Comment Re:Not buying it... (Score 1) 72
Issue Closed:
WORKS FOR ME
Issue Closed:
WORKS FOR ME
Even the most professional of officers would be tempted if he was was cheating on him or if someone delivered a credible threat to the safety of his children.
The best way to prevent this kind of abuse is to make it impossible.
LK
I don't see it. For example, cell phone records are only recorded and accessible via warrant, and by presenting that warrant to a provider directly. Same could be done with E2EE data if forced through the cell phone provider's networks.
That would mean an end to E2EE APIs on cell phones and other devices, which may be practically impossible at this point.
Edward Snowden showed that this is not as true as you seem to think it is.
LK
Oh dear lord, the hyperbole. We allow law enforcement access to all other forms of communication with a lawful warrant. So should this particular technology be exempt from that?
Then, let them serve the warrant.
What is different is that for the first time in human history, it's not only possible but it's practical to have encrypted communications that no one can access except for the intended recipient.
All of "the most heinous of crimes" take place in the real world, there is some physical action that can be detected and punished. I don't care if this makes the job of law enforcement harder. I want law enforcement to be a difficult and time consuming job. Idle and bored cops tend to find ways to fill their time and it's never good.
LK
I've been thinking about adding solar panels to my house. I would love if I could get a federal subsidy to do it. However, just like with my student loan forgiveness, I'm NOT giving Biden my vote in exchange.
LK
Those costs sound quite high. Level 2 chargers are around $400 retail, and if Amazon bought 17,000 of them they presumably negotiated a much lower price, and 240 40 amp lines are routine. Typical delivery van routes are on average around 125 miles, which means that they could easily charge overnight (8 hours) on a 32 amp charger (e.g. a 40 amp circuit). Compared to industrial power usage, e.g. for a warehouse full of people, with lighting, HVAC, and industrial equipment to power, that's not a lot to ask for. And keep in mind that industrial power costs on average less than half as much as residential power. And by definition EV charging is time-shifted, so they can charge at off-peak times when the costs are lowest, which has the interest effect of not only saving Amazon money, but by driving the base load up and reducing the need for peaker plants, making electricity cost less for _everyone_.
And if you're adding up costs, add up the savings. EVs on average cost half as much to maintain, and a quarter as much per mile to fuel, as gas or diesel trucks. I suspect that the savings rapidly offset the costs of installing cheap AC chargers and powering them, heck, the savings when I've looked at it for fleets offset the purchase price of the trucks surprisingly quickly, maintenance and fuel for large fleets really adds up! .
Where did they get the idea that "Our societies have not previously tolerated spaces that are beyond the reach of law enforcement, where criminals can communicate safely"? One-time pads have been completely secure since they were invented in 1882. And, of course, people have always been able to go somewhere isolated and talk with each other face-to-face without any police around. The idea that police have a right to monitor all communications between anyone anywhere isn't reality-based. Are they going to require criminals to record all private conversations just in case police want to listen in?
And no matter what the police demand, criminals could just use end-to-end secure communications anyway, because there are many end-to-end encryption systems already, and nothing the police demand will change that, once software exists, it'll continue to exist. Heck, PGP exists, so criminals could just use that, and ignore whatever the police do to destroy global security, and the criminals would still be secure from the police, it'd just screw things up for everyone else using the insecure communications channels the police prefer, so they can destroy secure global commerce, but not impede the criminals at all.
Keep in mind that at the time they didn't believe in irrational numbers, negative numbers, nor non-Euclidean geometry.
Every time I go past the In-n-Out Burger and see 40-50 cars lined up to talk into a scratchy intercom and wait half an hour to get food, I think how much more convenient it would be if all of those people could just park their car wherever they wanted (or even not have to get into their car at all), enter their order into an app on their phone, and have their food lowered down to them by a drone.
There'd be no more congestion issues, no need to spend 30 minutes idling in a slowly-advancing car lineup, and no need to repeat your order three times so a teenager can still get it wrong. You might have to deal with gangs of crows trying to intercept your order mid-delivery, though.
That’s what this technology needs to do better than. It needs to be safer than what we have today, not perfectly safe.
No, that's what a public transportation system needs. If you're going to be replacing drivers with video game NPCs, the NPCs do need to be perfect.
Tesla FSD is already better than most drivers.
Tesla FSD runs into barriers and aims for protected bike lanes. It is not safe at any speed. It's effectively a video game NPC given control of dangerous machinery.
How much better do you think it should be before we let it take over from humans who kill thousands on the road every year?
It absolutely should be harder to get a driver's license and easier to lose it. Drivers should be tested every other year at a minimum. The acceptable number of deaths and injuries involving cars is zero.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones