To all those Microsoft fanbois who said affirmatively that Microsoft was not planning a subscription model for Windows 10, please explain once again how Microsoft would never institute a subscription model for Windows 10.
1) Windows Enterprise Editions via VLA have been subscription based forever. So this move in particular is much ado about nothing.
2) I don't think anybody has ever said Microsoft isn't moving towards a subscription based system. What people have said, is that the Windows 10 systems out there right now, they don't think will become subscription in the future.
IOW, that PC you upgraded to windows 10 last month... I'm skeptical it will EVER require a subscription to win10. I don't rule it out. But I don't think it's going to happen. But sure, a few years down, I fully expect windows to be SaaS on new hardware.
I also wonder if that makes desktop linux a thing -- because its one thing to have a perpetual windows license for a PC as a small line item in a $1000 purchase that isn't even broken out into lines items for most buyers.
Its quite another for buyers to sign up for $N / month. Especially, given that PCs are quite long lived now... lasting 10+ years in many homes.... 84$/year ? x 10 years? To use windows? That's going to be a non-starter for a LOT of people.
And families with a couple kids... hell I've got 5 windows PCs that are actively used in my home. I'm not going to drop $500 a year to keep that going. I won't even consider buying an xbox because im not subscribing to Xbox live.
And I say that as someone who generally likes windows 10, for the most part. (ie after killing telemetry and a few other really stupid oobe defaults).
I won't buy this. They might get me on one PC just so I've go a copy in the house. But the rest? I'll go Mac or Linux. I've already got 2 linux servers, and 2 mac laptops in the house.
but since they record every userID used in a login attempt, all you have to do is click the wrong field and enter your password into the 'name' box, and there it is, in clear text,
Yes, I think that's happened to all of us at one point or another.
I'm not sure you can fault windows for this behavior, though. I mean, would it be better to have 'an unknown user' tried logging in as the only recorded event? On some level knowing who tried to login to the server is a good thing. If some poor sap submits his password as the user name... there's only so much you can do.
And this can happen in any application; I've also variously pasted my password from the password manager into the URL bar, and into the user name field a couple times. Or just typed it after misclicking the destination field. I've also pasted passwords into the body of email messages, skype messages, and other text editors by mistake forgetting that I had a password on the clipboard and/or because the previous copy-action of whatever I wanted to paste didn't override it, etc, etc.
In most contexts this is fairly harmless unless I press send or submit etc. But even in the best case it throws it up on my screen in plaintext for anyone overlooking to see. And in some cases, like a web form you type the password in the wrong field and press submit... well you probably submitted it to the server, which wasn't great. And with a lot of forms it now becomes part of the dropdown list of history/suggestions for that form field too (whether its your city or phone number or whatever...)... which can be a hassle to clean up.
This is the one argument FOR periodic password rotation rules to ensure passwords that leak due to 'oops' mis-clicks get cleaned up.
3) Squander his inheritance? So, that should leave him with less money than he got from his family, right?
Nope. If I give you half a billion dollars, and 30 years later you only have 4 billion, then you've still been a pretty big fuck up. Losing all of it would be an even bigger fuckup, but only growing it to 4 billion is still a WTF.
Which is demonstrably not true, or even close to true. So again, you're lying.
Your pretty quick to jump to calling other people liars... but this is where that claim comes from:
If I leave you 500 million dollars and then 30 odd years from now you have $4billion and change after starting a bunch of businesses, bankrupting some, succeeding at others, selling steaks at sharper image, doing a profitable stint on celebrity apprentice, and telling yourself your worth 10 billion based mostly on 'brand name value', then you would be the 'very successful' Donald Trump.
If I leave you 500 million dollars, and stick it in a brain dead simple market ETF and wait 30 years - then you'd be worth 13+ billion. 9 billion more than Trump. And 3 billion more than even Donald Trump claims he's worth.
Its a pretty valid to look at that and say that Trump is a terrible investor who squandered his inheritance. Because he's got 15 billion less than he would have had if he'd done basically just done nothing at all with it except park it.
Hell, my own investments have done over 1000% since the 90s. That's not exactly an achievement, since as the article notes, the S&P did 1300% since '88. If I'd had several hundred million inheritance, I'd be far richer than Trump today.
"Facebook records the passwords used in your failed login attempts."
Cite for that? (I'm not suggesting its not true; and I don't use facebook so I have no horse in this race. I just want to know more; and what possible reason there could be for it, etc...)
I've often speculated this would be a good attack vector to harvest people's -other- passwords. To simply deny them access to something with their legit password, and harvest the other stuff they try.
I have my zfs server, an offsite realtime replicated backup, and a revolving carousel of offline SMR HDDs that include all the snapshots currently held on my zfs servers weekly to cover catastrophic hacks on the file servers.
Yeah, that sounds just like what my grandmother would do./eyeroll
Just have your files backed up on another computer at your house, on a NAS, or online.
Bingo.
If you get ransomware then just nuke the computer and restore everything from your backup.
double bingo.
I wouldn't suggest backing up to a hard drive connected directly to the computer because the ransomware will also encrypt those files too.
Yes... but that's not nearly going far enough. The vast majority of 'simple' backup systems fail hard on ransomware; especially the roll-your-own sort often advocated here.
cloud sync, torrent sync, etc. Fail. So you've got 3 redundant storage sites; The encrypted files get synchronized and overwrite the backups; and you've got nothing.
rsync, or any thing to an offsite or local nas/server/whatever = fail. same reason. double fail if the local system mounts the drives on the remote system as part of the procedure giving the ransomware direct access to the remote filesystem.
Essentially any backup solution that cannot easily and reliably restore to a given point in time, including deleted files is a hard fail vs ransomware.
You need continuous ongoing incremental backups via an agent/daemon/service on a remote system. Its certainly possible to set something like this up and manage it yourself, but its not simple.
Honestly for personal / home / small businesses stuff like carbonite and crashplan and spideroak are probably your best line of defense vs ransomware.
That's not to say having torrent sync setup with 3 offsite systems is a bad idea. Its a fine idea for all sorts of disaster scenarios; and is probably quicker to recover from in the event of a system failure. Its just not much defense against ransomware.
For that you really need continual incremental backups.
Why do any of these companies store your CC information? Surely it's only needed to authorize the transaction, do they need it for more than that?
There is no evidence they were storing your CC information. The POS system was infected with malware that skimmed it from the system when you swiped the card.
The malware was persistently installed over several months, so it got a lot of people. It wasn't a quick hack where someone went in, grabbed a database, and got out.
Right, a law preventing their manufacture and sale. Nobody was ever sued to stop making or selling them. I do recall that there was a suit over the lack of a warning at one point, thus the warning; the warning didn't work but the manufacturers and sellers were absolved of responsibility prior to the ban.
Jones v. Franklin Sporting Goods
A confidential settlement agreement was reached after the plaintiff sued the defendant manufacturer/seller of a "lawn dart" when a "lawn dart" thrown in the air was caught by the wind and hit the minor plaintiff girl in her head
I suppose you'll tell me you were still right because there was no finding of guilt nor admission of wrongdoing right? Because they settled./sarcasm
I meant people like this Tesla driver (too late for him, but not for others like him) and, perhaps, yourself.
The responsibility of the person, not of the manufacturer whose warning is being ignored.
You aren't absolved of responsibility just because you stuck a warning on something.
Lawn darts were banned because no amount of disclaimers was stopping people from hurting eachother with them.
Properly installed in-car entertainment systems will no longer play video on a screen facing the driver because no amount of warnings and disclaimers stopped people from watching movies while driving.
Even this idiot had to bring in a portable DVD player to watch harry potter because his Tesla wouldn't play it on one of its screens for him.
We have a long history of understanding that there are limits to what you can warn against. And some products or features are just to tempting and too dangerous to misuse to be worth the benefit.
I wish more people would ignore the "Do not use in shower" warning on their hair dryers; perhaps then we wouldn't be having this stupid ass argument.
Nothing stopping you. Oh wait... your bathroom if its even reasonably modern probably has GFCI outlets that will trip if your hair dryer drops into the tub. Modern building codes require them; you know rather than just prattling on about personal responsibility; and pointing at the disclaimer in the hair dryer manual as being sufficient.
""This is not good," Musk said on an earnings call this week. "We'll put on some constraints on autopilot to minimize people doing crazy things with it."
It is absolutely clear in that article that the autopilot works as Tesla officially claims and that any reasonable person would expect
Google's latest monthly update on its driverless car project reported that at least one test driver turned around to look for something in the backseat while the computer was doing the driving â" at 65 mph on the freeway.
"We saw human nature at work," Google said in its report. "People trust technology very quickly once they see it works."
That's not some clueless idiot; that's a paid test driver who was trained to do his job. Human nature.
Drivers using it have 50% fewer accidents than drivers not using it.
Well for starters even THAT is an extremely misleading thing to claim.
If a bunch of drivers all had a pet rock that we only put on our dashboards when driving on highways on clear sunny days; and we all took it down when the weather was bad, or when driving in heavy traffic, or driving around in the city... then I guarantee you that I'd be able to say that drivers using the pet rock system have [large percentage] fewer accidents then drivers not using it.
And, yes, THAT is the methodology Tesla used. It added up all the time and miles and accidents tesla drivers had when using it vs all the time and miles and accidents tesla had when not using it, and showed that a lot more accidents happened when it wasn't in use. The fact that autopilot was never on in precisely the conditions where accidents happen the most was even called out by some of the coverage.
