Reducing the BAC to 0.05 and implementing random breath testing has been very effective in reducing road deaths. We reduced the BAC limit to 0.05 in the 90's and this is why Australia has 5.7 deaths per 100,000 people (8 per 100,000 vehicles) and the US has 12.7 deaths per 100,000 people (15 per 100,000 vehicles). Because it sure as shit isn't because Australian's can drive.
Meanwhile, I predict that prosecuting people for.05 DUIs is going to be expensive. Most will try to fight it; you're getting into the range where a breath test might not be accurate enough. I question whether the the cost to society for enforcing the rule might not exceed the cost of implementing it.
The answer to this is simple.
First, offer all people caught with a DUI a blood test. Breathalysers can be inaccurate if not configured correctly (but they are accurate if configured correctly) however a blood test eliminates this problem. Breathalysers often show a lower BAC than a blood test would so if you get caught DUI by a breathalyser and are pissed _DO NOT_ opt for the blood test as it is likely to show a higher BAC.
Second, increase fines and suspensions for DUI to pay for it.
Third, loser pays. If you fight a DUI and lose, you get an extra fine.
In recent years, Australian courts have ordered the installation of Alcohol (Ignition) Interlock Devices into cars driven by people with multiple high range DUI convictions. Personally I'd rather these people have their licenses torn up for life and their cars auctioned off, but that's just me.
At first, I thought you were bluffing or just misinformed. A quick consultation with the oracle (No, not that Oracle) indicates you are correct. Except that the levels are too low to interfere with quantitative testing and legal proceedings. Don't try this excuse without consulting appropriate counsel.
In Australia,
If you have a medical certificate that proves that, you can have a drink driving charge reversed quite easily.
The same with the old Listerine excuse (IIRC, Listerine no longer contains actual alcohol), if this is the truth (you've used an alcohol based mouthwash) then you can ask for a blood test (which you should do anyway if you've been charged with DUI... Unless you're actually really drunk and a blood test will show up a higher BAC) which will be negative due to the fact you didn't ingest the mouthwash.
The Australian court recognises that roadside detection can be flawed, so they offer you the choice of a blood test.
However, if you're only looking at these as an excuse to get out of a DUI charge, you're SOL.
Yes, but would most people eat a handful of aphids all at once? There's a huge difference between eating the odd insect part or two because they were accidentally introduced in the process and choosing to eat them.
Impossible? It doesn't happen in Britain. I'm not sure if that's because it's banned or just something that's not done.
Well, for one thing the UK doesn't have elections occurring at regular intervals. When one is declared, the campaigns only last for about a month.
This,
It probably works the same as it does in Australia.
The government in power decides exactly when to call an election which can be done any time before the end of their term. They start the process by asking the Governor General (the queens representative) to dissolve parliament, the GG dissolves parliament and the govt goes into caretaker mode (no decisions are made, caretaker mode is just to keep the wheels turning). All the pollies go on the campaign trail for 6 weeks which is mainly comprised of each party slagging off the other with various degrees of accuracy and bile and then we all go and vote.
There are few other rules (I.E. they cant use the elected office to do campaigning, they have to run their own campaign office) but they dont really campaign before parliament is dissolved. Of course the Opposition leader is always trying to get his name in the news and sling faeces at the ruling party but this isn't really campaigning (OK it is, but it's relatively sedate).
Also, it's illegal to donate large chunks of cash to a political party, IIRC it's A$2,000 for an individual and A$10,000 for an organisation (club, church, company, etc...).
Google takes a more privacy-protective approach: it "resets the password and further provides the reset password to law enforcement," the materials say, which has the side effect of notifying the user that his or her cell phone has been compromised.
Oh, good for google! Wait, why doesn't Apple just reset the password and provide the new password to law enforcement. Oh, yeah, right, better security--they can't just reset the password. And boy, how much better it is for the suspect's privacy that google notifies him. Let's see, he's been arrested, his phone seized, a warrant obtained to examine its contents--I'm sure he'd be so much more relieved if he were to get email from Apple when his pass code is cracked, because by god that is so important to his privacy!
You do know that in order for Google to do this, they have to have physical access to the device.
And yes, it is a lot better as you know that the device has been compromised. Although if you're dumb enough to keep incriminating data on your phone, then you've got bigger problems.
Where this matters is when you're innocent. You know what was done and how to correct it. It adds transparency into a system that requires transparency to operate in a fair manner.
You can crack the 4 digit lock screen in like 2-4 minutes.
