Sonic.net is an independent ISP that has been slowly rolling out fiber to the SF Bay Area even before Google Fiber started but it has been incredibly slow because they only do it to areas where they have high customer density AND all the other ideal conditions.
This is exactly what's wrong with capitalism in the presence of natural monopolies. Any company making a good profit has no reason to take a big risk on improving or upgrading, because they already have a guaranteed profit and their customers already tolerate their current service. Any company thinking about taking that big capital risk can be sure that the incumbent will slash prices to the point where they're cash-flow positive, leaving no room for capital recovery.
If we want to see competition in the ISP market, we have to separate ownership and maintenance of the physical infrastructure from delivery of service, in the same way as electricity, gas, and POTS.
If they don't have to pay taxes that they otherwise would have paid, and that others have to pay, it's tax relief, and thus it's a subsidy. I thought I made that quite clear in my prior post, but some people just need things spelled out in small, simple words.
I'm trying to figure out where accelerated depreciation equals "taxes not paid, that others have to pay."
I'm imagining two companies that buy a $1M plant and have $200k revenues. In a conventional business, you depreciate the plant over 20 years, take a $50k/year depreciation credit, and pay taxes on net of $150k*20 years = $3M. In O&G, they depreciate over 5 years, take $200k depreciation for those 5 years and pay no taxes. For the next 15 years, they pay taxes on their full $200k revenue, and $200k*15 years is still $3M.
If you want to do present value calculation, then you'll end up with some benefit, but it's a much smaller number than the "depreciation."
In particular, fascists criticized capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor support of private property, which fascists supportedâ"but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation.
This reads like it was lifted from the Democratic Party's platform. It exactly describes the criticisms that progressives level against capitalism, and exemplifies their idea of what the American economy should look like.
I don't think I've ever heard any Democrat say I should just take a crappy job like a good American. They mostly seem to say thing like the State should educate me so I can get a good job, or the State should encourage free trade so I can get inexpensive luxuries.
I believe if an ordinary employee had done what she had done, they at minimum would have been fired, and potentially would have gone to prison.
You mean, if they'd sent work email from a personal account? That has been pretty common practice, at all levels of government and private industry, with laws restricting state business to state computers being relatively recent impositions.
That's how this Clinton thing got started: someone trying to back-date a 2014 law, pretending it applies to 2009-2013. With much grubbing around, there's maybe a dozen emails on that server that might merit security classification (keeping in mind that wikileaks files indicate that extremely trivial information can "merit security classification"), and most, if not all, of those seem not to have been classified until after the fact. ie, not classified when she received or sent them, but classified now. If, out of thousands of secure and insecure communications over four years, there were a dozen transmitted over the wrong system, this hardly seems the traitorous breech of national security it's made out as.
Is it a work email if she tells her daughter she's going to make an unannounced visit to Berlin on a particular day? Would it be work email if her security staff told their kid that the Secretary of State was going to Berlin? Would either of them contain classified information?
Boaters MUST know how to identify Buoys, Otherwise, they should not have a license to drive a boat or be part of a boating crew, and should not be navigating....
In most of the US, private citizens do not require any kind license to operate a boat. The boat itself has to be licensed, but the operators only require licensing if they take paying passengers or cargo. The operator is required to follow all the laws, but he's not required to demonstrate previous knowledge of them.
2. Fix vulnerability such that security of users systems no longer hinge on whether a circumvention tool exists.
If the FBI can coerce Apple to build software and use the auto-update system to apply it to particular devices, then the FBI can coerce Apple to create security vulnerabilities and distribute them through auto-update. Your device may be perfectly secure when you buy it, but the FBI can force Apple to make it insecure.
The precedent they're asking for will require a court order for that coercion. FISA is technically a court capable of issuing such orders. Various AGs have made the argument that, because data is easily destroyed, they should be able to collect it all, as long as they promise not to look at it without a court order. That is, that they can pre-emptively compel compliance with court orders they might get at some time in the future.
That last step gets to be done under the cover of national security. Whatever companies are compelled will not be allowed to argue in open court. It will just happen, be rumored by people dismissed as paranoid conspiracy theorists, and eventually disclosed by some poor soul forced to spend the rest of his life hiding in foreign lands.
