What are you smoking??!! Increasing the MPG requirements of cars results in lower MPG vehicles??!! Is your head so stuck in the sand that you've lost your grasp of basic logic?
Increasing the MPG requirements results in better MPG vehicles. The reason manufacturers can build low MPG trucks is because of a loophole, and the problem is obviously with the loophole, not the regulation.
Manufacturers are all quickly adopting more efficient vehicles because most consumers who bought SUVs for commuting got burnt badly by the gas price hikes, and because not everyone exploits every loophole they can find (unless they're in finance). If your business model relies on a loophole, then you're boned when the loophole gets closed.
3000 lbs is not a big car. It's a compact. A 3000 lb car is a, given current technology, probably the most reasonable solution for regularly carrying people in a reasonably safe way. There don't seem to be many vehicles on the road that get better mileage by reducing the SIZE.
Don't be so sure about physical security. The day after 12 people were killed in a shooting at Navy Yard in DC, some dude lobbed firecrackers at the White House.
Likewise, you might need to go through millimeter wave scans to get through security, but your seeing million dollar scanners at the front door doesn't mean that the back door isn't wide open. It's criticized as "security theater" because it's only meant to make you FEEL safe. As XKCD explains, there are plenty of easy and common loopholes in the system: https://xkcd.com/651/
Airport's fault. No one should be able to drive their car right onto the runway, no matter what GPS or voice in their heads is telling them. Fire whoever runs this airport because they're a moron for not putting a fence up
I think it's pretty reasonable to think that a MILE of warning signs that you might get hit by a freaking plane is enough deterant.
And before you keep going on about physical security, remember that stupid is always going to find a way.
From TFA:
"They had to enter the airport property via a motion-activated gate, and afterwards there are many signs, lights and painted markings, first warning that aircraft may share the road and then that drivers should not be there at all.
"They needed to drive over a mile with all this before reaching the runway. But the drivers disregarded all that because they were following the directions given on their iPhones."
These aren't drunk frat boys pulling some shenaigans in the middle of the night. These are fully competent, licensed drivers who turned off their own brains and replaced them with iPhones. This is NOT the airport's fault. It's called personal responsibility.
Re:Don't build big convex glass buildings
on
Building Melts Car
·
· Score: 1
....It doesn't. That's why moss tends grows on the north side of trees here in the northern hemisphere.
In that case I'd really like to hear your views on slavery, segragation, and voting rights. I'd also like to know how you define things as right and wrong that are illegal in one state or nation but not another.
While I'll agree that the buses are a good thing, I suggest you read up more about gentrification before thinking that it's something so easily solved by working for the company.
It's a real problem because the general effect is that it only serves to drive out existing residents and businesses. Poverty is linked to higher crime, so yes, it makes a area safer to live in, but only by displacing the people who gave it its character in the first place, and who are most likely to be socially involved. Also, it makes life unnecessarily hard for the unfortunate who suddenly cannot afford to live where they've built a life.
Additionally, these companies and high salaries are linked closely to a few select fields of study and expertise (namely high tech). I would definitely say an area stands to lose something if it cannot cater to people outside these areas. I love geeks as much as the next Slashdotter, but I wouldn't want to live somewhere without painters, musicians, chefs, doctors, poets, scientists, writers, actors, students, and even lawyers, politicians, and public servants.
That sounds more like a company town, which have all kinds of issues. Not that tech companies like IBM haven't been guilty of creating company towns in the past. However, the Bay Area is in no danger of becoming that.
The effect is really no different than people carpooling to work. I'd like to see some citations for all these problems you're mentioning, and some reasons for why they have anything to do with Silicon Valley or the buses.
Don't blame Google, Facebook, and Zynga for your Apple woes. When the 2G iPod came out, there was already plenty of good competition, and Apple products still had a reputation for not playing nice with others. No one told you to go buy a device you couldn't upgrade with proprietary connectors and software and a case that couldn't be opened. Now, it's been over ten years later, which is a substantial amount of time, and you've somehow managed to point your finger at Google?
