3 ms·

> I think the idea of the parent comment was to build a mount that would hide periods of high acceleration. Ah. Missed that. > I imagine that's only possible

by lutusp 12y ago

> I think the idea of the parent comment was to build a mount that would hide periods of high acceleration. Ah. Missed that. > I imagine that's only possible if your "shock mount" is significantly longer than the car itself. Yes, true -- a little calculation shows it would be nearly impossible to hide a car's jackrabbit start from within the car.

Scoundreller 12y ago
Darn. Maybe someone will come up with something that sits on the I2C or SPI bus of the accelerometer chip and does ???.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  How about not fighting the measures created to help drivers avoid killing people?
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    How about refusing to create spying devices of any kind on ethical grounds?
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      You'd have to refuse to create computational devices of all sorts. It is the case of the Great Web of Causality, that things are heavily interconnected with each other. Everything you do inflicts consequences on everything else within your light cone, and back-tracing effects to what caused them is only the matter of enough data and computing power. To put it in a less grand/mythological way: they can always find another way to get the data they need. It's only a matter of computing power and having a little nut of imagination in one's head. Think of all the side-channel attacks talked about recently - reading speech data from laser, reading speech data from high-speed video, reading crypto keys from power consumption patterns, reading crypto keys from voltage variations on Ethernet cable, reading data from screen reflections off the wall, reading data from RF emissions of CRT displays, reading keypresses from phone accelerometer, reading speech from phone accelerometer, etc. etd. There's always a way.
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        There's always a way. That doesn't mean I will be the one to build it. Many undesirable things are imminently possible, easy even, but very few people do those things. With enough solid arguments and education, mass surveillance, even ostensibly for good purposes, can be added to that list.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        I don't know... The more I think of it, the more I start to believe some form of technological determinism is driving humanity. That the new technologies determine what will be taught to people and what they will argue about, not the other way around. I mean, do we have a single example of a new technology that could be useful to some while harmful to others, that we collectively agreed not to use or pursue, by means of arguments and educations? Nuclear weapons don't really count, because their use seems dictated solely by game-theoretic reasons (MAD that saved us from global destruction, some nations like Russia apparently pushing their luck by declaring readiness to use tactical nuclear weapons to support their conventional forces, etc.).

by lutusp 12y ago

Scoundreller 12y ago

Darn. Maybe someone will come up with something that sits on the I2C or SPI bus of the accelerometer chip and does ???.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
How about not fighting the measures created to help drivers avoid killing people?
- nitrogen 12y ago
  How about refusing to create spying devices of any kind on ethical grounds?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    You'd have to refuse to create computational devices of all sorts. It is the case of the Great Web of Causality, that things are heavily interconnected with each other. Everything you do inflicts consequences on everything else within your light cone, and back-tracing effects to what caused them is only the matter of enough data and computing power. To put it in a less grand/mythological way: they can always find another way to get the data they need. It's only a matter of computing power and having a little nut of imagination in one's head. Think of all the side-channel attacks talked about recently - reading speech data from laser, reading speech data from high-speed video, reading crypto keys from power consumption patterns, reading crypto keys from voltage variations on Ethernet cable, reading data from screen reflections off the wall, reading data from RF emissions of CRT displays, reading keypresses from phone accelerometer, reading speech from phone accelerometer, etc. etd. There's always a way.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      There's always a way. That doesn't mean I will be the one to build it. Many undesirable things are imminently possible, easy even, but very few people do those things. With enough solid arguments and education, mass surveillance, even ostensibly for good purposes, can be added to that list.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        I don't know... The more I think of it, the more I start to believe some form of technological determinism is driving humanity. That the new technologies determine what will be taught to people and what they will argue about, not the other way around. I mean, do we have a single example of a new technology that could be useful to some while harmful to others, that we collectively agreed not to use or pursue, by means of arguments and educations? Nuclear weapons don't really count, because their use seems dictated solely by game-theoretic reasons (MAD that saved us from global destruction, some nations like Russia apparently pushing their luck by declaring readiness to use tactical nuclear weapons to support their conventional forces, etc.).