I'm not denying that the Tesla system helped prevent some accidents, but seriously, highway driving is the safest place to be. Comparing all driving to highway driving is meaningless. They'd have to compare highway driving with autopilot off vs on in similar conditions to give us a real value.
In a day and age where the common excuse is "the computer told me, so I trusted it",
Other: "Why wont flash update"; I've tried downloading and running the updater 11 times this morning and it won't install. Me -- looks at window on the screen "The Flash installer will continue automatically after you close the following application: Firefox" Me -- points at window. Other -- "....Oh...."
Most people don't ever pay attention to what the computer says. It doesn't matter whether its a warning, a notification, or an error. They IGNORE the messages out of hand, almost instinctively pressing ok, or continue or retry or i agree or whatever they can find that looks like "go forward". And even when it doesn't work, they'll try again and again banging into the same error messages and they don't even register.
seems to think I'm defending Tesla for some personal reason.
Where did you get that idea?
Oh, well... we'll let the courts sort it out and when the courts side with Tesla this guy will stumble off with his tail between his legs.
You seem to think I think the driver is somehow not responsible for this crash. I do not hold that position at all.
I only think that Tesla, by releasing this feature, in its current state, with the current marketing around it is acting irresponsibly and that they should voluntarily or by regulation change the system. It's not safe, and it will lead to more accidents.
There can be more than one wrong party in a tragedy like this. And there is. The driver was an idiot; if he was watching Harry Potter there's nothing charitable I can say about him. But that doesn't mean Tesla didn't also screw up too.
"It is absolutely clear that he is talking about autopilot on with a reasonable driver behind the wheel. He is definitely not talking about how well the system works if the driver is asleep or non-existant."
Yes, it's absolutely clear that's why there are 5000 articles that "re-tweet" the Elon Musk says Tesla autopilot twice as good as a human driver".
That's the message that got out. You proved my point by looking to establish you were technically correct, instead of looking at the message that the general public is actually receiving. Bravo.
Now, keep going. I posted several links; including this one:
You misread the AC. The AC claims that Clarkson was at the time stressed out by a potentially serious medical issue (a cancer scare); not that the 'medical issue' was the late meal itself.
"During a presentation following the release of the system, Musk said that in good road conditions âoepeople may [remove their hands from the steering-wheel], but we donâ(TM)t advise that.â "
In other words, you can do it, but we don't advise it. "wink wink [cough]lawyers made us say this[cough]".
That is generally the message they are broadcasting.
" The feature itself has gained a lot of fame in the recent months thanks to its obvious novelty value and the fact that it is the first hands-off, self-driving technology on the market today."
Ah, but some of this is journalism and press coverage not actually marketing from Tesla. Right. So what? You think Tesla isn't loaning the cars and press kits to journalists? You think they aren't leveraging that mis information...
And this is the caption: "Tesla doesn't have a fully autonomous car yet. But, with the addition of Autopilot mode, cruising down the highway is now a hands-off affair."
You can't credibly claim that Tesla isn't spreading the word that autopilot allows for 'hands off driving'; despite the disclaimers here and there.
Tesla has to own the fact that it knows the warning isn't a sufficient deterrent - the youtube channel is ample evidence. And it has to own that its own marketing of the feature contradicts the warning message.
It has to own that it is putting customers and the general public at increased risk as a result.
I'm not suggesing the driver isn't at fault, or should get a free pass here. But Tesla needs to take some personal, fucking, responsibility, for its part in this too.
They were winning items and skins that had a high face value
So... like casino chips, or bitcoins, or bonds...?
If you win something a high face value that can be easily exchanged for that face value in cash, the it is not incorrect to call it 'winning big money'.
Note: in some jurisdictions this is known as "impeding the flow of traffic" and is in and of itself unlawful.)
In almost all those same jurisdictions exceeding the speed limit to drive with the flow of traffic is known as "speeding".
Practically everyone I've ever known has received a ticket for speeding while driving with the flow of traffic, including me.
I've also never heard of anyone doing the speed limit being cited for 'impeding traffic'; even if they were. They'd have to be going considerably BELOW the speed limit.
It's a car, a multi-ton rolling death machine. Paying attention behind the wheel should be the default. Period.
Yes it should be. But for an awful lot of people its not.
If the car features the ability to drive by itself, even in limited capacity, then even if the car itself tells you every time you turn the feature on that its a beta feature and shouldn't be trusted to drive the car, people WILL still ignore it in droves.
The general public are not commercial airline pilots.
actually instructs the user thatthey must remain alert and ready to take control of the vehicle at any time."
So what? We use beta software every single day; and we are pretty much trained to ignore that disclaimer.
Windows 10 pre-release had one that said the software shouldn't be used in a production environment, but 10s of thousands did anyway.
Google's always got some tool or project in 'beta' that says its just for testing and experimentation and then people in the millions base their lives around it.
You think Tesla putting a 'beta' sticker or warning on it changes anything in the mind of the general public? Everything is beta.
