I think that makes sense too. Sure a drunk cyclist is less of a problem than a drunk motor vehicle operator.
But as the third party you still don’t want 100 kg (200 pounds) of dude and aluminium frame running into you at 20 km/h (12.4 mph), especially if you are a pedestrian, a second cyclist, or a biker.
Yikes. Did he make through?
Yes it’s very common, which is why everyone of even mild intelligence knows to check the results of a plain full text search.
The argument is utterly stupid.
Ignoring that it is building on a fantasy reality for the moment. Even if you had free healthcare, and if only the financial costs of survival motivated people to get jobs, then the other costs of living, like for food and shelter, would still provide that motivation.
Whoever came up with that stupid word filter and decided to follow through on it without proper human review that the filter matched what they meant to find, is pretty trans-intelligent.
The company has not released information on whether, or how long, it has spent mapping out or testing the driverless technology on Austin’s streets.
That’s being too nice, the CEO is clearly proud of not mapping cities, as seen in the tweets. The journalist should call it out explicitly. “They are probably not mapping as suggested by the CEO’s public posts.” That’s not too much of a leap.
He’s just stirring shit to get his name out there isn’t he?
Doesn’t “citizenship” mean where you’re born?
Only in the new world continents. In Africa, Europe, and Asia it normally means what country your parents and grandparents are from, unless someone in the chain naturalises to a different country.
Heh a royal patchwork family then. I guess as a non blood relative to the crown prince he wouldn’t be in the line of succession?
I wonder how betrayed the people in the Appalachian feel when their supposed “own” Vance stood for this.
They are hardly even in the US market. Only via Murena with their e/OS/.
Those are both way more useful than exploiting a lazy coder’s fuckup
I never said social engineering, physical breaching, exerting force on people, and other ways of compromising systems weren’t useful. They just aren’t hacking to me, otherwise the term is too broad to be very useful.
You’re free to come up with your own definition, I was asked to define it and that’s my best shot for now.
You know my first instinct wast to reply with: “No.”
Maybe I should have stuck with that. I had a feeling this would lead nowhere.
I’d start with the following, and refine if necessary:
“Gaining unauthorized access to a protected computer resource by technical means.”
* Those first two actually happened in 2001 here in Switzerland when the WEF visitors list was on a database server with default password, they had to let a guy (David S.) go free
** The governor and his idiot troupe eventually stopped their grandstanding and didn’t file charges against Josh Renaud of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter, luckily
Is this Amichai Shilo someone important? I don’t recognize the name
I haven’t heard of a firewall failing open when overwhelmed yet. Usually quite the opposite, a flood disables access to more than just the targeted device, when the state table overflows.
But maybe there is a different mechanism I’m not aware of. How would the DDoS change the properties of ingress?
DDoS is not hacking
Did he just chicken out from chickening out?
Just recently there was a guy on the NANOG List ranting about Anubis being the wrong approach and people should just cache properly then their servers would handle thousands of users and the bots wouldn’t matter. Anyone who puts git online has no-one to blame but themselves, e-commerce should just be made cacheable etc. Seemed a bit idealistic, a bit detached from the current reality.
Ah found it, here