I have a Masters degree with a near 4.0 GPA in my junior/senior undergrad years and my graduate years (don't ask about fresh/soph, I was still growing up). And all of that means basically shit.
No, that's exactly the point. Vast numbers of kids spend their first couple of years "growing up." Some of them fail miserably, most of them muddle through fairly well, and some of them excel. What company can afford to take the risk hiring an untrained person, without even a 'track record' of trainability, when that kid may decide he'd rather spend lunch drinking beers?
College isn't supposed to be job training - you may get some skills that are useful in a job, but the point is not to teach you how to be a junior programmer at Microsoft. College, especially residential college, is life-training: how do you balance your freedom to do bong hits all day with your responsibility to pay rent? How do you balance your desire to post/. with your employer's desire that you accomplish tasks? How do you get stuff done when your teacher/manager is a clueless moron? What kinds of tasks/problems do you enjoy?
If you've figure that out by the time you're 18, you're truly exceptional. Not special-snowflake exceptional, but Bill Gates exceptional. College, and even a job, are likely to hold you back. Unfortunately, many people think they are Bill Gates, when they are only a special snowflake.
There is such a thing as acting talent. Not everyone can play Hamlet and excel in the role. Not everyone can play the Doctor and excel in the role.
Not everyone in the audience can tell the difference between good acting and poor acting. They say, if the story is good, the audience won't notice that Hamlet is wearing a digital watch. Same goes for acting talent.
If Joe's lawnmower service center or Sally's cake shop is discriminatory it's probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things (distasteful as it may be to some), but if you have the same problem with Toro or Albertsons it's a major issue.
There are many flavors of "Religious Freedom Law,"but at least the Indiana law applies to the employees as well as the businesses. So, Joe's lawnmower service may refuse people on the basis of religion at the policy level, but Joe, the employee of Starbuck's, may also refuse to serve people on the basis of his personal beliefs. The law is intended to prevent Starbuck's from firing Joe for his expression of personal religious freedom.
What I'm saying is that death penalty should happen as a last resort, not a first line of defense. The car could have been easily stopped by ramming it off the road, and people tackled and arrested
The first line of defense is the stop sign. The second line of defense is the guards yelling "Stop!" The third line of defense is a gate. The fourth line of defense, in this case, was a pair of parked police cars that the SUV (reportedly) rammed through.
Guards discharging their weapons was decidedly not the "first line of defense." I'm not sure what else could reasonably have been done in short enough time, to stop a vehicle with demonstrated willingness to perpetrate violence, but ramming through the parked cars seems like pretty good justification for extreme measures.
But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them? Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?
The historical database of license plate sightings is a terrific source of circumstantial evidence against people suspected of wrongdoing.
eg: your wife turns up dead. You renewed her life insurance policy a month ago. Three weeks ago, your car made several visits to "the bad part of town," possibly while you were at a murder-for-hire meeting. Nevermind that your insurance policy renews every February, and that a water main break diverted your commute.
Many things look suspicious once suspicion is upon you: the concern with a vast trove of location and communication history is that it is more likely to be twisted to make an honest man look corrupt than it is to find a criminal before he acts.
If we're going to start boycotting entire geographical areas because select businesses within their boundaries - fractions of a single percent - might refuse service, then... I don't even.
We're talking about a state law here, which presumably represents the general will of the people of the state. If Indiana puts up border signs saying "Welcome to Indiana, Gays may be refused service" it doesn't really matter whether 90%, 1%, or 0% of businesses actually do so - putting it in the law declares it a value of the people of the state.
Should I start walking into clothing stores demanding they stock clothes to fit my unusual size? Should I walk into coffee shops, demanding they accommodate my taste for foreign music and tea?
Orthogonal issues: this is not about stocking a particular product, this is about making a product equally available to any person. If the clothing store refuses to fit you until you pledge devotion to Allah, or if the best coffee shop in town demands you kiss a copperhead snake before you place your order, then maybe you'd have a complaint.
If you really want to push the coffee-tea analogy, would you take a large, diverse group of friends to a coffee shop that explicitly refuses to serve tea, knowing that some of your friends prefer tea? I suspect you would find a different shop/state that is more willing to accommodate your group. You might even tell the store owner that you're sad you couldn't bring your party to his place, but for the discrimination against tea.
But is it really practical to invent a religion and compare it to one that has been around longer than the government and had influenced the world for centuries before?