And a disclaimer by the car telling a driver "they must remain alert and ready to take control of the vehicle at any time" penetrates? or is equivalent to actual training?
If anything we've been trained to ignore disclaimers, because everybody disclaims anything. I have to sign a waiver that the zip-lining equipment might kill me before i strap in. My bluetooth car speaker and vehicle navigation systems both say not to use them while driving. I've seen home gym equipment that warned owners not to use without a professional trainer. Weight loss solutions sold in department stores that disclaim they will do anything at all, and suggest that your doctor be involved being advertised as christmas gifts...
A car that tells me i have to pay attention? Give me a break. That may have fulfilled some technical legal obligation -- but as I said, anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together is going to know that modern western culture and human nature both will have render that warning completely ineffective at curbing the undesired behaviour. Its simply irresponsible to rely on a warning like that to be sufficient to actually avoid accidents.
Autopilot is a fairly well defined term, yes... in the aviation field.
And most drivers are not in the aviation field. "Check."
A pilot would never, for example, turn on autopilot and take a nap at the same time as their copilot; they'd get fired for that, or worse.
And 'mate: They know they'd be fired for that because they know its against the rules because that's part of all kinds of their training along with all kinds of training including specifically how to operate the autopilot.
The average driver does NOT have any of that. Driver education and licensing doesn't cover it at all. Half the drivers out there barely know how cruise control works. Its not on any test. They don't need to know how it works to get a license. A car owners knowledge of autopilot is what they read in the owners manual... if they read the owners manual, it might even just be what they saw on youtube.
My sister, who doesn't drive, thinks autopilot is essentially 'self-driving'; because her experience with autopilot, unlike the 'actual commercial pilots you know' comes from Star Wars where Han Solo wanders into the rec room to mock Luke, while Chewie plays chess-like with C3PO, or Firefly, where Walsh along with the rest of crew is having dinner while the ship flies along... , or hollywood movies where the plane flies along just fine while the pilot takes a nap, or has sex, or engages in a gunfight with a stowaway passenger, at least until the autopilot gets 'shot' by a stray bullet.
The general public's perception of what an aircraft autopilot's capabilties are is pretty hazy and heavily influenced by fictional portrayals.
To compare a commercial pilots understanding of autopilot where they are thoroughly tested and trained professionally to use it to the general publics perception is ridiculous. The pilots are trained on its use. The general public's car has a disclaimer in a users manual they didn't read -- its not the same thing.
Meanwhile google is stuffing the news with self-driving cars; and Musk is riding those coat-tails to further confuse them on an issue they have no formal or even informal training with.
Tesla pulled a stupid here.
And compounding that stupid is human nature. No human being can sit for hours ready and attentive to respond to a driving situation; yet not actually be engaged in driving. I can drive for 12 hours straight if im in full control of the vehicle. But I'd be completely tuned out in under 10 minutes if I was just sitting there while the car drove itself, and I was supposed to be 'perpetually attentive'.
Until the car can truly drive itself, it shouldn't drive itself. Because people WILL abuse a feature in a car that 'almost' drives itself. That's not the features shortcoming, that's a failing of people. But you still simply can't responsibly unleash a feature like that on the general public. Because anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together should know the general public, unlike a professional commercial pilot, can't be reliably trusted not fuck it up.
When was the last time your phone was out of your immediate sight and direct control?
5-8 hours per night. plus the odd nap. plus when i leave it in the locker at the pool or gym. There are some other times too... like swimming at the beach.
That assumes you can get the user's device from them without their knowledge.
Just steal it from them when they are out and about. Sure they'll know its gone missing. So what? You want what's on it, it doesn't always matter if they know or not -- and most of us aren't paranoid enough to assume it was the men in black helicopters and not just some random theif. Phones get stolen ALL THE TIME.
Hell, you can even plant something on it, and then return it to them... turn it into the carrier or lost and found or the police or something; odds are they'll be so happy/surprised that it turned up again they won't even think that it was hacked.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing as 'C++ mode' // comments were added to the C99 spec; this would be my preference. I've always hated all forms of /* */
To all those Microsoft fanbois who said affirmatively that Microsoft was not planning a subscription model for Windows 10, please explain once again how Microsoft would never institute a subscription model for Windows 10.
1) Windows Enterprise Editions via VLA have been subscription based forever. So this move in particular is much ado about nothing.
2) I don't think anybody has ever said Microsoft isn't moving towards a subscription based system. What people have said, is that the Windows 10 systems out there right now, they don't think will become subscription in the future.
IOW, that PC you upgraded to windows 10 last month... I'm skeptical it will EVER require a subscription to win10. I don't rule it out. But I don't think it's going to happen. But sure, a few years down, I fully expect windows to be SaaS on new hardware.