Now thanks to this one incident we have congress working legislation to create a commission which undoubtedly will lead to pushing legislation which if successful god knows will in no way serve to advance the cause of security, privacy and freedom.
Personally, I hope they will legislate in favor of privacy. If they don't, the rules will at least be formalized, and I will have the option of finding open source alternatives, distributed outside of US jurisdiction, that are actually secure. Been there, done that.
the victims" families appear to fall within the set of currently living people and therefore according to your position, they matter too.
How do those families benefit by viewing whatever data is stored on the phone? Or maybe better: what data could be stored on the phone that would benefit those 14 families to a greater extent than the harm done to 700,000,000 iPhone owners?
Stored data I imagine might include a manifesto, might include the text of messages exchanged with co-conspirators, might include a map to a buried nuclear bomb set to go off in 24 hours. A manifesto is not very useful. Potential co-conspirators can already be identified from meta-data available by subpoenaing phone records.
That leaves the buried nuclear bomb. That bomb has been the motivation for all of the NSA, CIA, and FBI's invasive surveillance, not just back to 2001, but for as long as those agencies have existed. It may or may not be a figment of their collective paranoia, but the argument is powerful and irrefutable. There might be critical information about an imminent, catastrophic attack stored anywhere, therefore, immediate, unfettered access to everything might prevent massive damage and casualties. There might even be critical data steganographically encrypted in Suzie's lolly, and we won't know for sure until we take it away and test it. We have the 4th amendment to enshrine the security and privacy of the individual over bogeymen invented by the state.
But the math does say you can build a secure phone where only the owner has the key.
No, the math says the phone is secure if only the owner has the key.
Apple chose to retain that key making it a political issues, not a technical one.
Again, not quite. Apple wrote the operating system that allows the owner sole access to the key, and they can rewrite the OS to violate that exclusivity. Whether they can be forced to retroactively modify their OS to expose their customers' private data is the political issue.
At this point... its Hillery VS Trump... there is very little you could say against Trump that doesn't count many times over against Hillary.
According to Politifact, 60% of Trump's claims are false and 1% true (with the remainder somewhere between mostly true and mostly false). Clinton gets 23% false and 41% true.
So, while it is technically true that they both lie and distort, the scale seems pretty important.
Apparently the researchers are using a basic solution (high pH, lots of OH- and less H+), and then using photons to liberate electrons from the OH- to allow H+ to combine into H2.
That would leave you with uncharged hydroxyl radicals with an unpaired electron, so I don't think that's what they're doing. They are only talking about the reduction half reaction (2 H+ + 2e- --> H2). There has to be an oxidation half reaction. You're proposing (OH- --> OH + e-), but they're talking about splitting water, ie : 2 H2O --> O2 + 4 H+ + 4e-
I suspect they need the high pH to let the H2 diffuse away.
The engine is the oxidation part. It outputs water, not O2.
I don't think so. The reduction half reaction they're talking about is
2 H+ + 2 e- -->H2
It has to be paired with and oxidation half-reaction. In this case:
H2O --> O2 + 4 H+ + 4 e-
The whole reaction provides H2 and O2 that can be used in a completely different reaction to drive fuel cell or heat engine.
I switched majors after a year from micro computers to applied music so long ago that anything I did learn is fairly worthless today.
See, this is the problem with education. So many students (teachers, even) get the idea that they're supposed to learn COBOL syntax, the plot and dialog of Twelfth Night, or the name of the nerve at your elbow that makes your hand tingle, but those are just props that help you get to the real education.
You can't just tell students about sequential, algorithmic logic and expect them to get it. What you can tell them is trivial and impractical. You can only show them examples; make them go through the motions of replicating those examples and slight variations; and hope that some of the mechanics sink past replication into real learning. That last part seems to happen without people even realizing it, which is pretty cool.
You have to admit, though, that "24 year-old programmer destroys billion-dollar company with worst video game ever" is a fantastic story. I doubt many of the people supporting the narrative have even seen an Atari 2600. It hardly matters how much of "Atari: Game Over" is truth, hyperbole, or flat out fiction, any more than "Wargames."
Atari only invested five person-weeks of effort into ET: it was not a big production. They lost something like $30M on E.T. (most of it marketing and the $20-25M fee to license E.T.), but most of the stories will mention Atari's $300+M quarterly loss when they talk about ET. And no one's going to suggest that the real reason ET lost so much money was some executive's decision to pay Spielberg $25M. The truth is boring, though, and always has been. Much better to tell an implausible story supported by conflating and exaggerating data.
My current thinking is that we should seriously consider a Universal Basic Wage as well as completely removing the minimum wage.
This has been tried before, and it failed miserably. It was known as the Speenhamland system, and provided the price of bread to anyone with a job. Employers rapidly realized they could pay people literally starvation wages and have the government make up the difference (much like Walmart and food stamps). Workers were desperate for any job, in order to qualify for assistance. The result was people working their asses off under deplorable conditions because, hey, you have to eat. "Basic income" is an extreme distortion of the labor market and just not a workable policy within a capitalist system.
You can't let people starve in the street. You can't let the powerful abuse the powerless. The powerless - those masses of naive 20-somethings - will happily take jobs away from each other by accepting just a little lower wage. Unpaid internships are a real thing. If we're going to prevent employees from uniting into collective bargaining, then the next option for the individually powerless is to unite as an electorate and legislate a minimum wage.
Cheap Chinese crap that burns so much power it may set your house on fire is the device of choice for the unwashed masses.
And why not? TFS is talking about wall warts wasting as much as $0.20 of electricity per year. If the non-cheap, non-Chinese stuff costs even $1 more, it's likely to be in the recycler before it pays for itself.
Any advice for dealing with devices that are never done charging? Off the top of my head for stuff in my own home:
Most of those things will run off power provided by an ATX PS, and most of those things (security camera aside) you only use when the computer is on. Power those devices from the high (85+) efficiency ATX power supply of the attached computer, rather than a separate low (20-75%) efficiency wall wart, and eliminate the 'vampire' draws by un-powered transformers all together.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) projects that the new standards for external power supplies alone will cut nearly 47 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over 30 years, equivalent to the annual electricity use of 6.5 million homes.
This description, like much of TFS, is completely useless.
47 million tons over 30 years? So, 1.6M tons/year. Why multiply the annual saving by some arbitrary number of years?
Equivalent to the annual use of 6.5 M homes? Does this mean it takes 30 years saving to pay for that 1 year, or is 1.6M tons CO2/year what pays for thos 6.5M houses?
Near as I can tell, 1kWh ~ 1 pound CO2, and the average US home consumes about 10 kkWh/year, or about 5 (US) tons of CO2, so 6.5M homes ~ 32M tons CO2/year, which is way more than the annual savings from the new rule, but not quite the savings accumulated over 30 years. Jesus, who teaches journalists to write these days?
The proper percentage should be at least 99%, but I'll settle for 99% among members of the government, and 90% for the public.
Imagine sitting at dinner, and some person from Pew Research calls up to ask, "What color is the sky?" Do you really believe than 99% of people will give the right answer? I'd be surprised if fewer than 25% of people said "Red. Goodnight."
I would characterise it more as "somewhat weird, possibly creepy". If you look at the notes accompanying the photos, it seems like the guy was also responsible for hiring them all. He then bought them materials to make artwork for the walls. That's just a wee bit odd.
You should keep in mind the The Guardian chose those photos from a larger collection to highlight the presence (and hairstyles) of computer women of the 60s. I don't think buying art supplies for your team is necessarily any more creepy than buying them Nerf guns, fitbits, or a foosball table. Pick distractions that fit the tastes and interests of your team.
This country is founded on freedom of religion. If you don't like it, leave
This country is founded on the freedom of every individual to practice his own religion. We specifically deny government officials the power to impose their religion of the people.
Fortunately, the evidence is all pointing to you being wrong. That's why ownership is lawful. The reason is not exclusionary and the right is ours.