Yes. "Freedom of religion" does not contain any qualifiers. Your religion doesn't have to have a specific number of adherents, it doesn't have to have a long and glorious history, it doesn't have to have won wars against any other religion. It only has to be a set of beliefs or principles you take on faith. Those beliefs can change every 20 seconds, based on communication from from $DEITY, personal revelation, or direction of wind. "Freedom of religion" means that Catholicism is just as valid, and has exactly the same privileges as Quakerism, Sikhism, Jedism, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Just because you believe your One True Faith does not negate my One True Faith.
It's worth pointing out that "Freedom of Religion" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. The courts have frequently found that the needs and safety of secular society trump religious practice. Perhaps most notably, faiths that support polygamy may not have multiple bondings recognized as marriage. Even snake-handling is illegal in many states.
Yes. Google's power over advertisers lies in Google's exclusive access to user information. Advertisers pay Google to figure out who would be good recipients of advertising, based on the belief that Google can identify those people better than the advertiser. If Google sells its collection of user data, then the advertiser will be able to make that determination for itself, and Google loses its main advantage over other ad-distribution networks. You do not sell the goose that lays golden eggs.
I want to believe that what you see in TV is just fiction and that doors don't go down with a kick, but even then...The average door in Europe is reinforced and it would take some ram hits before going down, and that assuming the door is not bolted.
The point of failure is usually the stud that holds the bolt. In typical US, wood-frame construction, this is a 2x4, with the bolt centered, leaving really just about 3 cm of pine wood holding the door closed. "Kick the door down" is also a euphemism for any form of forced entry, most likely a 40 (one man)-100 (two man) pound battering ram.
If you were a cop and you were sent to an address in response to a 911 call claiming that there was someone at that address with a dangerous weapon, would you walk up to the door and knock politely?
Why not talk to them via bullhorn or phone without even approaching the house? It's going to take at least 15 minutes to assemble and deploy a SWAT team - don't you think any killing the guy has started will be done by then?
If you start with negotiation, you have at least some chance to let the adrenalin run out, get people thinking rationally about consequences, let the first pangs of guilt emerge. If you start with shocking and overwhelming force, you pretty much guarantee someone's going to get hurt. Police are supposed to be trained to deescalate situations. They may carry tools required to respond to an escalation, but they're supposed to be distinguishable from a lynch mob by their ability to remain calm and bring about peaceful resolutions. Failure of this training results in shooting of unarmed crazy people.
There's zero fucking reason to put an HTPC in a crawl space.
Depends on your environment. In my area, the crawl space is often used for all mechanicals - HVAC, water heater, electrical service, even the whole-house vacuum. It makes running new lines really easy, with no tearing open of walls, not unlike an upside-down dropped ceiling. A central store of media files that can be distributed through the house is much more attractive than separate HTPCs for every room. One relatively beefy HTPC, capable of transcoding multiple media files for playback on low-power, fanless frontends is likewise very attractive. Especially if "crawl space" means a 3-4' high space between the slab and the floor of a house on a hill.
The only thing I'd recommend to OP is rack mounting on posts hanging from the floor joists - ie, suspend the system as far above the floor as possible. Water heaters and HVAC are designed to resist a little water/flooding - computers aren't. Dust is likely still to be a problem, but you can wrap the whole thing in a bag filter to cut that down.
These are not certificates. They're not validated by any trusted authority. These are host keys: you generate them yourself for the cost of electricity. You could have your router generate its own keys the first time it starts up for the cost of a couple seconds delay.
The rules sufficient for successful understanding are looser than the rules prescribed by style guides.
This is particularly true for spoken English vs written English. In spoken English, intonation and body language contribute to communication, eg bad vs bad. You're expected to fill in missing/garbled words from context. Written English is an attempt to encode all of that information.
So, sure, sloppy spelling, poor grammar, and homophone substitution may be understandable to your close friends. That makes it more of a code language or private language, and there's plenty of times where we like to share private, insider conversations. If you actually want to communicate with everyone, you have to use the parent language - step back from the Southern drawl or the Scots brogue and speak Common.
Sadly, the swatch-brand cheap watches were shit back then. A timex or a cheap casio digital would have been better. The cheap swatch couldn't actually take any abuse.
But a basic black, $10 timex was boring. Swatch made cheap ($20), crap watches that came in different colors. With 'funky' designs. People paid for swatches twice what they were worth because they had an off-center stripe on the face. And then someone realized that you could wear two, three, or even four swatches on one arm!