I also wonder if that makes desktop linux a thing -- because its one thing to have a perpetual windows license for a PC as a small line item in a $1000 purchase that isn't even broken out into lines items for most buyers.
Its quite another for buyers to sign up for $N / month. Especially, given that PCs are quite long lived now... lasting 10+ years in many homes.... 84$/year ? x 10 years? To use windows? That's going to be a non-starter for a LOT of people.
And families with a couple kids... hell I've got 5 windows PCs that are actively used in my home. I'm not going to drop $500 a year to keep that going. I won't even consider buying an xbox because im not subscribing to Xbox live.
And I say that as someone who generally likes windows 10, for the most part. (ie after killing telemetry and a few other really stupid oobe defaults).
I won't buy this. They might get me on one PC just so I've go a copy in the house. But the rest? I'll go Mac or Linux. I've already got 2 linux servers, and 2 mac laptops in the house.
but since they record every userID used in a login attempt, all you have to do is click the wrong field and enter your password into the 'name' box, and there it is, in clear text,
Yes, I think that's happened to all of us at one point or another.
I'm not sure you can fault windows for this behavior, though. I mean, would it be better to have 'an unknown user' tried logging in as the only recorded event? On some level knowing who tried to login to the server is a good thing. If some poor sap submits his password as the user name... there's only so much you can do.
And this can happen in any application; I've also variously pasted my password from the password manager into the URL bar, and into the user name field a couple times. Or just typed it after misclicking the destination field. I've also pasted passwords into the body of email messages, skype messages, and other text editors by mistake forgetting that I had a password on the clipboard and/or because the previous copy-action of whatever I wanted to paste didn't override it, etc, etc.
In most contexts this is fairly harmless unless I press send or submit etc. But even in the best case it throws it up on my screen in plaintext for anyone overlooking to see. And in some cases, like a web form you type the password in the wrong field and press submit... well you probably submitted it to the server, which wasn't great. And with a lot of forms it now becomes part of the dropdown list of history/suggestions for that form field too (whether its your city or phone number or whatever...)... which can be a hassle to clean up.
This is the one argument FOR periodic password rotation rules to ensure passwords that leak due to 'oops' mis-clicks get cleaned up.
3) Squander his inheritance? So, that should leave him with less money than he got from his family, right?
Nope. If I give you half a billion dollars, and 30 years later you only have 4 billion, then you've still been a pretty big fuck up. Losing all of it would be an even bigger fuckup, but only growing it to 4 billion is still a WTF.
Which is demonstrably not true, or even close to true. So again, you're lying.
Your pretty quick to jump to calling other people liars... but this is where that claim comes from:
If I leave you 500 million dollars and then 30 odd years from now you have $4billion and change after starting a bunch of businesses, bankrupting some, succeeding at others, selling steaks at sharper image, doing a profitable stint on celebrity apprentice, and telling yourself your worth 10 billion based mostly on 'brand name value', then you would be the 'very successful' Donald Trump.
If I leave you 500 million dollars, and stick it in a brain dead simple market ETF and wait 30 years - then you'd be worth 13+ billion. 9 billion more than Trump. And 3 billion more than even Donald Trump claims he's worth.
Its a pretty valid to look at that and say that Trump is a terrible investor who squandered his inheritance. Because he's got 15 billion less than he would have had if he'd done basically just done nothing at all with it except park it.
cite: http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/...
Hell, my own investments have done over 1000% since the 90s. That's not exactly an achievement, since as the article notes, the S&P did 1300% since '88. If I'd had several hundred million inheritance, I'd be far richer than Trump today.
"Facebook records the passwords used in your failed login attempts."
Cite for that? (I'm not suggesting its not true; and I don't use facebook so I have no horse in this race. I just want to know more; and what possible reason there could be for it, etc...)
I've often speculated this would be a good attack vector to harvest people's -other- passwords. To simply deny them access to something with their legit password, and harvest the other stuff they try.
I have my zfs server, an offsite realtime replicated backup, and a revolving carousel of offline SMR HDDs that include all the snapshots currently held on my zfs servers weekly to cover catastrophic hacks on the file servers.
Yeah, that sounds just like what my grandmother would do. /eyeroll
Just have your files backed up on another computer at your house, on a NAS, or online.
Bingo.
If you get ransomware then just nuke the computer and restore everything from your backup.
double bingo.
I wouldn't suggest backing up to a hard drive connected directly to the computer because the ransomware will also encrypt those files too.
Yes... but that's not nearly going far enough. The vast majority of 'simple' backup systems fail hard on ransomware; especially the roll-your-own sort often advocated here.
cloud sync, torrent sync, etc. Fail. So you've got 3 redundant storage sites; The encrypted files get synchronized and overwrite the backups; and you've got nothing.
rsync, or any thing to an offsite or local nas/server/whatever = fail. same reason. double fail if the local system mounts the drives on the remote system as part of the procedure giving the ransomware direct access to the remote filesystem.