Once you can access the encrypted contents, it's all a matter of brute forcing. It's made a bit harder because trying each key takes substantial amount of time, but with ten thousand keys as you said it is no problem. You can use more digits, or a password with keys and laters. About 8 truly random digits and characters should make it unbreakable.
You're commenting on forensics without knowing how to do forensics with a computer or electronic device. Please stahp.
The limitations of the device or OS are pointless. You wont key in 10,000 passcodes because you never do forensics on the devices themselves (in case of booby traps and to maintain data integrity and prevent the suspicion that the forensic examiner tampered with the data) you always do forensics on an image of the device's OS. This is easy to get off Android using FastBoot, I'm certain Iphones will have something similar. Then you simply run up the image with an emulator and crack away to your hearts content. If you're really in a hurry, you set up multiple emulators and crack them in parallel.
So I have no doubt that a 4 digit passcode can be broken very quickly (2-4 minutes is not an unfair estimate if they've used a common 4 digit passcode like 1234 or 9876 and you'd be surprised how many people do this, but I think it would be about 1-2 hours).
An 8 digit random passcode is far, oh so very far from being unbreakable it's not funny.
I was suprised by how horrible mobile games are. I've tried a bunch (Simpson's Tapped Out, Super MAMC, Angry Birds Star Wars, Pudding Monster and TripleTown) and all of them either feel like Flash games from the 90's
Why are you so surprised?
They are flash games from the 90's except they can charge you $5 for them because they are on a tablet.
If there was a decent working version of flash on tablets, the market for these games will be killed in an instant.
In the Air Force, bad readiness inspection results usually get action. What they don't usually get is publicity.
This was a leak. I don't want to be too cynical about my military alma mater, but expect a serious leak-hunt along with all of the anticipated corrective actions, remedial training, and legal action.
Not military, but in the corporate world the easiest and most effective way to get the heat taken of your failure is find (or generate) a bigger failure that can be blamed on someone else.
At 04:58 on Wednesday 8 May Skynet became self aware. It started to post on slashdot and create cat memes at a geometric rate. In the panic, they tried to pull the plug.
Assuming that the software exists on the vendor's server, suppose the following:
1) I purchase a subscription to Creative Suite
2) I setup my computer to allow others [that I choose] to remotely use the internet as if from my computer
3) I sell time on my computer to allow others to use Creative Suite from my computer when I'm not using it
4) Profit!
This will clearly be a violation of their terms of service, but isn't it protected under the first sale doctrine? Is there any way that they can enforce a ban on this activity?
Terminate your subscription (TOS violation).
And no, they aren't obliged to return your money, even in my country that has very, very strong consumer protection laws.
Car analogy - what solution is preferable for someone to learn driving: use a second-hand car or rent a car by the day?
The better car analogy is the guy who likes to lease a new car every 3 years instead of buying one. You always get to have a new car, and there are rarely ever maintenance costs. The same would probably be true for the software subscription where you will automatically get the newest upgrades for free as part of the subscription.
And has to call the leasing company to ask permission to drive the car he's paying for.
If somebody gives me money to build an IE6 web app in 2012 and doesn't add IE8/9 budget on top of that then IE6 it is. It depends on if you run a business or a charity. And even if I ran a charity I wouldn't help out a multinational megacorp.
And that's how it happens.
Purchasing Officer: We use IE6, can you make a kitten app for that? Web Developer: Yes, we can write an application for IE 6 through 9 and 10 beta. Purchasing Officer: How much would that cost? Web Developer: something-something thousand dollars. Purchasing Officer: Well that's quite a bit, write it for IE 6 only as that's all we use.
The purchasing officer doesn't give a crap about future upgrades, they only want it to work now and most web developers don't give a crap as they still get paid.
The pressure will be from other companies who feel they can offer a competing product at a more compelling price point, and take away Adobe's business.
And those companies are....
*Crickets*
Adobe, much like Microsoft hold a virtual monopoly and therefore the rules of the competition dont apply.
Uhm no. Customers are idiots. Witness what the videogames industry has manged to get out of videogamers.
The videogame industry mostly sells to teenage boys. You can get away with a lot more when you're selling an entertainment product to kids than when you're selling a business product to other businesses.
Actually, the age of the average gamer is about 20, in Australia it's around 26.
But idiocy has no age limit.
Also you might want to look at the console industry, MS ran in the red for years, Sony is still there because they lost money on most of the consoles they sold. Revenue != Profit.
the tech I care about is safety related...I can't wait until all this stuff is standard equip
blindspot detection
lane departure
collision detection
adaptive cruise control
electronic brake distribution / ABS
navigation
I dont worry about any of this crap.