When the swatch guy gets up and tells you that iWatch has the potential to crush swiss watchmaking, he's talking about fashion, not function.
maybe I'm daft, but that is actually a reasonable job offer there. They would like someone to load some data into a hadoop cluster. Might take 6 months.
Agreed. I think a lot of the sour-grapes group look at "Excellent understating of HADOOP ecosystem" and read "founding developer of HADOOP," or interpret "Excellent Knowledge of Linux" as "Kernel developer." They're looking for a "big data" person and saying they're a Java shop with HADOOP/NoSQL infrastructure. Those people are out there. If you're not one of them, then this job may not be for you. 4 years experience means they're targeting people probably 25-30 years old. If you have vastly more experience than that, then this job may not be for you.
For pay rate, $30/hr is, to most of the country, a pretty good wage, especially early in the career. Other "good paying" jobs: construction, $15-25; Auto plant, starting at $16; teacher, start $18, median $35.
But some of it is part of the "hire a cheap H1B" game. By making the requirements impossible (or rejecting all but a handfull of people who already receive astronomical fees on the consulting market), they can claim that "There are no available US citizens quaified for the post." Then they hire an H1B.
At most 85,000 H1b visas are issued each year. 7000 per month, nation-wide, compared with 2.8 million people employed in "Information Technology." I think you overestimate the impact of H1b on your personal employability.
It doesn't matter how easily you can walk there and disable the camera, if you are caught on camera first. That's who most camera placements that can be "snuck up on" have a camera pointed at that camera. Nobody can take out all the cameras without getting caught on camera.
The point of TFA is that people have dumb camera placement. They take the one camera they get free with the security system and put it in the bedroom, or otherwise inside. They mount the camera on the roof, pointed down at the front door, offering a nice view of an intruder's baseball cap. And honestly, the electric meter on most of the homes I've seen is mounted discretely behind the shrubbery, so it doesn't spoil the view of the house, and reasonably accessible to human meter-readers (they only stopped being a thing a decade or two ago in most areas). Then again, few of the homes I've seen have multiple ring-walls that seem to be common in AK.
Genetics? more like skin color or language or location or a combination of all three, how many white races are there?
Considering that, for a long time, the boundaries established by language and location prevented human interbreeding, those seem like pretty reasonable indicators of genetic drift. That is, the same population trends that allow languages to drift also allow genetic drift. Maybe we'll see that disappear, now that it's so easy to travel, but it's really only been 30 years or so. Skin tone, hair color, and facial structure are just the most obvious external indicators of genetic variation.
tiering should still work, the thing being blocked is certain companies/products have a bit of a faster lane to get through the network. Paid priority will no longer exist
The one legitimately valuable business arrangement that I can see being blocked by net neutrality is where I buy the lowest possible tier of service from my ISP, because email doesn't require much bandwidth, but then buy premium delivery from Netflix, where Netflix pays my ISP to deliver data faster than my service tier.
Already been done. The conservatives had a shitfit when their ads were blocked.
What beautiful irony. The proponents of small government and deregulation, running to a government agency complaining that a private company won't run ads calling for government regulators to block a business transaction.
I hate the big ISPs too. Everyone does. But the solution to them is competition. Not government regulation. Just remove the stupid laws that make it illegal for rival companies to lay cable in their territory.
Those laws don't exist in general. The primary thing preventing Time Warner from running cable to my house is the fact that Comcast already has a wire there. Comcast has already spent the millions of dollars required to wire my neighborhood, and the tens of millions required to wire my town. Whatever price Time Warner can offer, Comcast can beat, because they've already sunk costs. Time Warner can, optimistically, hope to get 50% of cable subscribers, meaning at most half the revenue that Comcast projected to pay off their capital. There is no way for a new cable company to compete effectively with one that's already laid out the major capital expenses. The only reason DSL is competitive is it doesn't require laying new copper to every home.
Likewise, there's no way multiple electric or gas companies could compete with an incumbent who had already wired/plumbed a neighborhood. When cities deregulate gas/electric service, they do so by transferring the wires to one company, and forcing that company to sell transit to all comers at regulated rates. If you want to see competition among ISPs, nationalize the coax, copper and fiber, and let the ISPs rent bandwidth to subscribers' homes and manage their access.
I am prepared to engage with you on this issue rationally. But you should be warned now... I am extremely rational. Doubletalk, sophistry, and other fallacious nonsense will simply get vivisected and pinned to an examination table while I take it apart bit by bit putting each little piece in its own little formaldehyde jar with its own little label.
