Having not watched the anime I went into the film not knowing about the blackout. At the end of the film I had no queries regarding the blackout; it was relevant to aspects of the plot but its cause wasn't.
Blade Runner 2049 is a good film but it's not even as good as the film to which it's a sequel. That was three minutes short of your arbitrary cut off, but there are plenty of other films longer and better.
Spellbound? Shit, I was bored at one point. I wouldn't chop this down to 90 minutes as the article suggests, but it would likely have been improved from losing 20 minutes or so.
If cars start creating and using mesh networks that could even improve.
Although cynically, if the car in front of mine tells mine that it's starting to brake at emergency levels I want mine to ascertain whether it's lying or not before also slamming on the brakes - too many insurance fraud opportunities to do otherwise.
But I'm not saying autonomous systems can't help. I'm merely pointing out that basic object identification and classification is entirely inadequate.
My drunk person example was a pedestrian; the driver putting on make-up isn't necessarily in front of you.
I don't use these cues to drive more dangerously, I use them to acknowledge that this defined object ("person" or "car") is likely to behave outside of standard parameters and I should thus anticipate that.
If you program all autonomous cars to give all 'person' objects a very wide gap when going past (because the person might be drunk) you're going to break the whole transport system. If you program them to avoid overtaking all 'car' objects (because the car may be driven by someone applying make-up and thus unaware of their surroundings) then again, you break the whole transport system.
When I'm following a van that blocks sight of the road in front of me, oddly enough I give myself greater reaction time. When I have a police car following me I make fucking sure it stops following me. My accident rate doesn't go up, but it sure as fuck doesn't go down either. My rate of unexpected braking behind a van certainly goes up, and that's indicative of driving in a less safe situation and thus having to be excessively cautious (to the detriment of people around me, particular those behind me).
I'll settle for a car that can drive itself on 99% of roads, telling me to take control if I want to turn onto the other 1%.
While I do drive on unpaved and unmarked roads, they're the fun part of driving anyway. It's the tens of thousands of miles of getting from A to B that I'd like to sleep through.
Cost is the only possible reason to not use a mix of technologies. Use LIDAR and cameras and ultrasonics and IR imaging, wind sensors and moisture detectors.
No, he isn't describing basic GPS and lane following. I'm not sure if you replied to the post you thought you replied to, it has nothing to do with GPS.
I agree entirely that you wouldn't use GPS to assure safe driving, I just didn't see anybody suggesting this.
No. It can be as subtle as "that girl looks drunk and is about to fall into the road in front of me" or "shit, that driver's putting on his mascara, I'd better give him more space"
They're still objects but there's so much more information available and factored - often subconsciously - into driving decisions.
That's even before you start processing multiple object interactions. I can drive 50 miles down a motorway without using my brakes purely because I've done so much motorway driving that I can predict what other drivers are going to do before they do it - including pulling out in front of me without indicating. That's probably programmable with some basic heuristics applied to a broad range of inputs, but also takes into account the extent to which other drivers are likely to be aware, cautious, courteous and aggressive. It also relies on my ability to program them to behave the way that I want, which - while entirely legal - I can't see autonomous vehicles managing.
Exactly. It took years, to manage a very straightforward problem involving discrete events in a very very constrained environment.
While I'm already impressed by the capabilities of autonomous vehicles I have no confidence of being able to buy a level 5 fully autonomous car in the next two decades.
Not to mention comparing three companies that each have over 200,000 employees and $60bn to $90bn turnover to one that has 10,000 employees and less than $4bn turnover.
Proportionally Equifax appear to be spending substantially more on information security than those banks.
Sigh. None of those 225 people had responsibility for applying the critical patch. I haven't looked into the Struts issue in detail but it's possible development work would be needed to implement the updated version.
Even without that, there's a full deploy/test/release cycle required, so you have a full dev/test team, a release team and sysadmin support. That's not the security team.
The security team will have at least a dozen people doing nothing other than user privilege management. Who can access which systems.
Others will be providing security guidance to projects and development teams. Others will be providing security governance and assessment of those change activities. There'll be a couple of teams monitoring regular and ad hoc activities on servers, on the network, at the interfaces between Equifax and other entities.
Then you've got the various security policy, management, research, the teams that do internal investigations, customer engagement and supplier management. There'll also be a group of people monitoring external influences - such as vulnerabilities in technologies used at the company.
That team will provide information, insight and guidance, but they're still not fucking responsible for patching anything. Let alone something like Struts.
