I can do that. You can probably do that. Someone without a good skillset, who went to a high school where less than half the kids graduated, cannot do that. Well, they can go to lots of employers but all the employers have the same crappy policies.
Last time we had lots of employers all treating they employees like disposable crap, we got unions. Think about that: there are many, many problems with unions, and most people (even their members) hate them. But they were considered a far lesser evil than the employers of the time. And unless the government gets involved and starts making companies behave, we're heading back towards unions.
So pick your poison: strong unions or strong government regulations. Because we're trying strong companies now, and they've proving to be a very bad choice for all but the most skilled.
You don't really seem to know much about modern self-driving cars.
Google already has self-driving cars driving on roads around California and Texas. Sure, both states seem rather unreal to me at times, but I'm pretty sure they count as real-world.
You don't need to deal with ANY possible situation. If a rhinoceros comes running down the road I'm driving on, I don't need to know how to deal with it; I'll just slow down, pull to the side or evade the animal, and stare at it in confusion. A self-driving car just needs to follow similar rules of thumb; "slow down, get out of the path of traffic, call for help".
The cars are not perfect; they need more practice in rain. Snow and ice challenge most humans, so that will take a bit. But they are pretty good with guys with flags and hand gestures. Unmapped signs are fine; do you really think they have a trusted list of all signs? No, that's why they have cameras. Don't need perfect maps, though better maps are always a plus. As I said, you don't seem to know much about the technology, and I encourage you to learn more about it before loudly asserting things which are untrue.
They already drive better than humans (though in a slightly more narrow set of circumstances); that's a really easy bar to beat because humans are terrible drivers.
I agree with you; it's our culture that needs to improve. We need to lose the "Clint Eastwood" mentality of "I can fix this by killing the bad guys"; in real life, that trick never works. For one thing, we're really bad at figuring out who the bad guy is. Also, bad guys deserve a trial not a summary execution.
But I think it's more complex than you seem to imply. Southern towns in the mid-1900s were very friendly, peaceful places full of gentle people who loved their families... until someone dark-skinned was accused of a crime. Then the ropes were thrown over a tree limb.
And today, the police officer who puts his live on the line to protect kids from a shooter may be the same one who shoots an unarmed dark-skinned suspect. We're all full of prejudices which we cannot see and hotly deny. Europe is much less violent than the US, except that recently the immigration issues are causing peaceful people who love their families to commit violence (often because they somehow think this protects their families).
I don't know the perfect solution, but "more guns" doesn't seem to be it. "Fewer guns" seems to help but is not enough on its own.
Although traffic-related incidents have consistently been among the leading causes of officer deaths, law enforcement seat-belt compliance has hovered around 50%. The compliance rate among the general public has been estimated at 86%,
Hardly a research paper, and "most police officers" was an exaggeration, but it seems that the argument is:
* Many police care so much about their safety that they should be (are) excused for using lethal force at the least sign or impression of danger.
* Many police care so little about the (admittedly quite low) number of police shootings and traffic deaths that they choose to not wear vests and seat belts.
Both of these may be true; people are terribly illogical when it comes to risk assessment. But yes, it's amazing the shit that people toss out; glad I could inform you of the truth.
I have not heard of anyone saying "the police are killing everyone!" except for law-enforcement fans setting up hyperbolic straw-men, but there is concern over the numbers. It's hard to say how much validity there is these concerns, since many police departments and states decline to release consistent (or any) numbers on people killed by police; I suspect that accurate numbers could help put the incidents we see in the news into context. But the numbers of police killed are notably more accurate, notably dropping, and notably exaggerated as the linked article explains.
First you said "only the threat of death is enough to make them take pause", then you said "A person committing a crime is having a fit of selfishness, and often can't even see a few minutes into their own future". So are criminals thinking about the future (meaning we absolutely need guns to as a deterrence) or are they blinded by rage and selfishness (meaning we absolutely need guns to protect the officers)? In either case, less-armed police in other parts of the world much be killed at much higher rates than in the US.
Honestly, the root problem is not that police should be allowed to use lethal force to protect themselves; they can and they do. The problem is that they use both lethal and non-lethal force when they are not protecting themselves, and are almost never punished for this. They taze people who are lying on the ground, they shoot unarmed people, they choke people on the street, etc. Not all police, but since they are rarely punished, it doesn't take that many bad apples to taint the whole barrel.