That's fine. You're exactly the audience this piece of legislation targets. I mean, really, who would make a rational argument against using good, reproducible, published science to support their policy.
This legislation is social engineering that depends on the distinction between theory and practice. In theory, it's great to use data to support your policies, to have good science backing your regulations, and to know the exact effects you're trying to block or induce. In practice, those data do not exist. There's 150+ chemicals at my job site, and the MSDSs for half of them report "Data not available." This legislation is intended to delay for as long as possible any regulatory action.
Example, pentachlorophenol, one of the most common preservatives for telephone poles and RR ties over the past 30 years, still lacks any human carcinogenicty studies. It looks like penta is metabolized in vivo to a much more carcinogenic compound, and I imagine that another 10 years or so will produce pretty convincing data. Meanwhile, the EPA has been allowed to regulate penta as a probable carcinogen since the early 80s. This includes banning the sale to private individuals (it used to be a popular fungicide for people to spray around their basements). Penta is one of the better studied molecules because of its popularity and explicitly toxic function, and after 60 years, one can still argue that there is no reproducible scientific data demonstrating its role in cancer.
You mean the compounds so secret that there's a wikipedia page listing them all?
First, there is no reason to believe that list is exhaustive. According to the page itself, it is "a partial list of the chemical constituents in additives that are used or have been used in fracturing operations." It was only released in 2011 in response to a congressional investigation, having been held secret for 60 years. Nor does it help you know whether fracking fluid is mostly toluene or mostly liquid nitrogen (personally, my guess is that there is very little, if any, liquid nitrogen in fracking fluids, but it's on the list)
Second, from a random sampling of MSDS:
2,2-Dibromomalonamide: No human toxicity studies have been carried out with this product. Not evaluated by IARC.
Poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride): Not evaluated by IARC. No carcinogenicity information is available
Carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar: Carcinogenic effects: Not available; Mutagenic effects: Not available; Developmental toxicity: Not available
So, under the proposed legislation, even if you know what the chemicals are, you have to wait for someone to get interested enough in them to perform ecological, carcinogenic, and mutagenic studies with those specific chemicals and publishes the results. Until someone proves that a compound is carcinogenic, it would be regulated like it is not carcinogenic.
Perhaps you are willing to have your dinner grown next to a factory that can hold its chemical waste secret for 60 years, and then be unable to regulate that waste for another few years or decades, waiting for someone to bother to measure their health effects. Maybe you believe that no company would knowingly or accidentally release chemicals without clear confidence in their non-toxicity (even if they can't release that data to the public). Maybe you trust those companies, more than the politicized EPA, to balance their profits against potential harm to humans and environment.
1 Companies that sell software... better have all code open sourced (not same as free) or should be labelled "NOT TO BE TRUSTED".
No way to tell whether the provided source code matches the provided firmware
Code (including scripts and updates) is then compiled locally and before first execution hash checked automatically against non-centralized database (p2p technology similar to bitcoin block chain)
1) binary code will vary depending on the specific architecture, optimizations, and libraries during compilation. 2) a hash can be falsified as easily as a binary.
3. All hardware sold with precise technical diagrams... or should be labelled "NOT TO BE TRUSTED"
At least an order of magnitude less effective than open source, and we've seen that even "important" OSS like openssl can go decades without independent code review.
4. All encryption always on client side.
Quite sensible, although I suspect that people will rapidly become frustrated when they forget their pass phrase, or lose their private key, and 5 years of family snapshots disappear. Or when grandma dies, taking access to her archive of family history with her.
5. Get rid of centralized authorities for security (looking at you SSL) Centralized servers have big fat sign that say "NOT TO BE TRUSTED". P2P.
Because you'd rather trust 1000 amateurs to secure all of their systems than one professional to secure his server?
7. Shaming lists on NGOs (applause to EFF). Any politician that votes for mass surveillance or doesn't adhere to above principles. put on NGO lists as "HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS"
Yeah, ranks right up there with executing journalists and kidnapping babies. Among the most certain ways to get people to ignore you is to blow your cause completely out of proportion. If you use the same words to describe digital surveillance as other people use to describe the Khmer Rouge or Stalin, then people are going to think you're a nutcase.
Well, if anybody else in government did this, they'd get fired, lose their pension, and possibly face criminal charges.
