Posts by Charles 9 16605 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
"You would kind of think that the default logic would be that if a moving object was detected (or stationary) that it couldnt recognise it would reduce speed & engage avoidance by default...."
The problem comes when they don't recognize it until they're INSIDE the minimum (physical) stopping distance. Now you're in Trolley Problem territory.
In other words, logging wouldn't help you because the decisions involved are too technical, too inexact, or too numerous for the average person to follow.
Kinda makes me think of Farscape here. Translator Microbes are supposed to be able to grok most languages: even the highly-nuanced language of Pilots. But they can't translate Diagnosians, whose language is SO vast, meticulous, and detailed it puts Pilots to shame.
"Otherwise you'll be the one telling the coppers "that kid just appeared out of nowhere" as the ambulance drives slowly off with its lights and sirens OFF."
Dude, Not Funny!
That's more real than you realize. Little kids can be smaller than the cars they hide behind and completely concealed by their bodies. They don't know what's out there, then suddenly jump A MERE THREE FEET in front of your car.
Physically unavoidable, and an emotional train wreck to boot. You CANNOT tell the grieving parents that you can't fight physics.
And PS. Parts of tree can drop pretty suddenly and without warning. Maybe not the while trunk, but think a very large and heavy overhead branch that picks that picks the wrong moment to drop fifteen feet in front of you on a crowded road (so no room to swerve). Yes, they CAN just drop. Frequent auto insurance claim, in fact.
The point is, ANY kind of processing (say to winnow out false signals) is going to add reaction time, and in this case, added reaction time adds stopping distance. Now, according to my calculator, 60mph = 26.8224m/s. So a second lag time means you basically need half again as much distance. Even a realistic tenth of a second delay raises your minimum stopping distance by nearly 3 meters (about 9 feet). That's why the end of the article noted concerns around processing time.
So the havoc-wreaker will simply dazzle ALL the systems at once using multiple spoofing systems. Even better, giving each one a different false reading will produce a logic bomb no matter what the judgment system used. After all, what kind of system would be able to figure out they're really traveling over black ice when one system tells them they're going 100mph, another 15mph, a third still 25mph sideways, etc.? Every sensor different and every sensor WRONG, too?
It stands out when the government decrypts the message with their cipher and it still comes out garbage. Now Alice and Bob are suspicious. You not only have to conceal your communications, but you also have to conceal that you're communicating as well.
Except the moment the picture reaches the social network, the image can (and usually does for the very reason you describe) get resized, flattened, and otherwise mangled to squelch any steganography you may have put into the image. About the only way you could convey a message that's mangle-resistant is to make it part of the image itself (which (a) requires previous coordination which may have been moled, and (b) may stand out enough for the plods to realize it for what it is).
Except since a working quantum computer would be "black" tech (meaning they'll deny it even exists), we can't predict how far ahead they really are, plus as noted while post-quantum algorithms exists, none have been judged sound enough that it couldn't be attacked better than brute force (all so far have had serious flaws found).
Games are a no-go. Market is too mature. Microsoft had to leverage heavily to buy in, and they're playing second fiddle to Sony, who has too many media connections (they're a genuine media conglomerate--movies, music, TV, media, the works) for any upstart to topple. Nintendo survives with its franchises and by playing outside the box.
Just how would Apple compete in such a market.
"Yes, a lot of games don't run on systems they're not designed for. As to your "need high end gaming", maybe you "need" to re-think some of your life if gaming actually is a "need"? There's a great world outside, with incredible graphics and animations that don't stop or stutter. Sticking to gaming can lead to depression, social anxiety, and all sorts of other problems that are not in the least "fun". This I am writing from personal experience. Don't let it happen to you (and apols if I am reading your meaning wrong)"
Guess you never heard of smog, muggers, or Major League Gaming.
"HOWEVER, if we can manage to convince a few of the BIG BOYS (let's say Intel, AMD, Lenovo, Dell, and some of the others that will SELL HARDWARE AGAIN if a decent OS is available) that they need to invest in this kind of marketing, it MAY become practical enough that "it happens"."
It'll work AGAINST hardware companies since the odds are it will LOWER requirements instead of raise them. Plus, virtualization is not an option for everyone (like those with custom HARDWARE that can't be virtualized).
"Pro-tip : Most people don't give a stuff about the gaming you constantly harp on about."
PRO-Pro-tip: PLENTY of people give A LOT of crap about gaming. Gamers are still trailblazers for PC tech; otherwise, we'd have plateaued years back. Steam, Battle.net, Origin, and so on numbers seem to indicate there are more people who care about gaming than you care to research. After all, what do you think professional gamers use (you know, those that do it for a living)? And no, we're not interested in consoles (you can't play WoW on a console).
What about Blizzard? They don't seem to be jumping up and down for Linux support, either, and they're the poster child for successful multiplayer gaming with WoW (which people PAY--per month--to play) and Overwatch (the new multiplayer fad that's now incorprated into professional gaming circuits--you know, the ones where real money gets involved).