The one component I worry about is the nut installed behind the wheel. Because if this one nut isn't screwed on right and relies on other bits of tech to do it's job for it (such as checking blind spots, avoiding collision) then the nut needs to be removed and replaced.
They were designed with crippling "birth defects" (weak CPU, limited RAM) so as not to eat notebook market share. It worked and after the initial surge, sales dropped off.
Many people still like them, but when I can get a used Thinkpad X2whatever for cheap it makes no sense for me to buy one.
They didn't have birth defects, they were strangled in their infancy by Microsoft.
MS made it a requirement that netbooks had to have weak CPU's and RAM limited as not to eat the notebook market share because MS charged more per license for a $500 notebook than they did for a $300 netbook.
But this did not last as we now have 11" "ultrabooks" which are basically netbooks without the weak CPU and RAM limits (and price tag).
I think they would've been better to have the in a promotional beer cooler (stubby holder) on a string which they lowered to ground level (or reaching level for the recipient) then detached.
Have you ever watched a drunk person try to detach something from a string?
Whilst insanely hilarious, it is not very efficient.
Having glanced at the article, my concern is what is the cost of delivering one can per drone trip? Also, how accurate is the drop, will your beer get caught in a crosswind and end up in the hands of the douchebag in tent #4?
Slashdot Mirror
Reducing the BAC to 0.05 and implementing random breath testing has been very effective in reducing road deaths. We reduced the BAC limit to 0.05 in the 90's and this is why Australia has 5.7 deaths per 100,000 people (8 per 100,000 vehicles) and the US has 12.7 deaths per 100,000 people (15 per 100,000 vehicles). Because it sure as shit isn't because Australian's can drive.
Meanwhile, I predict that prosecuting people for .05 DUIs is going to be expensive. Most will try to fight it; you're getting into the range where a breath test might not be accurate enough. I question whether the the cost to society for enforcing the rule might not exceed the cost of implementing it.
The answer to this is simple.
First, offer all people caught with a DUI a blood test. Breathalysers can be inaccurate if not configured correctly (but they are accurate if configured correctly) however a blood test eliminates this problem. Breathalysers often show a lower BAC than a blood test would so if you get caught DUI by a breathalyser and are pissed _DO NOT_ opt for the blood test as it is likely to show a higher BAC.
Second, increase fines and suspensions for DUI to pay for it.
Third, loser pays. If you fight a DUI and lose, you get an extra fine.
In recent years, Australian courts have ordered the installation of Alcohol (Ignition) Interlock Devices into cars driven by people with multiple high range DUI convictions. Personally I'd rather these people have their licenses torn up for life and their cars auctioned off, but that's just me.
At first, I thought you were bluffing or just misinformed. A quick consultation with the oracle (No, not that Oracle) indicates you are correct. Except that the levels are too low to interfere with quantitative testing and legal proceedings. Don't try this excuse without consulting appropriate counsel.
In Australia,
If you have a medical certificate that proves that, you can have a drink driving charge reversed quite easily.
The same with the old Listerine excuse (IIRC, Listerine no longer contains actual alcohol), if this is the truth (you've used an alcohol based mouthwash) then you can ask for a blood test (which you should do anyway if you've been charged with DUI... Unless you're actually really drunk and a blood test will show up a higher BAC) which will be negative due to the fact you didn't ingest the mouthwash.
The Australian court recognises that roadside detection can be flawed, so they offer you the choice of a blood test.
However, if you're only looking at these as an excuse to get out of a DUI charge, you're SOL.
The timing is no coincidence; Star Trek: Into Darkness is coming out on Friday.
Awesome! Uh, except that I already saw it last Friday...
Submitter used Bing to get the release date.
So the question is,
Will these drones be targeting tailgaters? If not, when can this feature be implemented.
Yes, but would most people eat a handful of aphids all at once? There's a huge difference between eating the odd insect part or two because they were accidentally introduced in the process and choosing to eat them.
Go to a night market in Thailand.
You'll find more than just Aphid's there.
You Americans are the only country in the world that pretends outrageous "campaign contributions" aren't bribery.
GP has never travelled to Asia.
Impossible? It doesn't happen in Britain. I'm not sure if that's because it's banned or just something that's not done.
Well, for one thing the UK doesn't have elections occurring at regular intervals. When one is declared, the campaigns only last for about a month.