So you're upset that, contrary to the news reports and comments here on Slashdot, the CEO explicitly did take responsibility in front of a Congressional committee hearing?
Hi, where do I sign up to sitting in front of a Congressional committee and embarrassing myself for $90m?
Good question. I suspect they have a defense that they don't tell anybody anything about you at all, they merely report what others tell them about you.
Archers own multiple bows. Chefs own multiple knives. Musicians own multiple instruments. Golfers own multiple clubs.
I could go on, but I think the point is clear: Just what the fuck makes people that own guns different from people that own other tools, toys and weapons?
While Norway is such a small country that police may never be but so far away, there are places in the US where you might easily be hours from the nearest police.
So small you can drive from one end to the other in just 28 hours - if you take a shortcut via two other countries.
Also only 5 million population too - population density is under half that of the US. Sure, in Alaska you can be entirely isolated in a way that Norway can't match, but on average Norway was a shoddy example for you to use.
Are you shitting me? I could manufacture an automatic firearm inside of a week, starting from a wallet full of cash and no equipment or raw materials. This isn't hard.
Reliable ammunition would be substantially harder, as I'm in the UK, but I'm confident I could get something that'll at least give me human target level accuracy to a couple of hundred yards.
The only reason people in the UK don't do this is because of the UK law, or as you put it, "gun control". So just what the fuck is different about the US here?
Yes, because they wait for hours, take one shot, mask the flash, smoke and other effects of firing, move as soon as possible and relocate.
Someone sat in one place for ten minutes shooting automatic weapons at night is easy to spot, which is why people rapidly pinpointed his location and the police knew which hotel room to breach.
Slashdot Mirror
Having not watched the anime I went into the film not knowing about the blackout. At the end of the film I had no queries regarding the blackout; it was relevant to aspects of the plot but its cause wasn't.
That music though.. kind of hammered home just how superior the music in the original film was, and reminded you it was missing from this one.
You haven't seen many films then.
Blade Runner 2049 is a good film but it's not even as good as the film to which it's a sequel. That was three minutes short of your arbitrary cut off, but there are plenty of other films longer and better.
Spellbound? Shit, I was bored at one point. I wouldn't chop this down to 90 minutes as the article suggests, but it would likely have been improved from losing 20 minutes or so.
Yeah, but those kids will grow up, they'll eventually find Blade Runner and they'll want to see its sequel.
Blade Runner 2049 will continue to earn steadily for decades. It's a safe investment.
If cars start creating and using mesh networks that could even improve.
Although cynically, if the car in front of mine tells mine that it's starting to brake at emergency levels I want mine to ascertain whether it's lying or not before also slamming on the brakes - too many insurance fraud opportunities to do otherwise.
But I'm not saying autonomous systems can't help. I'm merely pointing out that basic object identification and classification is entirely inadequate.
My drunk person example was a pedestrian; the driver putting on make-up isn't necessarily in front of you.
I don't use these cues to drive more dangerously, I use them to acknowledge that this defined object ("person" or "car") is likely to behave outside of standard parameters and I should thus anticipate that.
If you program all autonomous cars to give all 'person' objects a very wide gap when going past (because the person might be drunk) you're going to break the whole transport system. If you program them to avoid overtaking all 'car' objects (because the car may be driven by someone applying make-up and thus unaware of their surroundings) then again, you break the whole transport system.
When I'm following a van that blocks sight of the road in front of me, oddly enough I give myself greater reaction time. When I have a police car following me I make fucking sure it stops following me. My accident rate doesn't go up, but it sure as fuck doesn't go down either. My rate of unexpected braking behind a van certainly goes up, and that's indicative of driving in a less safe situation and thus having to be excessively cautious (to the detriment of people around me, particular those behind me).
err.. hi. This website is used by adults. The word 'faggy' is a bit childish for here, do try and act at least mildly mature.
I'll settle for a car that can drive itself on 99% of roads, telling me to take control if I want to turn onto the other 1%.
While I do drive on unpaved and unmarked roads, they're the fun part of driving anyway. It's the tens of thousands of miles of getting from A to B that I'd like to sleep through.
Cost is the only possible reason to not use a mix of technologies. Use LIDAR and cameras and ultrasonics and IR imaging, wind sensors and moisture detectors.
Get it working, you can optimise for cost later.
No, he isn't describing basic GPS and lane following. I'm not sure if you replied to the post you thought you replied to, it has nothing to do with GPS.