Still waiting on charges against Sarah Palin, for the same offense. I'm guessing it will be a cold day in hell before either sees any consequences beyond partisan propaganda. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is one of those rules, like declaring any gifts over $50, that gets employees a firm warning not to do it again.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a Masters degree with a near 4.0 GPA in my junior/senior undergrad years and my graduate years (don't ask about fresh/soph, I was still growing up). And all of that means basically shit.
No, that's exactly the point. Vast numbers of kids spend their first couple of years "growing up." Some of them fail miserably, most of them muddle through fairly well, and some of them excel. What company can afford to take the risk hiring an untrained person, without even a 'track record' of trainability, when that kid may decide he'd rather spend lunch drinking beers?
College isn't supposed to be job training - you may get some skills that are useful in a job, but the point is not to teach you how to be a junior programmer at Microsoft. College, especially residential college, is life-training: how do you balance your freedom to do bong hits all day with your responsibility to pay rent? How do you balance your desire to post /. with your employer's desire that you accomplish tasks? How do you get stuff done when your teacher/manager is a clueless moron? What kinds of tasks/problems do you enjoy?
If you've figure that out by the time you're 18, you're truly exceptional. Not special-snowflake exceptional, but Bill Gates exceptional. College, and even a job, are likely to hold you back. Unfortunately, many people think they are Bill Gates, when they are only a special snowflake.
There is such a thing as acting talent. Not everyone can play Hamlet and excel in the role. Not everyone can play the Doctor and excel in the role.
Not everyone in the audience can tell the difference between good acting and poor acting. They say, if the story is good, the audience won't notice that Hamlet is wearing a digital watch. Same goes for acting talent.
If Joe's lawnmower service center or Sally's cake shop is discriminatory it's probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things (distasteful as it may be to some), but if you have the same problem with Toro or Albertsons it's a major issue.
There are many flavors of "Religious Freedom Law,"but at least the Indiana law applies to the employees as well as the businesses. So, Joe's lawnmower service may refuse people on the basis of religion at the policy level, but Joe, the employee of Starbuck's, may also refuse to serve people on the basis of his personal beliefs. The law is intended to prevent Starbuck's from firing Joe for his expression of personal religious freedom.
What I'm saying is that death penalty should happen as a last resort, not a first line of defense. The car could have been easily stopped by ramming it off the road, and people tackled and arrested
The first line of defense is the stop sign. The second line of defense is the guards yelling "Stop!" The third line of defense is a gate. The fourth line of defense, in this case, was a pair of parked police cars that the SUV (reportedly) rammed through.
Guards discharging their weapons was decidedly not the "first line of defense." I'm not sure what else could reasonably have been done in short enough time, to stop a vehicle with demonstrated willingness to perpetrate violence, but ramming through the parked cars seems like pretty good justification for extreme measures.
But why didn't the FBI's country-wide license plate trackers not catch them? Or is that only to trace their movements after they do something bad?
The historical database of license plate sightings is a terrific source of circumstantial evidence against people suspected of wrongdoing.
eg: your wife turns up dead. You renewed her life insurance policy a month ago. Three weeks ago, your car made several visits to "the bad part of town," possibly while you were at a murder-for-hire meeting. Nevermind that your insurance policy renews every February, and that a water main break diverted your commute.
Many things look suspicious once suspicion is upon you: the concern with a vast trove of location and communication history is that it is more likely to be twisted to make an honest man look corrupt than it is to find a criminal before he acts.
If we're going to start boycotting entire geographical areas because select businesses within their boundaries - fractions of a single percent - might refuse service, then... I don't even.
We're talking about a state law here, which presumably represents the general will of the people of the state. If Indiana puts up border signs saying "Welcome to Indiana, Gays may be refused service" it doesn't really matter whether 90%, 1%, or 0% of businesses actually do so - putting it in the law declares it a value of the people of the state.
Should I start walking into clothing stores demanding they stock clothes to fit my unusual size? Should I walk into coffee shops, demanding they accommodate my taste for foreign music and tea?
Orthogonal issues: this is not about stocking a particular product, this is about making a product equally available to any person. If the clothing store refuses to fit you until you pledge devotion to Allah, or if the best coffee shop in town demands you kiss a copperhead snake before you place your order, then maybe you'd have a complaint.
If you really want to push the coffee-tea analogy, would you take a large, diverse group of friends to a coffee shop that explicitly refuses to serve tea, knowing that some of your friends prefer tea? I suspect you would find a different shop/state that is more willing to accommodate your group. You might even tell the store owner that you're sad you couldn't bring your party to his place, but for the discrimination against tea.
