Re:Hacker shows he can locate, unlock and remote start GM ve...
by toyg on Wednesday August 05, 2015 @10:57AM
(#10010180)
> Sometimes a simple quip requires a long response to accurately address multiple potential issues.
Not sprayed with gratuitous ad-hominems, not really.
> bringing up how forward-looking government regulation failed in other cases is pretty relevant.
I struggled to consider it relevant, considering how it's widely accepted that reduction in regulation is one of the main causes of the recent financial crash. Forward-looking regulation was there and was removed. I think that particular example doesn't make the point he thinks it makes.
> And never was the idea mentioned that these things should not be governed at all
It was basically inferred. If you take his points to the logical conclusions, there is no point in regulating the car industry, they hire the best minds so they will know what to do.
> "Good" advancements can be just as restricted as "bad" advancements
Of course; but it's extremely difficult to prove whether the advantages of outlawing both outweigh the advantages of allowing both. So we came up with this rule that "we legislate only after shit happens". Is it crazy to think this arrangement could be sub-optimal, and there might be a better compromise?
Not sprayed with gratuitous ad-hominems, not really.
> bringing up how forward-looking government regulation failed in other cases is pretty relevant.
I struggled to consider it relevant, considering how it's widely accepted that reduction in regulation is one of the main causes of the recent financial crash. Forward-looking regulation was there and was removed. I think that particular example doesn't make the point he thinks it makes.
> And never was the idea mentioned that these things should not be governed at all
It was basically inferred. If you take his points to the logical conclusions, there is no point in regulating the car industry, they hire the best minds so they will know what to do.
> "Good" advancements can be just as restricted as "bad" advancements
Of course; but it's extremely difficult to prove whether the advantages of outlawing both outweigh the advantages of allowing both. So we came up with this rule that "we legislate only after shit happens". Is it crazy to think this arrangement could be sub-optimal, and there might be a better compromise?