When someone shoots a cop, they are taken down immediately (usually with deadly force) and even if they escape there is a huge manhunt to get them. If a cop shoots someone, well, if there is enough media then there might be an "investigation" but the "investigators" always decide that killing the unarmed african-american was completely reasonable. You cannot equate those. I don't demand complete parity; being a law officer is a dangerous job and they need to have some latitude. But they need some backpressure, not fawning defenders and sham investigations.
Last I checked, almost as many police officers are killed in car accidents than by firearms. This is greatly exacerbated by the fact that most police officers don't wear seat belts. So lets make cops safer by making them wear seatbelts, rather than letting them gun down people anytime they feel unsafe.
Also, the number of police killed by firearms has been going down for decades; it's at a very low point. So as an excuse, that's kinda thin.
Look, I respect police and I appreciate what they do. I have greatly benefited by living in a society where the police are, on average, helping me. But that doesn't mean I don't question them when they misbehave, and it doesn't mean I don't try to improve how they work. Police need to be able to defend themselves, but we've seen many, many examples where they kill without any evidence that they were in danger, and they need to be called on that.
As far as sci fi solutions go, even the most imaginative writers of our time cannot separate risk from policing with access to any fantasy tech or magic possible.
Nope, you're going to have to go the brainwashing/programming route.
By that theory, an modern civilization which has less violent crime, less killings by police, and less killing of police is impossible (without brainwashing). How do you explain the non-US parts of the world?
Sure, we cannot make everything perfect, but "better than what we have here" is is terribly low bar to step over.
If that were true, then areas with the death penalty would see fewer capital crimes than areas without it. But they don't. Humans are really good at rationalizing away consequences.
That is why when you are stopped by a police officer you move slowly and in a non-threatening manor and tell him where and what you are reaching for before you do so. If you have a weapon in the vehicle/on your person tell them in a non threatening manor and tell them where it is and give them your concealed carry permit (if you don't have permit why are you carrying a weapon stupid). I was taught this by my parents when I was growing up. If you don't give them a reason to suspect they are in life or death danger they are far less likely to shoot you.
So you treat a cop like you treat a poisonous snake or a wild animal. That all fine, but it doesn't seem like a good reason to encourage cobras or bears to wander through our neighborhoods. You described a problem, not a solution.
Also, you missed a very important one; when you're stopped, try not to be of an inappropriate race. Otherwise it may not matter how you behave.
The amazon video app is only in the amazon app store, not the google play store. But as far as I know, this is amazon's choice. They want to encourage android users to install the amazon app store so they can sell apps to the users; their video app is a carrot.
I recently tried to get the amazon video app. After 30 minutes of apps pointing at web pages pointing back at the same apps, I deleted the amazon app store and decided that I didn't need to watch amazon prime videos after all.
This is a dick move by amazon, but it's well within their rights. If they want to try to prop up their video service by not selling competing products, no problem; both apple and google have online stores.
He might be an asshole, but I'm not surprised to see reactions like these to the immigrant crisis. I see them more and more often around me as well (I am from Europe). And it might get a lot worse, already we're seeing arson and threats of violence against refugee centers.
The reason is simple: the fears and objections of Europe's citizens have been completely ignored.
Because clearly, if you feel the government isn't listening to you, arson and violence is a valid response.
I'm a big fan of civil disobedience when you feel your rights are being trampled, but in that case you should protest against the government, preferably by voting but if that fails then protests, work stoppages, etc seem a valid thing. Violence against immigrants don't show patriotism, it shows small-minded fear and hatred.
Here in the US we also have a "yooge" anti-immigrant movement. As far as I can tell, most people wish the US had closed its borders the day after *their* immigrant ancestors arrived here.
So you ignored all of the content in my reply, and just complained that the site I posted has a particular point of view. "Oh no, the anti-waterboarding site is... against waterboarding!" Color me amazed.
Even if torture worked for getting good intelligence it would be wrong. But since it doesn't work, it doesn't give the truth, any many professional interrogators have publicly said that it is counter-productive, that other methods work better, well, I have no idea how you can justify it. Doesn't matter that many of those people were scumbags (and some weren't, but clearly "the constitution" and "bill of rights" are just scraps of paper that you want to work around whenever possible, not follow whenever possible). You don't torture just because you think someone is a scumbag; if you do, then please move to Saudi Arabia or some other place where the authorities get their jollies with public punishment. The US has laws, and has good reasons for those laws, and just because you hate the principals of freedom which we are founded on (and mostly, but not entirely, follow) doesn't mean that you or any other american get to ignore them.
My experience is that the left mocks those rightwing candidates who have said incredibly stupid things recently. For over a decade it has been a rather target-rich environment, and this past six months you can't turn around without hearing some R candidate make a obvious provable lie.
The right, on the other hand, tries to pile on only whoever they see as the biggest threat at the time. Which is why the birther lies have started to die down, but the Select Committee To Prove That Something Anything Was Hillary's Fault At Benghazi has been trying to find something to pin on her for a very long time and spending many millions of taxpayer money to do so, and is now becoming the Select Committee On Hey We're Sure She Broke Some Email Law Somehow Let's Keep Talking About It.
Odd how every example of someone doing this voluntarily that I could find in a quick search says that it is torture. Quick example: http://waterboarding.org/node/...
And "truth serum that never fails"? Huh? Torture is famous for making people say whatever they believe will make the torture stop, which turns out to be very different than "the truth". Think of torture as "truth serum that makes them scream whatever you want to hear". Great for confirming your wrong information, if you're into that sort of thing, I guess.
If you choose to do it, say three times, and still think it's not torture, then I'll respect that. If you say it is not torture without having the guts to experience it yourself, and in direct contradiction of those who have experienced it, then clearly you only care about your own empty words, not facts.
I'm with you. Pope Francis is an incredible man who has demonstrated an ability to change the world with the influence of his words. I think it was a crisis of confidence.
I'm an Atheist btw. Considering calling myself Catholic though as a result of this Pope.
Calling yourself Catholic for that reason is kinda crazy...
I agree that Pope Francis is an incredible man. I'm not amazed that there exist a few christians like him who read the gospels, rather than just the old testament and Paul. But I am truly astounded that the cardinals selected him.
A large and increasing portion of Americans realize that their financial health is threatened by immigrants and their very existence is threatened by Muslim terrorists.
Please elaborate on exactly how "Muslim terrorists" constitute an existential threat to America.
Their evil clock kinda-maybe-bomb-like devices will kill us all! Or at least kill the people with bad heart conditions and worse brain conditions.
For that matter, how is our financial health threatened by immigrants? By all reasonable studies, immigrants improve the economies where they live and work, and deporting all of the illegal immigrants would cause a major hit to our economy.
That is the Republican brand now: get elected on a platform that consists entirely of refusing to do your fucking job. This applies to Congressmen, and all the way down to county clerks.
On the plus side, at least they're telling the truth while campaigning now. I still remember W campaigning on a platform of "fiscal responsibility, trustworthiness, and no nation building". Then we got the deficit, WMD in Iraq, and, well, Iraq.
Not that democrats are perfect, but when they say they'll try to raise taxes and increase social spending, they ain't lying.
But I'm amazed at the people who are mad that Boehner didn't singlehandedly dismantle Obamacare/taxes/immigration/the Kenyan Dictator. He didn't have the votes, so it turns out he couldn't. The new guy won't be able to either. I wish the people who wave the constitution would occasionally read the damn thing, and that includes most of the constitution-wavers on Slashdot.
Investing billions of dollars in solar panel research 35 years ago seems like it might give you an edge in selling solar panels today, yes. You don't agree?
And if Exxon kept pumping out oil, but also started sounding the alarm about climate change and started a discussion about what was needed to move from energy-via-hydrocarbon to other energy issues, people would think differently of them, yes. And maybe Exxon would now be changing from an
Of course, they would have made less money, so the hypothetical smart people in charge may have been kicked out by greedy small-minded investors who would then revert those changes, so maybe it wouldn't have helped after all. Hard to say once you are in "what if" land.
I think the argument is "by taking the pilots mostly out of the loop except in emergencies, we have greatly increased aircraft safety. By taking them out entirely, we'll increase it some more."
I suspect that is probably right; for every time that a pilot saved the day we can probably find several times that pilot error was the proximate cause (or the root cause) of the crash. But I'm happy to see evidence otherwise, and I realize that the low rate of crashes means that we don't have a large dataset to mine.
I I say that even if we had half of the government we have now we'd still have clean water, fresh air, clear skies, safe and nutritious food, and warm houses. How can I say that? Because generally people aren't dicks to their neighbors and tend to care about their children growing up to have children of their own.
What? Seriously, what?
I live in western PA, the land of strip mining, acid rain, and the Smoky City. Much of the countryside around here is still trying to recover from your idiotic companies who "aren't dicks to their neighbors". Guess what: when money is involved, many people are dicks to their neighbors, their workers, and their own children. Not everyone, but many people, And guess what; those people are the ones most likely to rise, scheme, and backstab their way into running large companies or other positions of power.
Things were getting better (not because of the EPA, sadly, but because it was no longer economical for big industry to exploit this land), but now the frackers are destroying the water table that most people outside of cities in this area use for drinking water.
Seriously, how can you look at history and believe that people are not dicks to their neighbors? We're humans. We don't care about far away people, but we HATE our neighbors. Have you read any history at all? We invented government specifically because it was the only way we could advance beyond tribes of 20-ish people trying to kill our neighbors. You think people can live well without government? Prove it; move to someplace with no effective government (Somalia is nice this time of year) and prove to us all how well they all get along.
You're correct about passwords of course (though the Supreme Court has sided with law enforcement a lot), but that only matters if the Bad Guys can only get at your server while it is turned off and encrypted. If it is turned on (as most servers are), then they just need a remote exploit or physical access (or a logged-in phone). Or maybe a backup drive since people often forget to encrypt those. (Or they don't have a backup drive, their raid set dies, and we have another kind of failure.) Compare that to a gmail account secured with a U2F key; it doesn't stop all of the attack vectors but it helps.
There is no perfect security, but as I said, most tech folks overestimate their ability. I used to run my own server, and tried to do everything right, though I'm sure I missed a lot. But I've got better things to do with my time then spend weekends running updates and trying to deploy two-factor on my personal box, and trying to recover from encrypted backups after a disk failure. Maybe I'm just old.
You are correct that it's much more likely that this AP will be up-to-date, but there still isn't exactly good precedent for devices running Google's OSes being updated like they should be, or for features to not become abandoned when their backend cloud-side stuff is written out from underneath. It might be up-to-date, or it might be abandoned and the few owners left to their own devices.
Actually, there is very good precedent. Chromebooks and Nexus android devices (both of which get their OSs directly from Google) have been very well updated with timely security patches and new features (as have chromecasts and Wear AFAICT though for a much shorter time). You may be thinking of non-Nexus android devices, where the OS comes from another vendor; those are poorly updated, but you can hardly blame Google for that. But it looks like this OnHub gets its OS directly from Google.
So what other access point has received regular OS updates? Maybe the Apple Airport, but Apple and Google are pretty much the only consumer electronics companies who regularly support their older hardware (and Google, with Chromebooks, Wear, and now OnHub, seems to be supporting other folks' closely-branded hardware). I can't prove that Google will continue doing so, but their track record is pretty good so far.
The problem is there's currently no model of security that works for nontechnical users that doesn't involve an outside party.
That's one problem. Another is that most technical users think that they are smart enough to get up security that can outsmart the NSA and hackers. 99.9% of technical users are wrong about that. And even if they're right, http://xkcd.com/538/
I suspect that almost all technical users would be safer if they used gmail or outlook.com rather than whatever home-brew imap/postfix thing they set up on their home or work Linux server (or Windows server or whatever). But we're uber-geeks so we'll pound our chests and insist we can do better.
This access point seems likely to be as safe as any of the best APs, and since it will be updated regularly I bet that in 2 years it will be safer than any other AP you buy now (unless maybe you do regular OpenWRT updates. Maybe.)
Slashdot Mirror
I can do that. You can probably do that. Someone without a good skillset, who went to a high school where less than half the kids graduated, cannot do that. Well, they can go to lots of employers but all the employers have the same crappy policies.
Last time we had lots of employers all treating they employees like disposable crap, we got unions. Think about that: there are many, many problems with unions, and most people (even their members) hate them. But they were considered a far lesser evil than the employers of the time. And unless the government gets involved and starts making companies behave, we're heading back towards unions.
So pick your poison: strong unions or strong government regulations. Because we're trying strong companies now, and they've proving to be a very bad choice for all but the most skilled.
You don't really seem to know much about modern self-driving cars.
Google already has self-driving cars driving on roads around California and Texas. Sure, both states seem rather unreal to me at times, but I'm pretty sure they count as real-world.
You don't need to deal with ANY possible situation. If a rhinoceros comes running down the road I'm driving on, I don't need to know how to deal with it; I'll just slow down, pull to the side or evade the animal, and stare at it in confusion. A self-driving car just needs to follow similar rules of thumb; "slow down, get out of the path of traffic, call for help".
The cars are not perfect; they need more practice in rain. Snow and ice challenge most humans, so that will take a bit. But they are pretty good with guys with flags and hand gestures. Unmapped signs are fine; do you really think they have a trusted list of all signs? No, that's why they have cameras. Don't need perfect maps, though better maps are always a plus. As I said, you don't seem to know much about the technology, and I encourage you to learn more about it before loudly asserting things which are untrue.
They already drive better than humans (though in a slightly more narrow set of circumstances); that's a really easy bar to beat because humans are terrible drivers.
I agree with you; it's our culture that needs to improve. We need to lose the "Clint Eastwood" mentality of "I can fix this by killing the bad guys"; in real life, that trick never works. For one thing, we're really bad at figuring out who the bad guy is. Also, bad guys deserve a trial not a summary execution.
But I think it's more complex than you seem to imply. Southern towns in the mid-1900s were very friendly, peaceful places full of gentle people who loved their families... until someone dark-skinned was accused of a crime. Then the ropes were thrown over a tree limb.
And today, the police officer who puts his live on the line to protect kids from a shooter may be the same one who shoots an unarmed dark-skinned suspect. We're all full of prejudices which we cannot see and hotly deny. Europe is much less violent than the US, except that recently the immigration issues are causing peaceful people who love their families to commit violence (often because they somehow think this protects their families).
I don't know the perfect solution, but "more guns" doesn't seem to be it. "Fewer guns" seems to help but is not enough on its own.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/... :
Although traffic-related incidents have consistently been among the leading causes of officer deaths, law enforcement seat-belt compliance has hovered around 50%. The compliance rate among the general public has been estimated at 86%,
Hardly a research paper, and "most police officers" was an exaggeration, but it seems that the argument is:
* Many police care so much about their safety that they should be (are) excused for using lethal force at the least sign or impression of danger.
* Many police care so little about the (admittedly quite low) number of police shootings and traffic deaths that they choose to not wear vests and seat belts.
Both of these may be true; people are terribly illogical when it comes to risk assessment. But yes, it's amazing the shit that people toss out; glad I could inform you of the truth.
Hardly seems reasonable to mention exaggeration over the number of people killed by police without also mentioning the exaggerations on the other side.
I have not heard of anyone saying "the police are killing everyone!" except for law-enforcement fans setting up hyperbolic straw-men, but there is concern over the numbers. It's hard to say how much validity there is these concerns, since many police departments and states decline to release consistent (or any) numbers on people killed by police; I suspect that accurate numbers could help put the incidents we see in the news into context. But the numbers of police killed are notably more accurate, notably dropping, and notably exaggerated as the linked article explains.
First you said "only the threat of death is enough to make them take pause", then you said "A person committing a crime is having a fit of selfishness, and often can't even see a few minutes into their own future". So are criminals thinking about the future (meaning we absolutely need guns to as a deterrence) or are they blinded by rage and selfishness (meaning we absolutely need guns to protect the officers)? In either case, less-armed police in other parts of the world much be killed at much higher rates than in the US.
Honestly, the root problem is not that police should be allowed to use lethal force to protect themselves; they can and they do. The problem is that they use both lethal and non-lethal force when they are not protecting themselves, and are almost never punished for this. They taze people who are lying on the ground, they shoot unarmed people, they choke people on the street, etc. Not all police, but since they are rarely punished, it doesn't take that many bad apples to taint the whole barrel.