Essentially any backup solution that cannot easily and reliably restore to a given point in time, including deleted files is a hard fail vs ransomware.
You need continuous ongoing incremental backups via an agent/daemon/service on a remote system. Its certainly possible to set something like this up and manage it yourself, but its not simple.
Honestly for personal / home / small businesses stuff like carbonite and crashplan and spideroak are probably your best line of defense vs ransomware.
That's not to say having torrent sync setup with 3 offsite systems is a bad idea. Its a fine idea for all sorts of disaster scenarios; and is probably quicker to recover from in the event of a system failure. Its just not much defense against ransomware.
For that you really need continual incremental backups.
Why do any of these companies store your CC information? Surely it's only needed to authorize the transaction, do they need it for more than that?
There is no evidence they were storing your CC information. The POS system was infected with malware that skimmed it from the system when you swiped the card.
The malware was persistently installed over several months, so it got a lot of people. It wasn't a quick hack where someone went in, grabbed a database, and got out.
Right, a law preventing their manufacture and sale. Nobody was ever sued to stop making or selling them. I do recall that there was a suit over the lack of a warning at one point, thus the warning; the warning didn't work but the manufacturers and sellers were absolved of responsibility prior to the ban.
Jones v. Franklin Sporting Goods
A confidential settlement agreement was reached after the plaintiff sued the defendant manufacturer/seller of a "lawn dart" when a "lawn dart" thrown in the air was caught by the wind and hit the minor plaintiff girl in her head
I suppose you'll tell me you were still right because there was no finding of guilt nor admission of wrongdoing right? Because they settled. /sarcasm
I meant people like this Tesla driver (too late for him, but not for others like him) and, perhaps, yourself.
I knew what you meant.
The responsibility of the person, not of the manufacturer whose warning is being ignored.
You aren't absolved of responsibility just because you stuck a warning on something.
Lawn darts were banned because no amount of disclaimers was stopping people from hurting eachother with them.
Properly installed in-car entertainment systems will no longer play video on a screen facing the driver because no amount of warnings and disclaimers stopped people from watching movies while driving.
Even this idiot had to bring in a portable DVD player to watch harry potter because his Tesla wouldn't play it on one of its screens for him.
We have a long history of understanding that there are limits to what you can warn against. And some products or features are just to tempting and too dangerous to misuse to be worth the benefit.
I wish more people would ignore the "Do not use in shower" warning on their hair dryers; perhaps then we wouldn't be having this stupid ass argument.
Nothing stopping you. Oh wait... your bathroom if its even reasonably modern probably has GFCI outlets that will trip if your hair dryer drops into the tub. Modern building codes require them; you know rather than just prattling on about personal responsibility; and pointing at the disclaimer in the hair dryer manual as being sufficient.
Most people are superficial idiots, what are you going to do?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
""This is not good," Musk said on an earnings call this week. "We'll put on some constraints on autopilot to minimize people doing crazy things with it."
It is absolutely clear in that article that the autopilot works as Tesla officially claims and that any reasonable person would expect
Google's latest monthly update on its driverless car project reported that at least one test driver turned around to look for something in the backseat while the computer was doing the driving â" at 65 mph on the freeway.
"We saw human nature at work," Google said in its report. "People trust technology very quickly once they see it works."
That's not some clueless idiot; that's a paid test driver who was trained to do his job. Human nature.
I'd pull the feature until it can drive itself.
Drivers using it have 50% fewer accidents than drivers not using it.
Well for starters even THAT is an extremely misleading thing to claim.
If a bunch of drivers all had a pet rock that we only put on our dashboards when driving on highways on clear sunny days; and we all took it down when the weather was bad, or when driving in heavy traffic, or driving around in the city... then I guarantee you that I'd be able to say that drivers using the pet rock system have [large percentage] fewer accidents then drivers not using it.
And, yes, THAT is the methodology Tesla used. It added up all the time and miles and accidents tesla drivers had when using it vs all the time and miles and accidents tesla had when not using it, and showed that a lot more accidents happened when it wasn't in use. The fact that autopilot was never on in precisely the conditions where accidents happen the most was even called out by some of the coverage.
I'm not denying that the Tesla system helped prevent some accidents, but seriously, highway driving is the safest place to be. Comparing all driving to highway driving is meaningless. They'd have to compare highway driving with autopilot off vs on in similar conditions to give us a real value.
In a day and age where the common excuse is "the computer told me, so I trusted it",
Other: "Why wont flash update"; I've tried downloading and running the updater 11 times this morning and it won't install.
Me -- looks at window on the screen "The Flash installer will continue automatically after you close the following application: Firefox"
Me -- points at window.
Other -- "....Oh...."