But is it really practical to invent a religion and compare it to one that has been around longer than the government and had influenced the world for centuries before?
Yes. "Freedom of religion" does not contain any qualifiers. Your religion doesn't have to have a specific number of adherents, it doesn't have to have a long and glorious history, it doesn't have to have won wars against any other religion. It only has to be a set of beliefs or principles you take on faith. Those beliefs can change every 20 seconds, based on communication from from $DEITY, personal revelation, or direction of wind. "Freedom of religion" means that Catholicism is just as valid, and has exactly the same privileges as Quakerism, Sikhism, Jedism, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Just because you believe your One True Faith does not negate my One True Faith.
It's worth pointing out that "Freedom of Religion" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. The courts have frequently found that the needs and safety of secular society trump religious practice. Perhaps most notably, faiths that support polygamy may not have multiple bondings recognized as marriage. Even snake-handling is illegal in many states.
Can you trust that they never will?
Yes. Google's power over advertisers lies in Google's exclusive access to user information. Advertisers pay Google to figure out who would be good recipients of advertising, based on the belief that Google can identify those people better than the advertiser. If Google sells its collection of user data, then the advertiser will be able to make that determination for itself, and Google loses its main advantage over other ad-distribution networks. You do not sell the goose that lays golden eggs.
I want to believe that what you see in TV is just fiction and that doors don't go down with a kick, but even then...The average door in Europe is reinforced and it would take some ram hits before going down, and that assuming the door is not bolted.
The point of failure is usually the stud that holds the bolt. In typical US, wood-frame construction, this is a 2x4, with the bolt centered, leaving really just about 3 cm of pine wood holding the door closed. "Kick the door down" is also a euphemism for any form of forced entry, most likely a 40 (one man)-100 (two man) pound battering ram.
If you were a cop and you were sent to an address in response to a 911 call claiming that there was someone at that address with a dangerous weapon, would you walk up to the door and knock politely?
Why not talk to them via bullhorn or phone without even approaching the house? It's going to take at least 15 minutes to assemble and deploy a SWAT team - don't you think any killing the guy has started will be done by then?
If you start with negotiation, you have at least some chance to let the adrenalin run out, get people thinking rationally about consequences, let the first pangs of guilt emerge. If you start with shocking and overwhelming force, you pretty much guarantee someone's going to get hurt. Police are supposed to be trained to deescalate situations. They may carry tools required to respond to an escalation, but they're supposed to be distinguishable from a lynch mob by their ability to remain calm and bring about peaceful resolutions. Failure of this training results in shooting of unarmed crazy people.
There's zero fucking reason to put an HTPC in a crawl space.
Depends on your environment. In my area, the crawl space is often used for all mechanicals - HVAC, water heater, electrical service, even the whole-house vacuum. It makes running new lines really easy, with no tearing open of walls, not unlike an upside-down dropped ceiling. A central store of media files that can be distributed through the house is much more attractive than separate HTPCs for every room. One relatively beefy HTPC, capable of transcoding multiple media files for playback on low-power, fanless frontends is likewise very attractive. Especially if "crawl space" means a 3-4' high space between the slab and the floor of a house on a hill.
The only thing I'd recommend to OP is rack mounting on posts hanging from the floor joists - ie, suspend the system as far above the floor as possible. Water heaters and HVAC are designed to resist a little water/flooding - computers aren't. Dust is likely still to be a problem, but you can wrap the whole thing in a bag filter to cut that down.
These are not certificates. They're not validated by any trusted authority. These are host keys: you generate them yourself for the cost of electricity. You could have your router generate its own keys the first time it starts up for the cost of a couple seconds delay.
The rules sufficient for successful understanding are looser than the rules prescribed by style guides.
This is particularly true for spoken English vs written English. In spoken English, intonation and body language contribute to communication, eg bad vs bad. You're expected to fill in missing/garbled words from context. Written English is an attempt to encode all of that information.
So, sure, sloppy spelling, poor grammar, and homophone substitution may be understandable to your close friends. That makes it more of a code language or private language, and there's plenty of times where we like to share private, insider conversations. If you actually want to communicate with everyone, you have to use the parent language - step back from the Southern drawl or the Scots brogue and speak Common.
Sadly, the swatch-brand cheap watches were shit back then. A timex or a cheap casio digital would have been better. The cheap swatch couldn't actually take any abuse.
