What usually happens is something like the following: you have several Windows PCs on a LAN. One user on the LAN decides it's a good idea to open the quarterly_results.xlsx.exe attachment that came from the company's Nigerian branch. Or maybe they're curious to see what's on the thumb drive that somebody 'accidentally' left in the restroom. Every organization from the grocery store on the corner to the NSA has someone working for them who will think that's a good idea.
Now you have an exploited system inside the firewall. If any drives or other resources are shared among computers on the LAN -- which after is the whole idea behind a LAN -- the machines hosting those resources are at substantial risk. Even something as harmless as a shared printer can serve as a staging area for attacks.
This is why compromising Windows Update to turn it into a marketing vehicle was such a monstrous thing for Microsoft to do. Giving users an incentive to turn off automatic updates was just incredibly stupid and counterproductive. But they did it anyway, because, after all, "We're Microsoft. Who's going to stop us?"
And those figures *WOULD* have remained secret, except the court said, "Give them to Oracle for the trial".
127.0.0.1, or if you prefer,
We didn't have immigration laws until the 1920s
Who's "We," paleface?
Indeed. The rule of thumb to figure out whether to use "me" or "I" is to try the plural.
If you'd say "us", use "me". If you'd say "we", use "I".
AT&T oursources their email to Yahoo...
By my count, 500,000 is about 10,000 times more than 56.
Again, I'm afraid you're facing a future in which your worldview does not prevail. The question you should be asking is, "Why do human drivers get a pass?"
They don't have to be perfect. They just have to kill fewer than 30,000 people a year.
At the end of the day, the only rules are "Don't hit anything. If you have to hit something, don't hit people." Combined with recent advances in machine vision, the ML techniques used to solve one of these problems are similar to those that will be effective at attacking the other.
The burden of proof is decisively on anyone who claims that this isn't the case. Disagree? Get used to being proved wrong, over and over.
A self driving car is driving down a road in slippery conditions and an object appears in the road moving from right to left out from between two parked cars. If it is a child's toy such as a ball, a human would anticipate a child running after it and therefore slow down and wait for the child. In a microsecond, a human might look for queues from the yard that the ball came from, such as another child with a baseball mitt. AI will lack this reasoning, so if they cannot see a child they won't anticipate one running into the street. Until AI can understand all objects that might appear in the road and what they might mean, it will be weak at driving
Let's get Lee Sedol's take on this.
What this country needs is a good five cent ANYTHING!