Most people don't ever pay attention to what the computer says. It doesn't matter whether its a warning, a notification, or an error. They IGNORE the messages out of hand, almost instinctively pressing ok, or continue or retry or i agree or whatever they can find that looks like "go forward". And even when it doesn't work, they'll try again and again banging into the same error messages and they don't even register.
seems to think I'm defending Tesla for some personal reason.
Where did you get that idea?
Oh, well... we'll let the courts sort it out and when the courts side with Tesla this guy will stumble off with his tail between his legs.
You seem to think I think the driver is somehow not responsible for this crash. I do not hold that position at all.
I only think that Tesla, by releasing this feature, in its current state, with the current marketing around it is acting irresponsibly and that they should voluntarily or by regulation change the system. It's not safe, and it will lead to more accidents.
There can be more than one wrong party in a tragedy like this. And there is. The driver was an idiot; if he was watching Harry Potter there's nothing charitable I can say about him. But that doesn't mean Tesla didn't also screw up too.
"It is absolutely clear that he is talking about autopilot on with a reasonable driver behind the wheel. He is definitely not talking about how well the system works if the driver is asleep or non-existant."
Yes, it's absolutely clear that's why there are 5000 articles that "re-tweet" the Elon Musk says Tesla autopilot twice as good as a human driver".
That's the message that got out. You proved my point by looking to establish you were technically correct, instead of looking at the message that the general public is actually receiving. Bravo.
Now, keep going. I posted several links; including this one:
http://www.cnet.com/roadshow/v...
Tesla doesn't have a fully autonomous car yet. But, with the addition of Autopilot mode, cruising down the highway is now a hands-off affair.
You misread the AC. The AC claims that Clarkson was at the time stressed out by a potentially serious medical issue (a cancer scare); not that the 'medical issue' was the late meal itself.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/ce...
I'm not saying that excuses him, but assuming its true, it would have been a source of major stress.
Do you have an example of such marketing? I've never seen it.
Read *between* the lines like an actual human being. Not like a pedant trying to win an argument on a technicality.
https://www.technologyreview.c...
http://electrek.co/2016/04/20/...
"During a presentation following the release of the system, Musk said that in good road conditions âoepeople may [remove their hands from the steering-wheel], but we donâ(TM)t advise that.â "
In other words, you can do it, but we don't advise it. "wink wink [cough]lawyers made us say this[cough]".
That is generally the message they are broadcasting.
http://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-c...
" Even with this early version, itâ(TM)s almost twice as good as a person."
He doesn't say, it makes a human driver safer by acting as a useful failsafe. He specifically says it drives better than people do.
Read between the lines.
http://wccftech.com/tesla-auto...
" The feature itself has gained a lot of fame in the recent months thanks to its obvious novelty value and the fact that it is the first hands-off, self-driving technology on the market today."
Ah, but some of this is journalism and press coverage not actually marketing from Tesla. Right. So what? You think Tesla isn't loaning the cars and press kits to journalists? You think they aren't leveraging that mis information...
https://www.teslamotors.com/en...
They fucking link to it right from their own site. This link is on that page:
http://www.cnet.com/roadshow/v...
And this is the caption:
"Tesla doesn't have a fully autonomous car yet. But, with the addition of Autopilot mode, cruising down the highway is now a hands-off affair."
You can't credibly claim that Tesla isn't spreading the word that autopilot allows for 'hands off driving'; despite the disclaimers here and there.
Personal. Fucking. Responsibility.
Goes both ways.
Tesla has to own the fact that it knows the warning isn't a sufficient deterrent - the youtube channel is ample evidence. And it has to own that its own marketing of the feature contradicts the warning message.
It has to own that it is putting customers and the general public at increased risk as a result.
I'm not suggesing the driver isn't at fault, or should get a free pass here. But Tesla needs to take some personal, fucking, responsibility, for its part in this too.
They were winning items and skins that had a high face value
So... like casino chips, or bitcoins, or bonds...?
If you win something a high face value that can be easily exchanged for that face value in cash, the it is not incorrect to call it 'winning big money'.
Note: in some jurisdictions this is known as "impeding the flow of traffic" and is in and of itself unlawful.)
In almost all those same jurisdictions exceeding the speed limit to drive with the flow of traffic is known as "speeding".
Practically everyone I've ever known has received a ticket for speeding while driving with the flow of traffic, including me.
I've also never heard of anyone doing the speed limit being cited for 'impeding traffic'; even if they were. They'd have to be going considerably BELOW the speed limit.
You could mine at a slight loss with the expectation that the price of your bitcoins will rise, no?
If that's your strategy, you'd be better off just buying someone else's already mined coins; and then holding them.
Then you don't take a 'slight loss'.
It's a car, a multi-ton rolling death machine. Paying attention behind the wheel should be the default. Period.
Yes it should be. But for an awful lot of people its not.
If the car features the ability to drive by itself, even in limited capacity, then even if the car itself tells you every time you turn the feature on that its a beta feature and shouldn't be trusted to drive the car, people WILL still ignore it in droves.