Seriously? You're griping about a ten year old device? That a pretty long time for to own anything: cars, clothes, shoes, computers, phones, your lunch, most common pets, a house, photographs, music, etc.
That's absurd. I can't name one textbook written on a land line phone either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a productivity tool. Phones are communication tools and smart phones are a huge step forward in improving phones. Before the current generation of phones, almost every application on a phone was slow, buggy, cost money, and proprietary.
I really don't think commuting before private buses was insulating any body from the "real world." And if you know about the Bay Area, there's plenty of real world to go around after work.
I also don't think that the well-educated, extremely liberal Northern Californians in the tech industry who have nothing to gain from the two wars are to blame for them. The people who have the most to gain are the defense contractors squatting around Washington D.C., and the oil companies and their lobbyists. Taking a company bus is hardly going to make someone less connected to a war that's already halfway around the world. If anything, these people are probably more likely to use that time to follow the news and politics than if they were driving.
The cities that these big tech companies are in have very little problem with that sort of income. SF, Moutain View, Palo Alto, Cupertino, San Jose, and Milpitas do just fine. Also, if you live there, you'd realize that public transit in the penninsula is atrocious. The main subway system doesn't serve that area, and all the really big bus systems are in SF proper or across the Bay. There's commuter rail, but of course that doesn't get you very close to work unless you live and work near train tracks and the system is bleeding money anyway.
The only big city in the area that might face that problem is Oakland, and that city does in fact have public transportation that works and reaches much of the city. However, it also faces a host of other problems, like being one of the most expensive cities in America to live in while having an average wage far below the national average, a really high homocide rate, high crime rate, rampant gentrification, and a police force that is mostly composed of officers that live outside of the city, creating an increasing ever more tension between residents and the police force. I don't have numbers, but I doubt that corporate buses are high on the city's priority list.
This article is stupid, and the author doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is never an explosive powder. Gunpowder doesn't explode, it just burns very rapidly. The primer is the closest thing to an explosion in a gun and it's pretty weak, it's just used to ignite the gunpowder.
Also, gunpowder isn't really gunpowder anymore. We switched from black powder (charcoal, sulfur, and potassium nitrate) almost a century ago. Modern smokeless propellants are very different in composition. The only common factor may be some form of carbon source and a nitrate.
Burning rapidly is literally the definition of a low explosive. Your use of the word "explosive" is closer to the definition of "detonation".
Also, your use of "correct" is closer to "pedantic."
We shouldn't have to be paranoid to know what our own government is doing to its own citizens. We're not asking for national or military secrets here. If the NSA is monitoring and recording everything they can get their hands on, then they should be up front about it and be prepared to provide some good reasons to do so. They shouldn't be hiding it, and they certainly shouldn't be lying to Congress about it when confronted about it.
So, congratulations for being a paranoid, tech-saavy 14 year old, but I would like my non-tech saavy friends who are busy becoming doctors or artists to have the same right to privacy without having to look over their shoulders.
Mainly, it's the title and summary that's getting it wrong. The only thing they said was that switching off of Windows is a good idea for the security minded, which it is. They awknowledged that the zero-day affected firefox across the board and that the exploit only targetted Windows, but they never used that as the reasoning to switch OS's.
Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure are also for posers who want to sound all educated and crap. Good thing you never bothered learning anything about them or about parkour before dismissing them! I sure am glad someone around here gets me, because I really didn't want to read an informed opinion.
So your idea for solving the problem of government entities needing to store personal information is to turn those entities into private corporations and have THOSE store personal data instead? In what universe is this an improvement??
Slashdot Mirror
What are you smoking??!! Increasing the MPG requirements of cars results in lower MPG vehicles??!! Is your head so stuck in the sand that you've lost your grasp of basic logic?
Increasing the MPG requirements results in better MPG vehicles. The reason manufacturers can build low MPG trucks is because of a loophole, and the problem is obviously with the loophole, not the regulation.
Manufacturers are all quickly adopting more efficient vehicles because most consumers who bought SUVs for commuting got burnt badly by the gas price hikes, and because not everyone exploits every loophole they can find (unless they're in finance). If your business model relies on a loophole, then you're boned when the loophole gets closed.
3000 lbs is not a big car. It's a compact. A 3000 lb car is a, given current technology, probably the most reasonable solution for regularly carrying people in a reasonably safe way. There don't seem to be many vehicles on the road that get better mileage by reducing the SIZE.
You too must be new here. Let me regale you with tales of a company called Microsoft...
Don't be so sure about physical security. The day after 12 people were killed in a shooting at Navy Yard in DC, some dude lobbed firecrackers at the White House.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/16/white-house-firecrackers_n_3937556.html
Likewise, you might need to go through millimeter wave scans to get through security, but your seeing million dollar scanners at the front door doesn't mean that the back door isn't wide open. It's criticized as "security theater" because it's only meant to make you FEEL safe. As XKCD explains, there are plenty of easy and common loopholes in the system:
https://xkcd.com/651/
Airport's fault. No one should be able to drive their car right onto the runway, no matter what GPS or voice in their heads is telling them. Fire whoever runs this airport because they're a moron for not putting a fence up
I think it's pretty reasonable to think that a MILE of warning signs that you might get hit by a freaking plane is enough deterant.
And before you keep going on about physical security, remember that stupid is always going to find a way.
From TFA:
"They had to enter the airport property via a motion-activated gate, and afterwards there are many signs, lights and painted markings, first warning that aircraft may share the road and then that drivers should not be there at all.
"They needed to drive over a mile with all this before reaching the runway. But the drivers disregarded all that because they were following the directions given on their iPhones."
These aren't drunk frat boys pulling some shenaigans in the middle of the night. These are fully competent, licensed drivers who turned off their own brains and replaced them with iPhones. This is NOT the airport's fault. It's called personal responsibility.
....It doesn't. That's why moss tends grows on the north side of trees here in the northern hemisphere.
Well, the theory is that you don't need formal training, but there's this test you have to take...
Additionally, I don't mind looking through photos, but I bet I'd like it more if I got in-game rewards for doing so.
Pretty sure the torture plays a role in why his lawyers told him to say that, though.
Of course, we could just ignore the torture and pretend he'd act the same way if he weren't detained in solitary for 8 months.
In that case I'd really like to hear your views on slavery, segragation, and voting rights. I'd also like to know how you define things as right and wrong that are illegal in one state or nation but not another.
This is meant to save the nurses time. Please don't design flaws into the workflow to solve the trivial problem of overuse of the printer.
While I'll agree that the buses are a good thing, I suggest you read up more about gentrification before thinking that it's something so easily solved by working for the company.
It's a real problem because the general effect is that it only serves to drive out existing residents and businesses. Poverty is linked to higher crime, so yes, it makes a area safer to live in, but only by displacing the people who gave it its character in the first place, and who are most likely to be socially involved. Also, it makes life unnecessarily hard for the unfortunate who suddenly cannot afford to live where they've built a life.
Additionally, these companies and high salaries are linked closely to a few select fields of study and expertise (namely high tech). I would definitely say an area stands to lose something if it cannot cater to people outside these areas. I love geeks as much as the next Slashdotter, but I wouldn't want to live somewhere without painters, musicians, chefs, doctors, poets, scientists, writers, actors, students, and even lawyers, politicians, and public servants.
That sounds more like a company town, which have all kinds of issues. Not that tech companies like IBM haven't been guilty of creating company towns in the past. However, the Bay Area is in no danger of becoming that.
The effect is really no different than people carpooling to work. I'd like to see some citations for all these problems you're mentioning, and some reasons for why they have anything to do with Silicon Valley or the buses.
Sounds more like sour grapes to me.
Yeah, but each one is getting closer. Plugging into the Matrix works pretty well. Just have to work out the bugs.
