emn13

98 ms·

751.
by emn13 9y ago
Compared to a self-driving car system, they are trivial. Your assertion that "they have been at the cutting edge of systems automation for decades" kind of indicates that - this stuff is simple enough to make that it was feasib
752.
by emn13 9y ago
A plane is much easier to navigate because there aren't things like lane-dividers floating about. That's handy, but alas it does not apply to driving a car. Just because an in-air navigation aid that allows for essentially pilot-f
753.
by emn13 9y ago
There is a nuance here though: unlike a "classic" car, tesla and other modern cars clearly have access to a wealth of data about your driving and your crash. The scope of lying by omission, of even simply misinterpreting the wealt
754.
by emn13 9y ago
Which would be fine for an insurer of course. Heck, even if they got into more incidents, but the incidents were cheaper, that would be fine for an insurer too. And not all markets are equally competitive. Just because insurance rates dif
755.
by emn13 9y ago
At a minimum it indicates that Tesla's numbers do not seem exceptionally safe, even if you can't say they're less safe than comparable competitors either. Given the low number of incidents, you probably want to be looking at
756.
by emn13 9y ago
Making evidence disappear is indeed inconceivable. Especially for a firm of Uber's stature.
757.
by emn13 9y ago
Simply counting traffic fatalities suggests that crazy pedestrians causing unavoidable accidents cannot be common, even if every single pedestrian accident were both unavoidable and the pedestrians "fault" (although I'd arg
758.
by emn13 9y ago
I'm simply saying that you should not assume that because the SEC encourages certain self-regulating features that that approach is necessarily optimal.
759.
by emn13 9y ago
That can be illegal - it's market manipulation (specifically, stock bashing). It'll almost certainly depend on the details. (IANAL, and I'm not sure this is ever prosecuted).
760.
by emn13 9y ago
They're trying to cover their a.. with a long disclaimer. I hope that that's not enough to provide legal protection; but it may provide some protection against some laws. And then there's the issue of jurisdiction - which de
761.
by emn13 9y ago
Up to a point: it's what a market "wants" to see insofar as it promotes accurate valuation; but not insofar as it's deceptive or promotes volatility. This press release is clearly quite heavy on those negative factors. F
762.
by emn13 9y ago
So: amazon manages a fairly... unmanaged marketplace. There's a lot of cruft and some fraud. I get the impression it's not quite as bad here (amazon.de) as the reports make amazon.com sound, but deception is a huge problem; and
763.
by emn13 9y ago
You use your opponents own estimates of that value. Uber would have had those; and I'd be willing to bet they were sky-high given their strategy.
764.
by emn13 9y ago
To support your point, I don't believe for a second that Uber is actually innocent of intentionally stealing trade secrets. Far more likely that they they had the foresight not to keep any documents of their foray into industrial espio
765.
by emn13 9y ago
You're not verifying a language, you're verifying a program (or some part of one). Sure- that part in this instance may be implementing a language standard library, but who cares? That program also has tests, docs, types and all
766.
by emn13 9y ago
I'd say the telco's have essentially no influence over the content they transmit, and not just that: there are laws to ensure they don't get any. As to the human rights: there's no point in spending a lot of money deceiv
767.
by emn13 9y ago
Geekbench is a somewhat odd collection of benchmarks, I'd be careful reading too much into it.* Furthermore, the site you link to, which is clearly rather gung-ho about macs, still shows that the ipad was not able to keep up with the i
768.
by emn13 9y ago
As to what the state's responsibilities are surrounding freedom of speech technically : I suspect the courts will figure that one out. As to the intrinsic responsibilities of editorial control: Sure: legal obligations are what you def
769.
by emn13 9y ago
It's almost certainly not true that "A couple of comedians and satire magazines have been hit" if you're implying that legal content was required to be removed. In effect, the state is saying: we'll exempt you fro
770.
by emn13 9y ago
Well, there's at least one definition that's pretty noncontroversial, if not terribly satisfying or precise: it's not a JIT if you compile well in advance of any indication the program needs to be run. Whether that lazy-com
771.
by emn13 9y ago
I don't think it's constructive to look at this in such a black and white fashion. Limiting speech is permitted and performed for good reason on a vast scale. Yes, there are similarly for good reasons limitations! Nobody has art
772.
by emn13 9y ago
By any normal definition these aren't criminal cases. People don't end up losing jobs, going behind bars, gaining criminal records. They usually won't even lose their accounts; certainly the law doesn't suggest that.
773.
by emn13 9y ago
Since you need to to be aware of the raid to use the tool, it seems particularly useful vs. attackers that aren't afraid of being noticed, and whom you cannot keep out otherwise. Particularly the police, in other words. Not that it&#x
774.
by emn13 9y ago
It didn't take 20 years to be discovered; PoC's for variations on this theme were found over 10 years ago. The details really matter for making an exploit: so the amount of speculation and what gets speculated, how caches work, ho
775.
by emn13 9y ago
Right, so to stick a label on it: the exploit is novel, the vulnerability is not. Why does that matter? Because people seem to imply intel isn't to blame here; that since the attacks were unforeseen, it's essentially just bad luc
776.
by emn13 9y ago
These classes of attacks are not new. Timing attack in crypto have been widely used for a long time. And even specifically in CPU's there was stuff like http://www.daemonology.net/papers/htt.pdf and http:&#x2
777.
by emn13 9y ago
They didn't unintentionally break security features; they knowingly did so - the potential for information disclosure was widely documented. In their defense - the solution isn't trivial in general, and large parts of at least sp
778.
by emn13 9y ago
Spectre is somewhat reasonable; at least some variants are forgivable. Meltdown isn't. The risks due specifically to speculation and cache timing attacks (and lots of related stuff) were well known and documented for over a decade.
779.
by emn13 9y ago
Not good, but still thousands of times better. And don't forget that you still need to guess where to read from, which better be a very very accurate guess at that rate. Making such an accurate guess is difficult when your runtime is
780.
by emn13 9y ago
Hey, there you go! I kind of doubt Intel really didn't know about this risk. They were cutting corners; that deserves some opprobrium - especially given their market-dominating position over this timespan.

More ›