But a basic black, $10 timex was boring. Swatch made cheap ($20), crap watches that came in different colors. With 'funky' designs. People paid for swatches twice what they were worth because they had an off-center stripe on the face. And then someone realized that you could wear two, three, or even four swatches on one arm!
When the swatch guy gets up and tells you that iWatch has the potential to crush swiss watchmaking, he's talking about fashion, not function.
maybe I'm daft, but that is actually a reasonable job offer there. They would like someone to load some data into a hadoop cluster. Might take 6 months.
Agreed. I think a lot of the sour-grapes group look at "Excellent understating of HADOOP ecosystem" and read "founding developer of HADOOP," or interpret "Excellent Knowledge of Linux" as "Kernel developer." They're looking for a "big data" person and saying they're a Java shop with HADOOP/NoSQL infrastructure. Those people are out there. If you're not one of them, then this job may not be for you. 4 years experience means they're targeting people probably 25-30 years old. If you have vastly more experience than that, then this job may not be for you.
For pay rate, $30/hr is, to most of the country, a pretty good wage, especially early in the career. Other "good paying" jobs: construction, $15-25; Auto plant, starting at $16; teacher, start $18, median $35.
But some of it is part of the "hire a cheap H1B" game. By making the requirements impossible (or rejecting all but a handfull of people who already receive astronomical fees on the consulting market), they can claim that "There are no available US citizens quaified for the post." Then they hire an H1B.
At most 85,000 H1b visas are issued each year. 7000 per month, nation-wide, compared with 2.8 million people employed in "Information Technology." I think you overestimate the impact of H1b on your personal employability.
It doesn't matter how easily you can walk there and disable the camera, if you are caught on camera first. That's who most camera placements that can be "snuck up on" have a camera pointed at that camera. Nobody can take out all the cameras without getting caught on camera.
The point of TFA is that people have dumb camera placement. They take the one camera they get free with the security system and put it in the bedroom, or otherwise inside. They mount the camera on the roof, pointed down at the front door, offering a nice view of an intruder's baseball cap. And honestly, the electric meter on most of the homes I've seen is mounted discretely behind the shrubbery, so it doesn't spoil the view of the house, and reasonably accessible to human meter-readers (they only stopped being a thing a decade or two ago in most areas). Then again, few of the homes I've seen have multiple ring-walls that seem to be common in AK.
Genetics? more like skin color or language or location or a combination of all three, how many white races are there?
Considering that, for a long time, the boundaries established by language and location prevented human interbreeding, those seem like pretty reasonable indicators of genetic drift. That is, the same population trends that allow languages to drift also allow genetic drift. Maybe we'll see that disappear, now that it's so easy to travel, but it's really only been 30 years or so. Skin tone, hair color, and facial structure are just the most obvious external indicators of genetic variation.
tiering should still work, the thing being blocked is certain companies/products have a bit of a faster lane to get through the network. Paid priority will no longer exist
The one legitimately valuable business arrangement that I can see being blocked by net neutrality is where I buy the lowest possible tier of service from my ISP, because email doesn't require much bandwidth, but then buy premium delivery from Netflix, where Netflix pays my ISP to deliver data faster than my service tier.
Already been done. The conservatives had a shitfit when their ads were blocked.
What beautiful irony. The proponents of small government and deregulation, running to a government agency complaining that a private company won't run ads calling for government regulators to block a business transaction.
I hate the big ISPs too. Everyone does. But the solution to them is competition. Not government regulation. Just remove the stupid laws that make it illegal for rival companies to lay cable in their territory.
Those laws don't exist in general. The primary thing preventing Time Warner from running cable to my house is the fact that Comcast already has a wire there. Comcast has already spent the millions of dollars required to wire my neighborhood, and the tens of millions required to wire my town. Whatever price Time Warner can offer, Comcast can beat, because they've already sunk costs. Time Warner can, optimistically, hope to get 50% of cable subscribers, meaning at most half the revenue that Comcast projected to pay off their capital. There is no way for a new cable company to compete effectively with one that's already laid out the major capital expenses. The only reason DSL is competitive is it doesn't require laying new copper to every home.
Likewise, there's no way multiple electric or gas companies could compete with an incumbent who had already wired/plumbed a neighborhood. When cities deregulate gas/electric service, they do so by transferring the wires to one company, and forcing that company to sell transit to all comers at regulated rates. If you want to see competition among ISPs, nationalize the coax, copper and fiber, and let the ISPs rent bandwidth to subscribers' homes and manage their access.
