In his ruling, Orenstein noted that Feng was using his own property, not Apple's: "To the extent that Feng used his iPhone in committing crimes, he used his own property, not Apple's." Incredibly, the DOJ hits back on that claim by saying that because Apple licenses rather than sells its software, Feng was actually using Apple's property, and thus it is not too far removed
What's incredible about that? Big software companies have been running that "licensed not sold" scam for far too long, and this is simply taking it to the logical conclusion. Hopefully this claim by the DOJ will stand and will set a precedent, giving companies a good reason to back away from "licensed not sold".
One of the many reasons regulators opposed Comcast's attempted acquisition of Time Warner Cable is the realization that the cable giant did a piss poor job adhering to conditions attached to its acquisition of NBC Universal -- despite the fact that Comcast itself volunteered most of them.
Then the regulators need to go further than simply opposing a new merger.
It's a very simple deal. If Comcast follows this list of conditions, they can be a single company together with NBC Universal. Comcast did an abysmal job of following this list of conditions, therefore they can not be a single company together with NBC Universal, therefore they need to be broken up. That's elementary logic.
No, I'm the guy who tries to drive as safely as possible even when surrounded by idiots who think they own the road.
Consider three things:
1) Lane splitting puts three motorists (the biker and the two cars he's going between) in a position where they have a greatly-reduced margin of error. 2) To err is human. 3) When the inevitable does eventually happen, (see first two points,) you're the only one of the three who is not protected by a couple tons of metal armor.
If that realization does not put you off lane splitting forever, then yes, you are an idiot.
Also, hitting someone while driving through a "yield" sign would easily qualify.
Yield signs are a bit of a sore spot for me at the moment, because in Pennsylvania I see them all over the place in places where they should not be: at the end of on-ramps.
If you've ever been to a driver's ed course, you'll remember that the purpose of an on-ramp is specifically to give you space to get up to speed and merge onto the highway safely. But around here, the civil engineers appear to have failed to understand that: instead of continuing for a reasonable distance (ie. at least half a mile), the lanes provided by most on-ramps vanish right after they meet up with the main highway, with a big YIELD sign there, which is dangerous (it's only safe to merge if you're going approximately the same speed as traffic in the lane you're merging into, and yield can potentially mean having to come to a complete stop with no more room to accelerate!) and defeats the entire purpose of having the on-ramp in the first place.
Mind you, I've got nothing against Yield signs used well. They have a legitimate purpose. I just don't see very many of them used right anymore.
Assuming the cars have a way of communicating with other autonomous cars, the problem you're describing is equivalent to a programming problem known as a "live lock". There are several well-understood solutions for successfully resolving a live lock, which basically boil down to (much more formalized versions of) "have them flip a coin to decide which one gets to go first."
Do your phone and your carrier support 4G LTE? Mine do. Do you know what the "LTE" part stands for?
LTE is "Long-Term Evolution," which literally means exactly what it says. 4G LTE: "this is not actually 4G quality yet, but we'll get around to it eventually." Funny how no one ever mentions that in the ads...
So what in the world is anyone talking about 5G for?!?
Yeah, and in California it's also legal for some idiot on a motorcycle to drive between two busy lanes of traffic. That says a lot more about California lawmakers than about what is and isn't actually a good idea.
That notion's been around for a long time. No idea if it's a real traffic law or not, but this is the first time I've heard anyone use it for anything other than a trollish attempt to justify tailgating, which is never justifiable under any circumstances.
It's not about the law; it's about courtesy. If someone who's already ahead of you needs to pull in, civilized drivers drop back a little and let them. Jerks continue forward as fast as they can, and evil California troll drivers see the signal and pull forward just far enough to be in their blind spot and then stay there, endangering the lives of everyone involved.
True enough. I just find this a particularly stupid assumption to make, and it boggles the mind a little to think that both the programmer and the driver made the same bad assumption. You never assume someone's going to make room for you before they actually make room for you. (Especially when they're bigger than you. I could go on a rant here about human psychology and bullying, but... do I even have to?)
Our test driver, who had been watching the bus in the mirror, also expected the bus to slow or stop. And we can imagine the bus driver assumed we were going to stay put. Unfortunately, all these assumptions led us to the same spot in the lane at the same time. This type of misunderstanding happens between human drivers on the road every day.
Sorry, but no. I like Google, but I've gotta fault them on this. Any competent driver knows to never assume another vehicle will not do something stupid.
When I'm about to change lanes and there's any possibility of another vehicle entering the same space, I put my turn signal on and turn the wheel just a tiny bit, drifting over slowly so the other driver can get the message. Then I watch the other car, and if they don't clearly defer to me and make room for me to move in, I abort, pull back to the center of my lane, cancel the turn signal... and then pull in behind them and honk at them for being a jerk who doesn't know to defer to someone with a turn signal on.
But I never just go and assume they'll make room for me before they actually make room for me. That's just asking to get in a wreck, as we see here.
According to the report, Google's vehicle was in the right-hand turn lane in a busy thoroughfare in Google's hometown of Mountain View, California, last month, when it was blocked by some sand bags. It attempted to move left to get around the sand bags, but slowly struck a city bus that the car's human observer assumed would slow down, but didn't. All in all, it's the kind of accident that any human being might take part in any day of the week.
Where in the world are you from, where that looks like an everyday occurrence? I've lived all over the US and also outside it, and I don't believe I've ever seen sandbags in the road obstructing traffic, particularly in the middle of "a busy thoroughfare"!
A quick circuit split isn't necessarily a good thing right now, simply because we currently have 8 Supreme Court justices rather than 9, and it's looking like it might well be an unusually long time before we get a 9th justice back.
Without going into any of the politics behind the whole mess, let me simply state two well-established and non-controversial facts.
1) The current court is a highly polarized and evenly-balanced one. It had lots of 5/4 decisions, and the one who died recently is one of the 5.
2) In the case of an even-numbered Supreme Court decision that splits 4/4, the decision under review stands.
Therefore, if the California decision gets quickly appealed up to the Supreme Court as presently constituted, there's a high chance that it will not be overturned.
Is Apple still living inside a reality distortion field? People hate autocorrect, because it regularly screws up what you meant to type. I've never spoken to anyone who actually enjoys it, and people I text with frequently curse its name after it renders what they meant to say as something bizarre and incomprehensible. This phenomenon is so common, in fact, that there's an entire website devoted to it.
So what happens with the 100,001st Leaf? Reused VIN?
According to Wikipedia, it's actually the last 8 digits that differ. #10 identifies the model year, #11 identifies the plant at which it was manufactured, and #12-17 are a serial number for the car. Therefore, if one plant manufactured more than 1 million Leafs (Leaves?) in one year, it would break this scheme, but that's not likely.
Nissan has yet to comment, likely because the company, like most automakers, is moving glacially to understand and replicate the vulnerability. GM, you'll recall, took five years to fix a flaw that allowed total remote control of some of its vehicles, a glacial cadence that's just not going to cut it in the IOT age.
Meanwhile, when they found a way to hack into a Tesla a few months back--which required physical, not remote, access--Tesla pushed a software patch out to all affected cars within days.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You
You're completely ignoring the fact that virtually none of the global population growth is happening in developed nations
No, that's exactly the point I'm making: that it's the same developed nations that experienced the baby boom where we're seeing an end to population growth as the baby boom generation, comprising the largest demographic group, moves out of childbearing years.
And no, the Baby Boom was not a worldwide event - it only covered the nations involved in World War 2 i.e. developed nations.
Which, again, is specifically what we are talking about here. We appear to be in violent agreement, as they say.
If you really think that health care and modern technology has "little to nothing" to do with population growth then I ask you to quote your sources and in return I'd present the ghosts of Nightingale, Pasteur, Fleming, etc would happily tell to f##k off back into your cave.
First, I didn't say that health care and modern technology has little or nothing to do with population growth, but rather that they have little or nothing to do with the recent decline in population growth. And as all three of the people you cite above made their contributions before World War II, I hardly see how they have any relevance on the subject.
On the post: DOJ To NY Court: Hey, Can We Have Another Judge Look Over That Ruling About Breaking Into iPhones?
What's incredible about that? Big software companies have been running that "licensed not sold" scam for far too long, and this is simply taking it to the logical conclusion. Hopefully this claim by the DOJ will stand and will set a precedent, giving companies a good reason to back away from "licensed not sold".
On the post: Public Knowledge: Comcast's Usage Cap Shenanigans Violate Neutrality, NBC Merger Conditions
Break them up
Then the regulators need to go further than simply opposing a new merger.
It's a very simple deal. If Comcast follows this list of conditions, they can be a single company together with NBC Universal. Comcast did an abysmal job of following this list of conditions, therefore they can not be a single company together with NBC Universal, therefore they need to be broken up. That's elementary logic.
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consider three things:
1) Lane splitting puts three motorists (the biker and the two cars he's going between) in a position where they have a greatly-reduced margin of error.
2) To err is human.
3) When the inevitable does eventually happen, (see first two points,) you're the only one of the three who is not protected by a couple tons of metal armor.
If that realization does not put you off lane splitting forever, then yes, you are an idiot.