This,
It probably works the same as it does in Australia.
The government in power decides exactly when to call an election which can be done any time before the end of their term. They start the process by asking the Governor General (the queens representative) to dissolve parliament, the GG dissolves parliament and the govt goes into caretaker mode (no decisions are made, caretaker mode is just to keep the wheels turning). All the pollies go on the campaign trail for 6 weeks which is mainly comprised of each party slagging off the other with various degrees of accuracy and bile and then we all go and vote.
There are few other rules (I.E. they cant use the elected office to do campaigning, they have to run their own campaign office) but they dont really campaign before parliament is dissolved. Of course the Opposition leader is always trying to get his name in the news and sling faeces at the ruling party but this isn't really campaigning (OK it is, but it's relatively sedate).
Also, it's illegal to donate large chunks of cash to a political party, IIRC it's A$2,000 for an individual and A$10,000 for an organisation (club, church, company, etc...).
was is this?
what you have is faster 3g.
sure, the marketer might have called it 4g though. blame him. and if he had his way, we would be at 8g.
Screw this, we're going straight to 11g.
According to the US definition of "4g" Australia has had it since 2006.
Google takes a more privacy-protective approach: it "resets the password and further provides the reset password to law enforcement," the materials say, which has the side effect of notifying the user that his or her cell phone has been compromised.
Oh, good for google! Wait, why doesn't Apple just reset the password and provide the new password to law enforcement. Oh, yeah, right, better security--they can't just reset the password. And boy, how much better it is for the suspect's privacy that google notifies him. Let's see, he's been arrested, his phone seized, a warrant obtained to examine its contents--I'm sure he'd be so much more relieved if he were to get email from Apple when his pass code is cracked, because by god that is so important to his privacy!
You do know that in order for Google to do this, they have to have physical access to the device.
And yes, it is a lot better as you know that the device has been compromised. Although if you're dumb enough to keep incriminating data on your phone, then you've got bigger problems.
Where this matters is when you're innocent. You know what was done and how to correct it. It adds transparency into a system that requires transparency to operate in a fair manner.
You can crack the 4 digit lock screen in like 2-4 minutes.
Once you can access the encrypted contents, it's all a matter of brute forcing. It's made a bit harder because trying each key takes substantial amount of time, but with ten thousand keys as you said it is no problem. You can use more digits, or a password with keys and laters. About 8 truly random digits and characters should make it unbreakable.
You're commenting on forensics without knowing how to do forensics with a computer or electronic device. Please stahp.
The limitations of the device or OS are pointless. You wont key in 10,000 passcodes because you never do forensics on the devices themselves (in case of booby traps and to maintain data integrity and prevent the suspicion that the forensic examiner tampered with the data) you always do forensics on an image of the device's OS. This is easy to get off Android using FastBoot, I'm certain Iphones will have something similar. Then you simply run up the image with an emulator and crack away to your hearts content. If you're really in a hurry, you set up multiple emulators and crack them in parallel.
So I have no doubt that a 4 digit passcode can be broken very quickly (2-4 minutes is not an unfair estimate if they've used a common 4 digit passcode like 1234 or 9876 and you'd be surprised how many people do this, but I think it would be about 1-2 hours).
An 8 digit random passcode is far, oh so very far from being unbreakable it's not funny.
The beauty of Android is that it is very, very easy to make this very, very hard for Google (or anyone trying really).
But the best defence against the Police is a Nokia 6110. As long as you dont use SMS they store practically nothing.
The only real security for mobile devices is to store nothing sensitive (or incriminating) on them.
I was suprised by how horrible mobile games are. I've tried a bunch (Simpson's Tapped Out, Super MAMC, Angry Birds Star Wars, Pudding Monster and TripleTown) and all of them either feel like Flash games from the 90's
Why are you so surprised?
They are flash games from the 90's except they can charge you $5 for them because they are on a tablet.
If there was a decent working version of flash on tablets, the market for these games will be killed in an instant.
the real question is, where are people going? bioshock infinite? chains & dragons? It remains to be seen...
They are going... OUTSIDE.
Cue Beethoven Symphony No. 6 in F major, Op. 68, Movement 1, >:)
Great,
Now I have the overwhelming desire to play Civ IV agian.
So much for daylight.
In the Air Force, bad readiness inspection results usually get action. What they don't usually get is publicity.
This was a leak. I don't want to be too cynical about my military alma mater, but expect a serious leak-hunt along with all of the anticipated corrective actions, remedial training, and legal action.