When someone shoots a cop, they are taken down immediately (usually with deadly force) and even if they escape there is a huge manhunt to get them. If a cop shoots someone, well, if there is enough media then there might be an "investigation" but the "investigators" always decide that killing the unarmed african-american was completely reasonable. You cannot equate those. I don't demand complete parity; being a law officer is a dangerous job and they need to have some latitude. But they need some backpressure, not fawning defenders and sham investigations.
Last I checked, almost as many police officers are killed in car accidents than by firearms. This is greatly exacerbated by the fact that most police officers don't wear seat belts. So lets make cops safer by making them wear seatbelts, rather than letting them gun down people anytime they feel unsafe.
Also, the number of police killed by firearms has been going down for decades; it's at a very low point. So as an excuse, that's kinda thin.
Look, I respect police and I appreciate what they do. I have greatly benefited by living in a society where the police are, on average, helping me. But that doesn't mean I don't question them when they misbehave, and it doesn't mean I don't try to improve how they work. Police need to be able to defend themselves, but we've seen many, many examples where they kill without any evidence that they were in danger, and they need to be called on that.
As far as sci fi solutions go, even the most imaginative writers of our time cannot separate risk from policing with access to any fantasy tech or magic possible.
Nope, you're going to have to go the brainwashing/programming route.
By that theory, an modern civilization which has less violent crime, less killings by police, and less killing of police is impossible (without brainwashing). How do you explain the non-US parts of the world?
Sure, we cannot make everything perfect, but "better than what we have here" is is terribly low bar to step over.
If that were true, then areas with the death penalty would see fewer capital crimes than areas without it. But they don't. Humans are really good at rationalizing away consequences.
That is why when you are stopped by a police officer you move slowly and in a non-threatening manor and tell him where and what you are reaching for before you do so. If you have a weapon in the vehicle/on your person tell them in a non threatening manor and tell them where it is and give them your concealed carry permit (if you don't have permit why are you carrying a weapon stupid). I was taught this by my parents when I was growing up. If you don't give them a reason to suspect they are in life or death danger they are far less likely to shoot you.
So you treat a cop like you treat a poisonous snake or a wild animal. That all fine, but it doesn't seem like a good reason to encourage cobras or bears to wander through our neighborhoods. You described a problem, not a solution.
Also, you missed a very important one; when you're stopped, try not to be of an inappropriate race. Otherwise it may not matter how you behave.
The amazon video app is only in the amazon app store, not the google play store. But as far as I know, this is amazon's choice. They want to encourage android users to install the amazon app store so they can sell apps to the users; their video app is a carrot.
I recently tried to get the amazon video app. After 30 minutes of apps pointing at web pages pointing back at the same apps, I deleted the amazon app store and decided that I didn't need to watch amazon prime videos after all.
This is a dick move by amazon, but it's well within their rights. If they want to try to prop up their video service by not selling competing products, no problem; both apple and google have online stores.
He might be an asshole, but I'm not surprised to see reactions like these to the immigrant crisis. I see them more and more often around me as well (I am from Europe). And it might get a lot worse, already we're seeing arson and threats of violence against refugee centers.
The reason is simple: the fears and objections of Europe's citizens have been completely ignored.
Because clearly, if you feel the government isn't listening to you, arson and violence is a valid response.
I'm a big fan of civil disobedience when you feel your rights are being trampled, but in that case you should protest against the government, preferably by voting but if that fails then protests, work stoppages, etc seem a valid thing. Violence against immigrants don't show patriotism, it shows small-minded fear and hatred.
Here in the US we also have a "yooge" anti-immigrant movement. As far as I can tell, most people wish the US had closed its borders the day after *their* immigrant ancestors arrived here.
So you ignored all of the content in my reply, and just complained that the site I posted has a particular point of view. "Oh no, the anti-waterboarding site is... against waterboarding!" Color me amazed.
Even if torture worked for getting good intelligence it would be wrong. But since it doesn't work, it doesn't give the truth, any many professional interrogators have publicly said that it is counter-productive, that other methods work better, well, I have no idea how you can justify it. Doesn't matter that many of those people were scumbags (and some weren't, but clearly "the constitution" and "bill of rights" are just scraps of paper that you want to work around whenever possible, not follow whenever possible). You don't torture just because you think someone is a scumbag; if you do, then please move to Saudi Arabia or some other place where the authorities get their jollies with public punishment. The US has laws, and has good reasons for those laws, and just because you hate the principals of freedom which we are founded on (and mostly, but not entirely, follow) doesn't mean that you or any other american get to ignore them.