Don't blame Google, Facebook, and Zynga for your Apple woes. When the 2G iPod came out, there was already plenty of good competition, and Apple products still had a reputation for not playing nice with others. No one told you to go buy a device you couldn't upgrade with proprietary connectors and software and a case that couldn't be opened. Now, it's been over ten years later, which is a substantial amount of time, and you've somehow managed to point your finger at Google?
Seriously? You're griping about a ten year old device? That a pretty long time for to own anything: cars, clothes, shoes, computers, phones, your lunch, most common pets, a house, photographs, music, etc.
That's absurd. I can't name one textbook written on a land line phone either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a productivity tool. Phones are communication tools and smart phones are a huge step forward in improving phones. Before the current generation of phones, almost every application on a phone was slow, buggy, cost money, and proprietary.
I really don't think commuting before private buses was insulating any body from the "real world." And if you know about the Bay Area, there's plenty of real world to go around after work.
I also don't think that the well-educated, extremely liberal Northern Californians in the tech industry who have nothing to gain from the two wars are to blame for them. The people who have the most to gain are the defense contractors squatting around Washington D.C., and the oil companies and their lobbyists. Taking a company bus is hardly going to make someone less connected to a war that's already halfway around the world. If anything, these people are probably more likely to use that time to follow the news and politics than if they were driving.
The cities that these big tech companies are in have very little problem with that sort of income. SF, Moutain View, Palo Alto, Cupertino, San Jose, and Milpitas do just fine. Also, if you live there, you'd realize that public transit in the penninsula is atrocious. The main subway system doesn't serve that area, and all the really big bus systems are in SF proper or across the Bay. There's commuter rail, but of course that doesn't get you very close to work unless you live and work near train tracks and the system is bleeding money anyway.
The only big city in the area that might face that problem is Oakland, and that city does in fact have public transportation that works and reaches much of the city. However, it also faces a host of other problems, like being one of the most expensive cities in America to live in while having an average wage far below the national average, a really high homocide rate, high crime rate, rampant gentrification, and a police force that is mostly composed of officers that live outside of the city, creating an increasing ever more tension between residents and the police force. I don't have numbers, but I doubt that corporate buses are high on the city's priority list.
This article is stupid, and the author doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is never an explosive powder. Gunpowder doesn't explode, it just burns very rapidly. The primer is the closest thing to an explosion in a gun and it's pretty weak, it's just used to ignite the gunpowder.
Also, gunpowder isn't really gunpowder anymore. We switched from black powder (charcoal, sulfur, and potassium nitrate) almost a century ago. Modern smokeless propellants are very different in composition. The only common factor may be some form of carbon source and a nitrate.
Burning rapidly is literally the definition of a low explosive. Your use of the word "explosive" is closer to the definition of "detonation".
Also, your use of "correct" is closer to "pedantic."
That doesn't make what the NSA is doing right.
We shouldn't have to be paranoid to know what our own government is doing to its own citizens. We're not asking for national or military secrets here. If the NSA is monitoring and recording everything they can get their hands on, then they should be up front about it and be prepared to provide some good reasons to do so. They shouldn't be hiding it, and they certainly shouldn't be lying to Congress about it when confronted about it.
So, congratulations for being a paranoid, tech-saavy 14 year old, but I would like my non-tech saavy friends who are busy becoming doctors or artists to have the same right to privacy without having to look over their shoulders.
Mainly, it's the title and summary that's getting it wrong. The only thing they said was that switching off of Windows is a good idea for the security minded, which it is. They awknowledged that the zero-day affected firefox across the board and that the exploit only targetted Windows, but they never used that as the reasoning to switch OS's.
Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure are also for posers who want to sound all educated and crap. Good thing you never bothered learning anything about them or about parkour before dismissing them! I sure am glad someone around here gets me, because I really didn't want to read an informed opinion.
So your idea for solving the problem of government entities needing to store personal information is to turn those entities into private corporations and have THOSE store personal data instead? In what universe is this an improvement??
vulnerability that allowed arbitrary code execution in kernel mode
In Windows? Shouldn't be too hard then, right? Remember, Windows are designed be opened.