Look, until the headliners (where the REAL money is made) make the jump (and you can throw in ZeniMax--Fallout 4 is NOT going to Linux unless subsidiary Bethesda are convinced/coerced into changing their minds), until you can get the professional gaming circuits to drop Windows (again, REAL money here), I still say gaming is not ready for prime time on Linux.
Actually, they'd help solar panels. See, if the light gets reflected, it goes UP and AWAY from the business part of the solar panels. Light that gets scattered has a better chance of going DOWN to where you want it.
PS. To whomever suggested mounting the moth-eye film away from fingers, that won't work. For it to work, it has to FACE the light in order to properly refract it. As noted, it creates a dilemma. Smooth surfaces are more oleophobic but more reflective. Matte-like surfaces (the moth-eye film can be considered this) reflect less light but DUE to their rough surface are more oleophilic. I think the previous attempts at anti-glare try to find a happy medium: oleophobically smooth yet able to prevent reflections to a good extent.
"If you don't have your own router, change the WiFi AND admin passwords - which should be standard OpSec anyway. It wouldn't be that hard for device manufacturers to trap all web traffic when the thing is in "default" mode and force passwords to change, before letting it go fully operational...."
Unless people are so used to "plug and play" that they plug it in and keep complaining that instead of the Web they get these weird gibberish screens. MUST BE BROKEN! SEND IT BACK!
It's hard to deal with BOTH security AND stupidity, and recall that consumer-level tech has to deal with LOTS of stupid.
"This is why you are advised never to keep any identifying documents in your vehicle. You have seven days in which to produce them at any police station, not just one belonging to the constabulary who stopped you."
Depends on where you are. Most places you're expected to have them at hand or the police can give you immediate trouble (and not just registration; also proof of insurance and proof of current inspection). At best, they give you a ticket for not having the documents at hand (the "at hand" specifically required under most traffic codes); at worst they may think the car is stolen (that's Grand Theft Auto—a felony—meaning having to deal with jail in the process).
It's not stupid they reject. It's clunky. Vista's UAC was clunky, as was the CueCat that missed half the time. Used to have one and hacked with it, but the LED died on it.
Stupid can work if it's simple enough and popular enough. Look at Facebook and Twitter. Not to mention biometric and Bluetooth locks (tempted to play with one, only for low-security stuff, though). But it does pose that perennial challenge: combining high security with high stupidity.
But it's still tricky. In disguising some tells, you can create others. It's extremely difficult to obfuscate your traffic completely. Not just packet sizes but timings, rates, destinations, etc. can all leave tells, and if you try to scrub all the tells, you may not be able to get through. After all, even an envelope needs an address, and that alone can be useful information.
"Yes, but since this is a packaged product, you can test it in your laboratory for as long as you want to."
You can test it in YOUR environment, but how well can anyone replicate replicate the real-world network conditions of an average enterprise which could be as different as night and day? If such a product needs environmental conditioning first, then the defense has an insider's edge.
""There will only ever be a market for maybe 6 computers"... "No one would ever want to send messages to no-one in particular" etc etc (paraphrased). Lots of people have said "the market isn't there", and the technology is now something most people use every day and take for granted."
WHEN were those statement said exactly? It's not like ""There will only ever be a market for maybe 6 computers" and then there were six million overnight. Many of these things take time, like the apocryphal 640KB statement. 1MB was a lot of memory back in the 1980's. It made sense THEN.
"Nah, I'm not doing something that would take half a second of thought or a few seconds with Google if the thought is to hard for you. There are a number of "mature" markets that died out virtually overnight when other technology replaced them."
Then NAME SOME. I'm not going to do your legwork. It's a matter of principle. If you did this tactic in a courtroom, you'd be laughed out. YOU threw the lure, YOU reel it in.
"and like saddle makers, if writers don't shift from a dying platform then they'll see custom reduced to nothing"
You may be interested to know that Muir & McDonald Leathers are still very much in business. Their specialty happens to be the very thick steer leather that's preferred by saddle makers.
"There will always be a number of devices that fail without 'user tampering'. The more parts it has, the more functions, the more failures will occur and the warranty must cover that. The more warranty claims the more cost."
Unless they're the MOST reliable parts in the machine. Remember, the tech behind it was originally developed for outdoor sensor meshes: a "set-and-forget" setup that means you can't expect someone to come along to fix it if it goes wrong.
If they're THAT backwater, they're probably still using washboards and the like, in which case it's like I said: back to the open flame and the icebox. If people are willing to go THAT far back in time, then you can say electricity is overrated at that point. Talk about cutting one's nose to spite one's face.
"Get the government to lend a hand?"
Two words: Big Brother. I'm sure the Nigerian and Cuban regimes would be keenly interested in something like that, especially if they're told the Russians and Chinese are trying the same thing (remember where Cuba takes its cues). Not so their opposition can stage a coup, but so they can prevent one happening, like how the Iranians squelched the Arab Spring through THEIR Big Brother control.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