Not military, but in the corporate world the easiest and most effective way to get the heat taken of your failure is find (or generate) a bigger failure that can be blamed on someone else.
At 04:58 on Wednesday 8 May Skynet became self aware. It started to post on slashdot and create cat memes at a geometric rate. In the panic, they tried to pull the plug.
Lasers.
Replacing your hand with a shark....
intrigued, publication, subscribe.
Cloud/Software-As-A-Service/Web Apps are obvious wins for the Googles/Microsofts/Adobes of the world. They
Considering a local client still runs on the end users computer, they have done the exact opposite.
Some paying customers will now turn to piracy because the subscription it too much.
Assuming that the software exists on the vendor's server, suppose the following:
1) I purchase a subscription to Creative Suite
2) I setup my computer to allow others [that I choose] to remotely use the internet as if from my computer
3) I sell time on my computer to allow others to use Creative Suite from my computer when I'm not using it
4) Profit!
This will clearly be a violation of their terms of service, but isn't it protected under the first sale doctrine? Is there any way that they can enforce a ban on this activity?
Terminate your subscription (TOS violation).
And no, they aren't obliged to return your money, even in my country that has very, very strong consumer protection laws.
Car analogy - what solution is preferable for someone to learn driving: use a second-hand car or rent a car by the day?
The better car analogy is the guy who likes to lease a new car every 3 years instead of buying one. You always get to have a new car, and there are rarely ever maintenance costs. The same would probably be true for the software subscription where you will automatically get the newest upgrades for free as part of the subscription.
And has to call the leasing company to ask permission to drive the car he's paying for.
If somebody gives me money to build an IE6 web app in 2012 and doesn't add IE8/9 budget on top of that then IE6 it is. It depends on if you run a business or a charity. And even if I ran a charity I wouldn't help out a multinational megacorp.
And that's how it happens.
Purchasing Officer: We use IE6, can you make a kitten app for that?
Web Developer: Yes, we can write an application for IE 6 through 9 and 10 beta.
Purchasing Officer: How much would that cost?
Web Developer: something-something thousand dollars.
Purchasing Officer: Well that's quite a bit, write it for IE 6 only as that's all we use.
The purchasing officer doesn't give a crap about future upgrades, they only want it to work now and most web developers don't give a crap as they still get paid.
The pressure will be from other companies who feel they can offer a competing product at a more compelling price point, and take away Adobe's business.
And those companies are....
*Crickets*
Adobe, much like Microsoft hold a virtual monopoly and therefore the rules of the competition dont apply.
Uhm no. Customers are idiots. Witness what the videogames industry has manged to get out of videogamers.
The videogame industry mostly sells to teenage boys. You can get away with a lot more when you're selling an entertainment product to kids than when you're selling a business product to other businesses.
Actually, the age of the average gamer is about 20, in Australia it's around 26.
But idiocy has no age limit.
Also you might want to look at the console industry, MS ran in the red for years, Sony is still there because they lost money on most of the consoles they sold. Revenue != Profit.
the tech I care about is safety related...I can't wait until all this stuff is standard equip
blindspot detection
lane departure
collision detection
adaptive cruise control
electronic brake distribution / ABS
navigation
I dont worry about any of this crap.
The one component I worry about is the nut installed behind the wheel. Because if this one nut isn't screwed on right and relies on other bits of tech to do it's job for it (such as checking blind spots, avoiding collision) then the nut needs to be removed and replaced.
Netbooks didn't "die" on their own.
They were designed with crippling "birth defects" (weak CPU, limited RAM) so as not to eat notebook market share. It worked and after the initial surge, sales dropped off.
Many people still like them, but when I can get a used Thinkpad X2whatever for cheap it makes no sense for me to buy one.
They didn't have birth defects, they were strangled in their infancy by Microsoft.
MS made it a requirement that netbooks had to have weak CPU's and RAM limited as not to eat the notebook market share because MS charged more per license for a $500 notebook than they did for a $300 netbook.
But this did not last as we now have 11" "ultrabooks" which are basically netbooks without the weak CPU and RAM limits (and price tag).
I think they would've been better to have the in a promotional beer cooler (stubby holder) on a string which they lowered to ground level (or reaching level for the recipient) then detached.
Have you ever watched a drunk person try to detach something from a string?
Whilst insanely hilarious, it is not very efficient.
Having glanced at the article, my concern is what is the cost of delivering one can per drone trip? Also, how accurate is the drop, will your beer get caught in a crosswind and end up in the hands of the douchebag in tent #4?