My experience is that the left mocks those rightwing candidates who have said incredibly stupid things recently. For over a decade it has been a rather target-rich environment, and this past six months you can't turn around without hearing some R candidate make a obvious provable lie.
The right, on the other hand, tries to pile on only whoever they see as the biggest threat at the time. Which is why the birther lies have started to die down, but the Select Committee To Prove That Something Anything Was Hillary's Fault At Benghazi has been trying to find something to pin on her for a very long time and spending many millions of taxpayer money to do so, and is now becoming the Select Committee On Hey We're Sure She Broke Some Email Law Somehow Let's Keep Talking About It.
Odd how every example of someone doing this voluntarily that I could find in a quick search says that it is torture. Quick example: http://waterboarding.org/node/...
And "truth serum that never fails"? Huh? Torture is famous for making people say whatever they believe will make the torture stop, which turns out to be very different than "the truth". Think of torture as "truth serum that makes them scream whatever you want to hear". Great for confirming your wrong information, if you're into that sort of thing, I guess.
If you choose to do it, say three times, and still think it's not torture, then I'll respect that. If you say it is not torture without having the guts to experience it yourself, and in direct contradiction of those who have experienced it, then clearly you only care about your own empty words, not facts.
USB-c connecters are much better than micro-USB, so wear and tear isn't a big issue. Though that's a low bar; micro-USB is terrible.
I do like wireless charging, but if the choice is "micro-USB and Qi" vs "USB-c", I'll take USB-c, thanks.
I'm with you. Pope Francis is an incredible man who has demonstrated an ability to change the world with the influence of his words. I think it was a crisis of confidence.
I'm an Atheist btw. Considering calling myself Catholic though as a result of this Pope.
Calling yourself Catholic for that reason is kinda crazy...
I agree that Pope Francis is an incredible man. I'm not amazed that there exist a few christians like him who read the gospels, rather than just the old testament and Paul. But I am truly astounded that the cardinals selected him.
A large and increasing portion of Americans realize that their financial health is threatened by immigrants and their very existence is threatened by Muslim terrorists.
Please elaborate on exactly how "Muslim terrorists" constitute an existential threat to America.
Their evil clock kinda-maybe-bomb-like devices will kill us all! Or at least kill the people with bad heart conditions and worse brain conditions.
For that matter, how is our financial health threatened by immigrants? By all reasonable studies, immigrants improve the economies where they live and work, and deporting all of the illegal immigrants would cause a major hit to our economy.
That is the Republican brand now: get elected on a platform that consists entirely of refusing to do your fucking job. This applies to Congressmen, and all the way down to county clerks.
On the plus side, at least they're telling the truth while campaigning now. I still remember W campaigning on a platform of "fiscal responsibility, trustworthiness, and no nation building". Then we got the deficit, WMD in Iraq, and, well, Iraq.
Not that democrats are perfect, but when they say they'll try to raise taxes and increase social spending, they ain't lying.
But I'm amazed at the people who are mad that Boehner didn't singlehandedly dismantle Obamacare/taxes/immigration/the Kenyan Dictator. He didn't have the votes, so it turns out he couldn't. The new guy won't be able to either. I wish the people who wave the constitution would occasionally read the damn thing, and that includes most of the constitution-wavers on Slashdot.
Investing billions of dollars in solar panel research 35 years ago seems like it might give you an edge in selling solar panels today, yes. You don't agree?
And if Exxon kept pumping out oil, but also started sounding the alarm about climate change and started a discussion about what was needed to move from energy-via-hydrocarbon to other energy issues, people would think differently of them, yes. And maybe Exxon would now be changing from an
Of course, they would have made less money, so the hypothetical smart people in charge may have been kicked out by greedy small-minded investors who would then revert those changes, so maybe it wouldn't have helped after all. Hard to say once you are in "what if" land.
I think the argument is "by taking the pilots mostly out of the loop except in emergencies, we have greatly increased aircraft safety. By taking them out entirely, we'll increase it some more."