I think Johnny Cash said it very well: "Don't take your guns to town, son. Leave your guns at home." There are lots of responsible uses for guns and lots of responsible gun owners. There are a few fucking morons out there, and the penalties for irresponsible gun use and ownership are nearly non-existent. No one needs to take his gun to the bar: once someone has that hammer, an awful lot of problems start to look like nails.
However, between things like the trend to train your replacements, H1-B visas being abused, and a belief that everyone should be trained to code by means of mandatory public education, it really doesn't look like the industry has a very healthy future.
It's interesting to compare the 'coding' industry with other knowledge-based industries, like law, medicine, traditional engineering, or even allied health. The older professions have strong accrediting or credentialing systems that limit, either practically or legally, who and how many people can do certain tasks. In many cases, those professional organizations fought ruthlessly against the commoditization of their skills, usually using the fear of life-threatening incompetence as a lever. Just compare the number of H1-B's issued to "IT" and to registered nurses.
Coders seem resistant to such a strong organization. Maybe because "unions are bad." Maybe because there's a lot of self-teaching, and formal accreditation looks threatening. Maybe it's just not a social profession. One way or another, it looks to me like the IT/development professionals have just failed to organize effectively.
The article header "Metel Hackers..." is a link to the slashdot article. The parenthetical note "(threatpost.com)" is a link to the threatpost article. Reading on a desktop in classic.
I don't know how long it's been like that. I don't remember the parenthetical thing being clickable before, but that may just be because I've gotten used to slashdot's systems of LINK[hostname] tagging, where the link is clickable and the hostname is not.
There's a reason people dismiss claims of IRL "harm" the from Tipper Gores or Jack Thompsons or Anita Sarkeesians of the world.
It's because every generation remembers something that their parents were absolutely certain was making the younger generation into terrible people. Facebook. Video games. Rock-n-roll. Jazz. Newspapers. There's a dozen quotes from notables stretching back to 2000 BC expressing the same, "Kids these days..." sentiment, all based on nostalgia for their own half-remembered, half-fantasized childhood.
Slashdot Mirror
Sonic.net is an independent ISP that has been slowly rolling out fiber to the SF Bay Area even before Google Fiber started but it has been incredibly slow because they only do it to areas where they have high customer density AND all the other ideal conditions.
This is exactly what's wrong with capitalism in the presence of natural monopolies. Any company making a good profit has no reason to take a big risk on improving or upgrading, because they already have a guaranteed profit and their customers already tolerate their current service. Any company thinking about taking that big capital risk can be sure that the incumbent will slash prices to the point where they're cash-flow positive, leaving no room for capital recovery.
If we want to see competition in the ISP market, we have to separate ownership and maintenance of the physical infrastructure from delivery of service, in the same way as electricity, gas, and POTS.
If they don't have to pay taxes that they otherwise would have paid, and that others have to pay, it's tax relief, and thus it's a subsidy. I thought I made that quite clear in my prior post, but some people just need things spelled out in small, simple words.
I'm trying to figure out where accelerated depreciation equals "taxes not paid, that others have to pay."
I'm imagining two companies that buy a $1M plant and have $200k revenues. In a conventional business, you depreciate the plant over 20 years, take a $50k/year depreciation credit, and pay taxes on net of $150k*20 years = $3M. In O&G, they depreciate over 5 years, take $200k depreciation for those 5 years and pay no taxes. For the next 15 years, they pay taxes on their full $200k revenue, and $200k*15 years is still $3M.
If you want to do present value calculation, then you'll end up with some benefit, but it's a much smaller number than the "depreciation."
In particular, fascists criticized capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor support of private property, which fascists supportedâ"but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation.
This reads like it was lifted from the Democratic Party's platform. It exactly describes the criticisms that progressives level against capitalism, and exemplifies their idea of what the American economy should look like.
I don't think I've ever heard any Democrat say I should just take a crappy job like a good American. They mostly seem to say thing like the State should educate me so I can get a good job, or the State should encourage free trade so I can get inexpensive luxuries.
I believe if an ordinary employee had done what she had done, they at minimum would have been fired, and potentially would have gone to prison.