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yield signs are a bit of a sore spot for me at the moment, because in Pennsylvania I see them all over the place in places where they should not be: at the end of on-ramps.
If you've ever been to a driver's ed course, you'll remember that the purpose of an on-ramp is specifically to give you space to get up to speed and merge onto the highway safely. But around here, the civil engineers appear to have failed to understand that: instead of continuing for a reasonable distance (ie. at least half a mile), the lanes provided by most on-ramps vanish right after they meet up with the main highway, with a big YIELD sign there, which is dangerous (it's only safe to merge if you're going approximately the same speed as traffic in the lane you're merging into, and yield can potentially mean having to come to a complete stop with no more room to accelerate!) and defeats the entire purpose of having the on-ramp in the first place.
Mind you, I've got nothing against Yield signs used well. They have a legitimate purpose. I just don't see very many of them used right anymore.
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re:
This is not actually a real problem.
On the post: 5G Wireless Hype Overshadows Fact Nobody Actually Knows What 5G Is Yet
5G? But we don't even have 4G yet!
LTE is "Long-Term Evolution," which literally means exactly what it says. 4G LTE: "this is not actually 4G quality yet, but we'll get around to it eventually." Funny how no one ever mentions that in the ads...
So what in the world is anyone talking about 5G for?!?
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re: Re:
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re: Re: Re: Google changes rules
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Re: Re:
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Sorry, but no. I like Google, but I've gotta fault them on this. Any competent driver knows to never assume another vehicle will not do something stupid.
When I'm about to change lanes and there's any possibility of another vehicle entering the same space, I put my turn signal on and turn the wheel just a tiny bit, drifting over slowly so the other driver can get the message. Then I watch the other car, and if they don't clearly defer to me and make room for me to move in, I abort, pull back to the center of my lane, cancel the turn signal... and then pull in behind them and honk at them for being a jerk who doesn't know to defer to someone with a turn signal on.
But I never just go and assume they'll make room for me before they actually make room for me. That's just asking to get in a wreck, as we see here.
On the post: Google's Self-Driving Car Causes First Accident, As Programmers Try To Balance Human Simulacrum And Perfection
Where in the world are you from, where that looks like an everyday occurrence? I've lived all over the US and also outside it, and I don't believe I've ever seen sandbags in the road obstructing traffic, particularly in the middle of "a busy thoroughfare"!
On the post: Judge In Different Apple Case Says That All Writs Act Doesn't Mean Apple Needs To Help Feds Break Into Phone
Without going into any of the politics behind the whole mess, let me simply state two well-established and non-controversial facts.
1) The current court is a highly polarized and evenly-balanced one. It had lots of 5/4 decisions, and the one who died recently is one of the 5.
2) In the case of an even-numbered Supreme Court decision that splits 4/4, the decision under review stands.
Therefore, if the California decision gets quickly appealed up to the Supreme Court as presently constituted, there's a high chance that it will not be overturned.
On the post: Appeals Court Dumps Apple's Slide To Unlock Patent, Tosses Massive Jury Award Against Samsung In The Trash
People like autocorrect?
This is, of course, yet another example of how DWIM (trying to get a computer to "Do What I Mean" rather than what you actually said) never actually works reliably and is actively harmful more often than not.
On the post: Techdirt Needs Your Help To Fight Encryption Fearmongering
On the post: Rather Than Ending NSA's Key Surveillance Tool, White House To Now Let Other Agencies Use It
Yes we can!
On the post: Nissan Forgets Security Exists, Opens Leaf Owners To Remote Attack
Re: VIN
According to Wikipedia, it's actually the last 8 digits that differ. #10 identifies the model year, #11 identifies the plant at which it was manufactured, and #12-17 are a serial number for the car. Therefore, if one plant manufactured more than 1 million Leafs (Leaves?) in one year, it would break this scheme, but that's not likely.
On the post: Nissan Forgets Security Exists, Opens Leaf Owners To Remote Attack
Meanwhile, when they found a way to hack into a Tesla a few months back--which required physical, not remote, access--Tesla pushed a software patch out to all affected cars within days.
On the post: Bill Gates Is Confused About Apple FBI Fight, Makes Everyone More Confused
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You
No, that's exactly the point I'm making: that it's the same developed nations that experienced the baby boom where we're seeing an end to population growth as the baby boom generation, comprising the largest demographic group, moves out of childbearing years.
Which, again, is specifically what we are talking about here. We appear to be in violent agreement, as they say.
First, I didn't say that health care and modern technology has little or nothing to do with population growth, but rather that they have little or nothing to do with the recent decline in population growth. And as all three of the people you cite above made their contributions before World War II, I hardly see how they have any relevance on the subject.
Next >>