I wonder if it would be possible to take the idea of certificate authorities and apply it to cell phone towers. Basically, each cell tower company would be a CA, and could generate a certificate for each cell tower. Major cell tower companies could then be trusted by other CAs, and cell phones could have a store of trusted CAs. Then, when a cell phone attempts to connect to a tower, a check is made to verify that the tower is trusted by a trusted CA. This way, a user could (at least maybe) revoke a certificate from a CA that has trusted a group that has set up a cell site simulator.
My knowledge of PKI is pretty shaky. Does anyone know if something like this would work and/or be an improvement?
The SIM card in your phone is, basically, a smartcard. The private/public keypair on the SIM is how your phone authenticates to the cellular network.
Is what you're asking technically possible? Sure. What motivation do the cellular companies have to implement it, though? They are currently satisfied with the level of security already offered and to do what you are asking would cost a not-insignificant amount of money with little or no return (for them).
That's why I like it so much: I've been using thinkpads for years and got used to the feel of the keyboard, and also the trackpoint, so I wanted it when I was at a desktop too. It's really nice to not have to move your hand to the mouse for small motions, although I do still use a mouse for extended things like aimless web browsing.
Is it just me, or does this incident seems like it was made worse by the autonomous mode?
A Google Lexus model AV was traveling northbound on El Camino Real in autonomous
mode when another vehicle traveling westbound on View Street failed to come to a stop at the stop
sign at the intersection of El Camino and View Street. The other vehicle rolled through the stop sign
and struck the right rear quarter panel and right rear wheel of the Google AV. Prior to the collision, the
Google AV’s autonomous technology began applying the brakes in response to its detection of the
other vehicle’s speed and trajectory. Just before the collision, the driver of the Google AV disengaged
autonomous mode and took manual control of the vehicle in response to the application of the brakes by the Google AV’s autonomous technology.
It looks like the Google Vehicle (GV) was traveling on El Camino (I'm assuming it had no stop sign), the computer saw the vehicle approaching (what should have been a stop) and hit the brakes. The driver took over (right before the collision) to stop the brakes from being applied and the car hit the rear of the GV. With out the computer controlling the speed, I wonder if the GV would have cleared the intersection already?
Then again, depending when each event happened, maybe if the driver didn't take over, the GV wouldn't have been hit? Hard to tell.
"Given learning by 'doing' is known to be worse I wonder if they have hit some sort of local maxima."
I'm curious - would you be able to expand on this? I find that I prefer learning by doing projects, building, etc as opposed to reading/problem sets/etc. Has there been research to compare the two approaches?
This would be a problem of course, but I'm betting this is a problem most people would like to have. If my two options are: Die at 100, and not have to work for the last X years, or live an extra 20 years, with required working, I at least would prefer to live and work than to die and not work.
Since I don't think changing the lifespan will change societal values much, and because of that I believe that statistically the likely outcome is 'want to work but can't find it.'
Being at the end of your life and unemployed is a markedly different experience than being at the beginning of your life and unemployed.