You mean, if they'd sent work email from a personal account? That has been pretty common practice, at all levels of government and private industry, with laws restricting state business to state computers being relatively recent impositions.
That's how this Clinton thing got started: someone trying to back-date a 2014 law, pretending it applies to 2009-2013. With much grubbing around, there's maybe a dozen emails on that server that might merit security classification (keeping in mind that wikileaks files indicate that extremely trivial information can "merit security classification"), and most, if not all, of those seem not to have been classified until after the fact. ie, not classified when she received or sent them, but classified now. If, out of thousands of secure and insecure communications over four years, there were a dozen transmitted over the wrong system, this hardly seems the traitorous breech of national security it's made out as.
Is it a work email if she tells her daughter she's going to make an unannounced visit to Berlin on a particular day? Would it be work email if her security staff told their kid that the Secretary of State was going to Berlin? Would either of them contain classified information?
Boaters MUST know how to identify Buoys, Otherwise, they should not have a license to drive a boat or be part of a boating crew, and should not be navigating....
In most of the US, private citizens do not require any kind license to operate a boat. The boat itself has to be licensed, but the operators only require licensing if they take paying passengers or cargo. The operator is required to follow all the laws, but he's not required to demonstrate previous knowledge of them.
2. Fix vulnerability such that security of users systems no longer hinge on whether a circumvention tool exists.
If the FBI can coerce Apple to build software and use the auto-update system to apply it to particular devices, then the FBI can coerce Apple to create security vulnerabilities and distribute them through auto-update. Your device may be perfectly secure when you buy it, but the FBI can force Apple to make it insecure.
The precedent they're asking for will require a court order for that coercion. FISA is technically a court capable of issuing such orders. Various AGs have made the argument that, because data is easily destroyed, they should be able to collect it all, as long as they promise not to look at it without a court order. That is, that they can pre-emptively compel compliance with court orders they might get at some time in the future.
That last step gets to be done under the cover of national security. Whatever companies are compelled will not be allowed to argue in open court. It will just happen, be rumored by people dismissed as paranoid conspiracy theorists, and eventually disclosed by some poor soul forced to spend the rest of his life hiding in foreign lands.
Now thanks to this one incident we have congress working legislation to create a commission which undoubtedly will lead to pushing legislation which if successful god knows will in no way serve to advance the cause of security, privacy and freedom.
Personally, I hope they will legislate in favor of privacy. If they don't, the rules will at least be formalized, and I will have the option of finding open source alternatives, distributed outside of US jurisdiction, that are actually secure. Been there, done that.
the victims" families appear to fall within the set of currently living people and therefore according to your position, they matter too.
How do those families benefit by viewing whatever data is stored on the phone? Or maybe better: what data could be stored on the phone that would benefit those 14 families to a greater extent than the harm done to 700,000,000 iPhone owners?
Stored data I imagine might include a manifesto, might include the text of messages exchanged with co-conspirators, might include a map to a buried nuclear bomb set to go off in 24 hours. A manifesto is not very useful. Potential co-conspirators can already be identified from meta-data available by subpoenaing phone records.
That leaves the buried nuclear bomb. That bomb has been the motivation for all of the NSA, CIA, and FBI's invasive surveillance, not just back to 2001, but for as long as those agencies have existed. It may or may not be a figment of their collective paranoia, but the argument is powerful and irrefutable. There might be critical information about an imminent, catastrophic attack stored anywhere, therefore, immediate, unfettered access to everything might prevent massive damage and casualties. There might even be critical data steganographically encrypted in Suzie's lolly, and we won't know for sure until we take it away and test it. We have the 4th amendment to enshrine the security and privacy of the individual over bogeymen invented by the state.
But the math does say you can build a secure phone where only the owner has the key.
No, the math says the phone is secure if only the owner has the key.
Apple chose to retain that key making it a political issues, not a technical one.
Again, not quite. Apple wrote the operating system that allows the owner sole access to the key, and they can rewrite the OS to violate that exclusivity. Whether they can be forced to retroactively modify their OS to expose their customers' private data is the political issue.
I don't think he is a candidate in the UK (yet).
I don't think that matters. The Trump presidency is going to be so huge, he'll be able to fire politicians in other countries.