The general public are not commercial airline pilots.
There's ample proof of that on Youtube.
actually instructs the user thatthey must remain alert and ready to take control of the vehicle at any time."
So what? We use beta software every single day; and we are pretty much trained to ignore that disclaimer.
Windows 10 pre-release had one that said the software shouldn't be used in a production environment, but 10s of thousands did anyway.
Google's always got some tool or project in 'beta' that says its just for testing and experimentation and then people in the millions base their lives around it.
You think Tesla putting a 'beta' sticker or warning on it changes anything in the mind of the general public? Everything is beta.
And a disclaimer by the car telling a driver "they must remain alert and ready to take control of the vehicle at any time" penetrates? or is equivalent to actual training?
If anything we've been trained to ignore disclaimers, because everybody disclaims anything. I have to sign a waiver that the zip-lining equipment might kill me before i strap in. My bluetooth car speaker and vehicle navigation systems both say not to use them while driving. I've seen home gym equipment that warned owners not to use without a professional trainer. Weight loss solutions sold in department stores that disclaim they will do anything at all, and suggest that your doctor be involved being advertised as christmas gifts...
A car that tells me i have to pay attention? Give me a break. That may have fulfilled some technical legal obligation -- but as I said, anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together is going to know that modern western culture and human nature both will have render that warning completely ineffective at curbing the undesired behaviour. Its simply irresponsible to rely on a warning like that to be sufficient to actually avoid accidents.
Its pretty common when mocking a post to respond in the same style.
For example, one might have responded to yours with:
You must be [insult] ; either that or [insult]; and you [insult].
Anyhow [final insult]....
You might be right and its the same AC; but its just as likely to be using style imitation as part of the mockery.
Autopilot is a fairly well defined term, yes... in the aviation field.
And most drivers are not in the aviation field. "Check."
A pilot would never, for example, turn on autopilot and take a nap at the same time as their copilot; they'd get fired for that, or worse.
And 'mate:
They know they'd be fired for that because they know its against the rules because that's part of all kinds of their training along with all kinds of training including specifically how to operate the autopilot.
The average driver does NOT have any of that. Driver education and licensing doesn't cover it at all. Half the drivers out there barely know how cruise control works. Its not on any test. They don't need to know how it works to get a license. A car owners knowledge of autopilot is what they read in the owners manual... if they read the owners manual, it might even just be what they saw on youtube.
My sister, who doesn't drive, thinks autopilot is essentially 'self-driving'; because her experience with autopilot, unlike the 'actual commercial pilots you know' comes from Star Wars where Han Solo wanders into the rec room to mock Luke, while Chewie plays chess-like with C3PO, or Firefly, where Walsh along with the rest of crew is having dinner while the ship flies along... , or hollywood movies where the plane flies along just fine while the pilot takes a nap, or has sex, or engages in a gunfight with a stowaway passenger, at least until the autopilot gets 'shot' by a stray bullet.
The general public's perception of what an aircraft autopilot's capabilties are is pretty hazy and heavily influenced by fictional portrayals.
To compare a commercial pilots understanding of autopilot where they are thoroughly tested and trained professionally to use it to the general publics perception is ridiculous. The pilots are trained on its use. The general public's car has a disclaimer in a users manual they didn't read -- its not the same thing.
Meanwhile google is stuffing the news with self-driving cars; and Musk is riding those coat-tails to further confuse them on an issue they have no formal or even informal training with.
Tesla pulled a stupid here.
And compounding that stupid is human nature. No human being can sit for hours ready and attentive to respond to a driving situation; yet not actually be engaged in driving. I can drive for 12 hours straight if im in full control of the vehicle. But I'd be completely tuned out in under 10 minutes if I was just sitting there while the car drove itself, and I was supposed to be 'perpetually attentive'.
Until the car can truly drive itself, it shouldn't drive itself. Because people WILL abuse a feature in a car that 'almost' drives itself. That's not the features shortcoming, that's a failing of people. But you still simply can't responsibly unleash a feature like that on the general public. Because anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together should know the general public, unlike a professional commercial pilot, can't be reliably trusted not fuck it up.
When was the last time your phone was out of your immediate sight and direct control?
5-8 hours per night. plus the odd nap. plus when i leave it in the locker at the pool or gym. There are some other times too... like swimming at the beach.
That assumes you can get the user's device from them without their knowledge.
Just steal it from them when they are out and about. Sure they'll know its gone missing. So what? You want what's on it, it doesn't always matter if they know or not -- and most of us aren't paranoid enough to assume it was the men in black helicopters and not just some random theif. Phones get stolen ALL THE TIME.
Hell, you can even plant something on it, and then return it to them... turn it into the carrier or lost and found or the police or something; odds are they'll be so happy/surprised that it turned up again they won't even think that it was hacked.