, let alone 4 consecutive months.
If I hire you to clean up "Heinrich von Sturm and the Russian Underground of Science" (which has gotten such praise as "readable") and publish it on Amazon, you're doing it under license and it's legal. If you get a copy and do that by yourself, it's illegal.
According to your first post Amazon would be the one doing the distribution, not me. So Amazon would be infringing on your exclusive distribution rights, not me. A lot of "pirates" would love your interpretation of copyright law!
A DMCA takedown request doesn't prevent you from distributing your work. It informs somebody else that continuing to distribute your work is legally risky, and the somebody else has to decide whether to take your stuff down or face possible liability.
By this definition nobody distributes their copyrighted work themselves: editors, printing companies and transporters do it for book authors, music companies, cd printing plants and transporters do it for musicians, etc. So by your definition it's essentially impossible to interfere with the author's exclusive distribution right. That's nonsensical.
Quoting the article:
Noting that ‘repeat’ means to do something “again or repeatedly” while an ‘infringer’ is “[s]omeone who interferes with one of the exclusive rights of a copyright,” the Court of Appeals goes on to broaden the scope significantly.
“Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense in the sense that a plaintiff is not required to prove unlawful intent or culpability, and a user does not have to share copyrighted works in order to infringe a copyright,” its opinion reads.
That's an interesting copyright infringement definition. I know the MPAA or RIAA are not liable under the DMCA when they misuse it to take down the video of a bird singing or a Ubuntu iso file. But in doing so they are interfering with the copyright holder's exclusive distribution right and thus are 'infringing' based on plain copyright law and thus could be sued on that basis. Furthermore we know they abuse the DMCA regularly and thus they are 'repeat infringers' so their ISP should cut off their Internet access, even if they don't illegally share copyrighted works. Sounds promising...
The bigger question is: what did he do with all this data?
Stash it in his basement? As insurance for something?
Use it for blackmail?
Sell it to foreign spies?
Leak select items to the press?
He certainly did not publish it wholesale or we would have heard about it.
Dumbass.
Dumbass to you too sir. (I didn't know this was a greeting. Must be an american idiom)
People do this in their homes, you know, where they receive their mail. If people are coming into your home and strongarming you, you have some other serious issues to contend with.
A lot of people have spouses or parents coming into their homes ready to play the peer-pressure or wholesale strong-arming game. After all if 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence how many would merely be forced to vote for the right party? How many cases of unprovable vote coercion would even be reported? How many would be investigated?
As to getting a meeting where everyone brings their blank ballots, there is no way to keep that shit secret! It will be found out, and the law will be on their ass! It's not going to happen, so you can put your tinfoil hat down, this isn't a hollywood movie.
Indeed this is different and not a hollywood movie. It's history. While what happened in Chile did not involve mail-in it qualifies as strong-arming on a scale large enough to clear the "no way to keep that shit secret!" threshold. And yet it worked for decades...
You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession.
It's not just a few bad eggs. It's all the other eggs that support the bad eggs, cover up their lies, refuse to hold the bad eggs accountable for their actions. So many of the eggs are rotten in this way, often without even realizing it, that any egg that does try to speak up will get broken and thrown out in no time.
Voting machines should be open-source coded in assembly language to run directly on the hardware, and the hardware should be open source
Open-source software and hardware is useless for voting computers. What matters is allowing voters to verify that the hardware and software used on election day is the one that was audited. But of course nobody in their right mind would allow a random voter to hook up a hardware probe or run his own code(*) on the voting computer on election day!
(*) I hope you were not thinking of letting the (lying?) voting computer audit itself!
Voting machines should be simple devices for counting votes, not full blown computers running a general purpose OS. With a bare minimum of functionality there is less attack surface and less need to patch anything.
Even the simplest electronic voting machine can cheat and yet even they cannot be audited by voters on election day. So you're telling us that voters should trust the people they are voting out of office to organize fair elections! That's quite insane.
Unpatched XP? So what? What's the threat model?
Right. Patched or unpatched does not make much difference. The important thing is that they run a full blown OS, specifically Windows XP, which means 45 million lines of proprietary unauditable code (trade secret). And that's not counting all the other software the manufacturer added on top of it to turn it into a voting computer.
So an attacker has a wealth of juicy targets: the display driver, touchscreen controller, hundreds of drivers, etc. Anything he changes will be a straw in the middle of a haystack... even more so if he works for the manufacturer or is part of the team that defines the reference software platform.
Plus none of that matters for the voter: he will never be allowed to run a debugger or hook up a hardware monitor on election day to verify that the voting machine has not been tampered with, and with good reason since that would allow him to tamper with it. So even a knowledgeable voter will never be able to verify that the voting computer used on election day has not been hacked, which is totally unlike the situation for regular paper ballots boxes.
Claude Paillard has a great video showing how it's done (and photos here). He's built not just his own vacuum tubes but also most of the tools needed to do so. So if you want to build your own molecular pump you'll find data here.
Housewives hoping that the washing machines of the future will give them more free time may be in for a disappointment. Increased productivity is one of the expected benefits of washing machines, but a new study claims that they will have little impact. The study showed that nearly 36 percent of Americans housewives say they would be so apprehensive using a washing machine that they would only watch the load. Meanwhile, UK housewives were even more cautious at 44 per cent. "Currently, in the US, the average housewife spends about an hour a day washing -- time that could potentially be put to more productive use," said Mike Sikav, research professor at the University of Michigan Washing Research Institute. "Indeed, increased productivity is one of the expected benefits of washing machines."