At this point... its Hillery VS Trump... there is very little you could say against Trump that doesn't count many times over against Hillary.
According to Politifact, 60% of Trump's claims are false and 1% true (with the remainder somewhere between mostly true and mostly false). Clinton gets 23% false and 41% true.
So, while it is technically true that they both lie and distort, the scale seems pretty important.
Apparently the researchers are using a basic solution (high pH, lots of OH- and less H+), and then using photons to liberate electrons from the OH- to allow H+ to combine into H2.
That would leave you with uncharged hydroxyl radicals with an unpaired electron, so I don't think that's what they're doing. They are only talking about the reduction half reaction (2 H+ + 2e- --> H2). There has to be an oxidation half reaction. You're proposing (OH- --> OH + e-), but they're talking about splitting water, ie : 2 H2O --> O2 + 4 H+ + 4e-
I suspect they need the high pH to let the H2 diffuse away.
The engine is the oxidation part. It outputs water, not O2.
I don't think so. The reduction half reaction they're talking about is
2 H+ + 2 e- -->H2
It has to be paired with and oxidation half-reaction. In this case:
H2O --> O2 + 4 H+ + 4 e-
The whole reaction provides H2 and O2 that can be used in a completely different reaction to drive fuel cell or heat engine.
I switched majors after a year from micro computers to applied music so long ago that anything I did learn is fairly worthless today.
See, this is the problem with education. So many students (teachers, even) get the idea that they're supposed to learn COBOL syntax, the plot and dialog of Twelfth Night, or the name of the nerve at your elbow that makes your hand tingle, but those are just props that help you get to the real education.
You can't just tell students about sequential, algorithmic logic and expect them to get it. What you can tell them is trivial and impractical. You can only show them examples; make them go through the motions of replicating those examples and slight variations; and hope that some of the mechanics sink past replication into real learning. That last part seems to happen without people even realizing it, which is pretty cool.
E.T. was simply not as bad as people remember.
You have to admit, though, that "24 year-old programmer destroys billion-dollar company with worst video game ever" is a fantastic story. I doubt many of the people supporting the narrative have even seen an Atari 2600. It hardly matters how much of "Atari: Game Over" is truth, hyperbole, or flat out fiction, any more than "Wargames."
Atari only invested five person-weeks of effort into ET: it was not a big production. They lost something like $30M on E.T. (most of it marketing and the $20-25M fee to license E.T.), but most of the stories will mention Atari's $300+M quarterly loss when they talk about ET. And no one's going to suggest that the real reason ET lost so much money was some executive's decision to pay Spielberg $25M. The truth is boring, though, and always has been. Much better to tell an implausible story supported by conflating and exaggerating data.
My current thinking is that we should seriously consider a Universal Basic Wage as well as completely removing the minimum wage.
This has been tried before, and it failed miserably. It was known as the Speenhamland system, and provided the price of bread to anyone with a job. Employers rapidly realized they could pay people literally starvation wages and have the government make up the difference (much like Walmart and food stamps). Workers were desperate for any job, in order to qualify for assistance. The result was people working their asses off under deplorable conditions because, hey, you have to eat. "Basic income" is an extreme distortion of the labor market and just not a workable policy within a capitalist system.
You can't let people starve in the street. You can't let the powerful abuse the powerless. The powerless - those masses of naive 20-somethings - will happily take jobs away from each other by accepting just a little lower wage. Unpaid internships are a real thing. If we're going to prevent employees from uniting into collective bargaining, then the next option for the individually powerless is to unite as an electorate and legislate a minimum wage.
Cheap Chinese crap that burns so much power it may set your house on fire is the device of choice for the unwashed masses.
And why not? TFS is talking about wall warts wasting as much as $0.20 of electricity per year. If the non-cheap, non-Chinese stuff costs even $1 more, it's likely to be in the recycler before it pays for itself.