I am prepared to engage with you on this issue rationally. But you should be warned now... I am extremely rational. Doubletalk, sophistry, and other fallacious nonsense will simply get vivisected and pinned to an examination table while I take it apart bit by bit putting each little piece in its own little formaldehyde jar with its own little label.
That's fine. You're exactly the audience this piece of legislation targets. I mean, really, who would make a rational argument against using good, reproducible, published science to support their policy.
This legislation is social engineering that depends on the distinction between theory and practice. In theory, it's great to use data to support your policies, to have good science backing your regulations, and to know the exact effects you're trying to block or induce. In practice, those data do not exist. There's 150+ chemicals at my job site, and the MSDSs for half of them report "Data not available." This legislation is intended to delay for as long as possible any regulatory action.
Example, pentachlorophenol, one of the most common preservatives for telephone poles and RR ties over the past 30 years, still lacks any human carcinogenicty studies. It looks like penta is metabolized in vivo to a much more carcinogenic compound, and I imagine that another 10 years or so will produce pretty convincing data. Meanwhile, the EPA has been allowed to regulate penta as a probable carcinogen since the early 80s. This includes banning the sale to private individuals (it used to be a popular fungicide for people to spray around their basements). Penta is one of the better studied molecules because of its popularity and explicitly toxic function, and after 60 years, one can still argue that there is no reproducible scientific data demonstrating its role in cancer.
You mean the compounds so secret that there's a wikipedia page listing them all?
First, there is no reason to believe that list is exhaustive. According to the page itself, it is "a partial list of the chemical constituents in additives that are used or have been used in fracturing operations." It was only released in 2011 in response to a congressional investigation, having been held secret for 60 years. Nor does it help you know whether fracking fluid is mostly toluene or mostly liquid nitrogen (personally, my guess is that there is very little, if any, liquid nitrogen in fracking fluids, but it's on the list)
Second, from a random sampling of MSDS:
So, under the proposed legislation, even if you know what the chemicals are, you have to wait for someone to get interested enough in them to perform ecological, carcinogenic, and mutagenic studies with those specific chemicals and publishes the results. Until someone proves that a compound is carcinogenic, it would be regulated like it is not carcinogenic.
Perhaps you are willing to have your dinner grown next to a factory that can hold its chemical waste secret for 60 years, and then be unable to regulate that waste for another few years or decades, waiting for someone to bother to measure their health effects. Maybe you believe that no company would knowingly or accidentally release chemicals without clear confidence in their non-toxicity (even if they can't release that data to the public). Maybe you trust those companies, more than the politicized EPA, to balance their profits against potential harm to humans and environment.
1 Companies that sell software... better have all code open sourced (not same as free) or should be labelled "NOT TO BE TRUSTED".
No way to tell whether the provided source code matches the provided firmware
Code (including scripts and updates) is then compiled locally and before first execution hash checked automatically against non-centralized database (p2p technology similar to bitcoin block chain)
1) binary code will vary depending on the specific architecture, optimizations, and libraries during compilation. 2) a hash can be falsified as easily as a binary.
3. All hardware sold with precise technical diagrams... or should be labelled "NOT TO BE TRUSTED"
At least an order of magnitude less effective than open source, and we've seen that even "important" OSS like openssl can go decades without independent code review.
4. All encryption always on client side.
Quite sensible, although I suspect that people will rapidly become frustrated when they forget their pass phrase, or lose their private key, and 5 years of family snapshots disappear. Or when grandma dies, taking access to her archive of family history with her.
5. Get rid of centralized authorities for security (looking at you SSL) Centralized servers have big fat sign that say "NOT TO BE TRUSTED". P2P.
Because you'd rather trust 1000 amateurs to secure all of their systems than one professional to secure his server?
7. Shaming lists on NGOs (applause to EFF). Any politician that votes for mass surveillance or doesn't adhere to above principles. put on NGO lists as "HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS"
Yeah, ranks right up there with executing journalists and kidnapping babies. Among the most certain ways to get people to ignore you is to blow your cause completely out of proportion. If you use the same words to describe digital surveillance as other people use to describe the Khmer Rouge or Stalin, then people are going to think you're a nutcase.
Well, if anybody else in government did this, they'd get fired, lose their pension, and possibly face criminal charges.
Still waiting on charges against Sarah Palin, for the same offense. I'm guessing it will be a cold day in hell before either sees any consequences beyond partisan propaganda. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is one of those rules, like declaring any gifts over $50, that gets employees a firm warning not to do it again.