I agree entirely that you wouldn't use GPS to assure safe driving, I just didn't see anybody suggesting this.
No. It can be as subtle as "that girl looks drunk and is about to fall into the road in front of me" or "shit, that driver's putting on his mascara, I'd better give him more space"
They're still objects but there's so much more information available and factored - often subconsciously - into driving decisions.
That's even before you start processing multiple object interactions. I can drive 50 miles down a motorway without using my brakes purely because I've done so much motorway driving that I can predict what other drivers are going to do before they do it - including pulling out in front of me without indicating. That's probably programmable with some basic heuristics applied to a broad range of inputs, but also takes into account the extent to which other drivers are likely to be aware, cautious, courteous and aggressive. It also relies on my ability to program them to behave the way that I want, which - while entirely legal - I can't see autonomous vehicles managing.
Exactly. It took years, to manage a very straightforward problem involving discrete events in a very very constrained environment.
While I'm already impressed by the capabilities of autonomous vehicles I have no confidence of being able to buy a level 5 fully autonomous car in the next two decades.
Gotta just trust your gut.
Having seen the remains of what my gut does to breakfast I'm not sure I want to trust it.
Who the fuck even deploys struts on a web server.
implementing multiple layers of security
Do you have even the slightest bit of evidence that they didn't?
I'm sure they're using ansible, puppet, chef, some kind of config. mgt. app
I love your optimism.
Not to mention comparing three companies that each have over 200,000 employees and $60bn to $90bn turnover to one that has 10,000 employees and less than $4bn turnover.
Proportionally Equifax appear to be spending substantially more on information security than those banks.
Sigh. None of those 225 people had responsibility for applying the critical patch. I haven't looked into the Struts issue in detail but it's possible development work would be needed to implement the updated version.
Even without that, there's a full deploy/test/release cycle required, so you have a full dev/test team, a release team and sysadmin support. That's not the security team.
The security team will have at least a dozen people doing nothing other than user privilege management. Who can access which systems.
Others will be providing security guidance to projects and development teams. Others will be providing security governance and assessment of those change activities. There'll be a couple of teams monitoring regular and ad hoc activities on servers, on the network, at the interfaces between Equifax and other entities.
Then you've got the various security policy, management, research, the teams that do internal investigations, customer engagement and supplier management. There'll also be a group of people monitoring external influences - such as vulnerabilities in technologies used at the company.
That team will provide information, insight and guidance, but they're still not fucking responsible for patching anything. Let alone something like Struts.
Maybe you should read more than the summary.
So you're upset that, contrary to the news reports and comments here on Slashdot, the CEO explicitly did take responsibility in front of a Congressional committee hearing?
Hi, where do I sign up to sitting in front of a Congressional committee and embarrassing myself for $90m?
That's the sort of responsibility I can handle.
Good question. I suspect they have a defense that they don't tell anybody anything about you at all, they merely report what others tell them about you.
I'm not saying that this is a good defense.
Archers own multiple bows.
Chefs own multiple knives.
Musicians own multiple instruments.
Golfers own multiple clubs.
I could go on, but I think the point is clear: Just what the fuck makes people that own guns different from people that own other tools, toys and weapons?
While Norway is such a small country that police may never be but so far away, there are places in the US where you might easily be hours from the nearest police.
So small you can drive from one end to the other in just 28 hours - if you take a shortcut via two other countries.
Also only 5 million population too - population density is under half that of the US. Sure, in Alaska you can be entirely isolated in a way that Norway can't match, but on average Norway was a shoddy example for you to use.
First time I've heard about bump stocks. They're.. a bit sad really.
Are you shitting me? I could manufacture an automatic firearm inside of a week, starting from a wallet full of cash and no equipment or raw materials. This isn't hard.
Reliable ammunition would be substantially harder, as I'm in the UK, but I'm confident I could get something that'll at least give me human target level accuracy to a couple of hundred yards.
The only reason people in the UK don't do this is because of the UK law, or as you put it, "gun control". So just what the fuck is different about the US here?
Snipers are notoriously difficult to spot.
Yes, because they wait for hours, take one shot, mask the flash, smoke and other effects of firing, move as soon as possible and relocate.
Someone sat in one place for ten minutes shooting automatic weapons at night is easy to spot, which is why people rapidly pinpointed his location and the police knew which hotel room to breach.
That's strange. You've quoted two different numbers for the murder rate in Chicago.