Any advice for dealing with devices that are never done charging? Off the top of my head for stuff in my own home:
Most of those things will run off power provided by an ATX PS, and most of those things (security camera aside) you only use when the computer is on. Power those devices from the high (85+) efficiency ATX power supply of the attached computer, rather than a separate low (20-75%) efficiency wall wart, and eliminate the 'vampire' draws by un-powered transformers all together.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) projects that the new standards for external power supplies alone will cut nearly 47 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over 30 years, equivalent to the annual electricity use of 6.5 million homes.
This description, like much of TFS, is completely useless.
47 million tons over 30 years? So, 1.6M tons/year. Why multiply the annual saving by some arbitrary number of years?
Equivalent to the annual use of 6.5 M homes? Does this mean it takes 30 years saving to pay for that 1 year, or is 1.6M tons CO2/year what pays for thos 6.5M houses?
Near as I can tell, 1kWh ~ 1 pound CO2, and the average US home consumes about 10 kkWh/year, or about 5 (US) tons of CO2, so 6.5M homes ~ 32M tons CO2/year, which is way more than the annual savings from the new rule, but not quite the savings accumulated over 30 years. Jesus, who teaches journalists to write these days?
The proper percentage should be at least 99%, but I'll settle for 99% among members of the government, and 90% for the public.
Imagine sitting at dinner, and some person from Pew Research calls up to ask, "What color is the sky?" Do you really believe than 99% of people will give the right answer? I'd be surprised if fewer than 25% of people said "Red. Goodnight."
I would characterise it more as "somewhat weird, possibly creepy". If you look at the notes accompanying the photos, it seems like the guy was also responsible for hiring them all. He then bought them materials to make artwork for the walls. That's just a wee bit odd.
You should keep in mind the The Guardian chose those photos from a larger collection to highlight the presence (and hairstyles) of computer women of the 60s. I don't think buying art supplies for your team is necessarily any more creepy than buying them Nerf guns, fitbits, or a foosball table. Pick distractions that fit the tastes and interests of your team.
This country is founded on freedom of religion. If you don't like it, leave
This country is founded on the freedom of every individual to practice his own religion. We specifically deny government officials the power to impose their religion of the people.
Fortunately, the evidence is all pointing to you being wrong. That's why ownership is lawful. The reason is not exclusionary and the right is ours.
I think Johnny Cash said it very well: "Don't take your guns to town, son. Leave your guns at home." There are lots of responsible uses for guns and lots of responsible gun owners. There are a few fucking morons out there, and the penalties for irresponsible gun use and ownership are nearly non-existent. No one needs to take his gun to the bar: once someone has that hammer, an awful lot of problems start to look like nails.
However, between things like the trend to train your replacements, H1-B visas being abused, and a belief that everyone should be trained to code by means of mandatory public education, it really doesn't look like the industry has a very healthy future.
It's interesting to compare the 'coding' industry with other knowledge-based industries, like law, medicine, traditional engineering, or even allied health. The older professions have strong accrediting or credentialing systems that limit, either practically or legally, who and how many people can do certain tasks. In many cases, those professional organizations fought ruthlessly against the commoditization of their skills, usually using the fear of life-threatening incompetence as a lever. Just compare the number of H1-B's issued to "IT" and to registered nurses.
Coders seem resistant to such a strong organization. Maybe because "unions are bad." Maybe because there's a lot of self-teaching, and formal accreditation looks threatening. Maybe it's just not a social profession. One way or another, it looks to me like the IT/development professionals have just failed to organize effectively.
The article header "Metel Hackers..." is a link to the slashdot article. The parenthetical note "(threatpost.com)" is a link to the threatpost article. Reading on a desktop in classic.
I don't know how long it's been like that. I don't remember the parenthetical thing being clickable before, but that may just be because I've gotten used to slashdot's systems of LINK[hostname] tagging, where the link is clickable and the hostname is not.
There's a reason people dismiss claims of IRL "harm" the from Tipper Gores or Jack Thompsons or Anita Sarkeesians of the world.
It's because every generation remembers something that their parents were absolutely certain was making the younger generation into terrible people. Facebook. Video games. Rock-n-roll. Jazz. Newspapers. There's a dozen quotes from notables stretching back to 2000 BC expressing the same, "Kids these days..." sentiment, all based on nostalgia for their own half-remembered, half-fantasized childhood.