I suspect that is probably right; for every time that a pilot saved the day we can probably find several times that pilot error was the proximate cause (or the root cause) of the crash. But I'm happy to see evidence otherwise, and I realize that the low rate of crashes means that we don't have a large dataset to mine.
I I say that even if we had half of the government we have now we'd still have clean water, fresh air, clear skies, safe and nutritious food, and warm houses. How can I say that? Because generally people aren't dicks to their neighbors and tend to care about their children growing up to have children of their own.
What? Seriously, what?
I live in western PA, the land of strip mining, acid rain, and the Smoky City. Much of the countryside around here is still trying to recover from your idiotic companies who "aren't dicks to their neighbors". Guess what: when money is involved, many people are dicks to their neighbors, their workers, and their own children. Not everyone, but many people, And guess what; those people are the ones most likely to rise, scheme, and backstab their way into running large companies or other positions of power.
Things were getting better (not because of the EPA, sadly, but because it was no longer economical for big industry to exploit this land), but now the frackers are destroying the water table that most people outside of cities in this area use for drinking water.
Seriously, how can you look at history and believe that people are not dicks to their neighbors? We're humans. We don't care about far away people, but we HATE our neighbors. Have you read any history at all? We invented government specifically because it was the only way we could advance beyond tribes of 20-ish people trying to kill our neighbors. You think people can live well without government? Prove it; move to someplace with no effective government (Somalia is nice this time of year) and prove to us all how well they all get along.
No worries, the ice age is still on, in 3-10 thousand years (I think, it's been a while since I read the papers about it).
That will offer some nice relief from the warming that we're dealing with in the next 0-300 years.
So, both are true, And since you mocked both of them, that makes you twice an idiot. And sadly, I bet you vote.
You're correct about passwords of course (though the Supreme Court has sided with law enforcement a lot), but that only matters if the Bad Guys can only get at your server while it is turned off and encrypted. If it is turned on (as most servers are), then they just need a remote exploit or physical access (or a logged-in phone). Or maybe a backup drive since people often forget to encrypt those. (Or they don't have a backup drive, their raid set dies, and we have another kind of failure.) Compare that to a gmail account secured with a U2F key; it doesn't stop all of the attack vectors but it helps.
There is no perfect security, but as I said, most tech folks overestimate their ability. I used to run my own server, and tried to do everything right, though I'm sure I missed a lot. But I've got better things to do with my time then spend weekends running updates and trying to deploy two-factor on my personal box, and trying to recover from encrypted backups after a disk failure. Maybe I'm just old.
You are correct that it's much more likely that this AP will be up-to-date, but there still isn't exactly good precedent for devices running Google's OSes being updated like they should be, or for features to not become abandoned when their backend cloud-side stuff is written out from underneath. It might be up-to-date, or it might be abandoned and the few owners left to their own devices.
Actually, there is very good precedent. Chromebooks and Nexus android devices (both of which get their OSs directly from Google) have been very well updated with timely security patches and new features (as have chromecasts and Wear AFAICT though for a much shorter time). You may be thinking of non-Nexus android devices, where the OS comes from another vendor; those are poorly updated, but you can hardly blame Google for that. But it looks like this OnHub gets its OS directly from Google.
So what other access point has received regular OS updates? Maybe the Apple Airport, but Apple and Google are pretty much the only consumer electronics companies who regularly support their older hardware (and Google, with Chromebooks, Wear, and now OnHub, seems to be supporting other folks' closely-branded hardware). I can't prove that Google will continue doing so, but their track record is pretty good so far.
The problem is there's currently no model of security that works for nontechnical users that doesn't involve an outside party.
That's one problem. Another is that most technical users think that they are smart enough to get up security that can outsmart the NSA and hackers. 99.9% of technical users are wrong about that. And even if they're right, http://xkcd.com/538/
I suspect that almost all technical users would be safer if they used gmail or outlook.com rather than whatever home-brew imap/postfix thing they set up on their home or work Linux server (or Windows server or whatever). But we're uber-geeks so we'll pound our chests and insist we can do better.
This access point seems likely to be as safe as any of the best APs, and since it will be updated regularly I bet that in 2 years it will be safer than any other AP you buy now (unless maybe you do regular OpenWRT updates. Maybe.)