China is investing heavily in electric cars, to the point that 352,000 electric cars were registered in 2016, compared to 159,000 electric cars in the USA. Most of the Chinese cars were produced in China by Chinese companies. In 2014 president Xi Jinping launched a strategy get China in the lead as a producer of electric cars, with a stated goal of getting 1/5 of all cars in China to be either electric or hybrid trough subsidies of those types of cars.
So, assuming GP is located somewhere in the USA, it is not just there.At least one superpower is pushing for it.
BLM and antifa have been using violence and arson for quite a while now, across the US and in Europe. Why are you suddenly concerned about violence now? Where have you been?
I don't know about the US, but in Europe there has been hundreds (if not thousands) of instances of arson against refugee centers over the last 2-3 years. While few of the arsonists have been caught, I think it is quite likely that they follow the same nasty ideology that the C'ville killer did. "Why are you suddenly concerned about violence now? Where have you been?"
To clarify, the author of complex password policies that have lasted 15+ years had regret for one reason; the rules were too complex for users. In other words, he underestimated just how stupid and ignorant the masses are.
Force complex passwords? Users write them down. Every time. And "hide" them in the same stupid place.
I'm registered at more than 50 sites (including work). How do you expect a sane person to remember that number of reasonably strong passwords? And change them at regular intervals?
My point is that the strong password system may work well if you have a small number of passwords, but once the number of passwords increase beyond maybe a handful, the password system breaks. The problem is not stupid users; the problem is the notion of requiring users to remember many passwords. Something better is sorely needed.
The next step would be work out how much that 247MB is actual code, how much is images or other media resources, localizations, and even other frameworks (which may contain their own non-code resources and other frameworks...)?
If I recall correctly, one feature of Android since 4.x is that if you want to use a new feature not available on earlier Android versions and still want to target earlier Android versions with the same app, the updated parts can be included in your app. Could be that was what happened here?
I provided you with a short synopsis of why I thought you were wrong. You answered along the lines of "You are wrong" without providing any argument as to why I am wrong. And when I ask why you think I am wrong, your reply is "It is obvious that you are wrong". I had hoped you could at least point to your opinion on the dynamic behind the inevitable labor-hostile globalization.
That is what appears to have happened. In actual reality, it was not those treaties, but the push for something in that direction that made it happen. And that push would have just found another outlet without these treaties.
Do you have anything to back up that claim?
Now the problem about worker protection is that it is infeasible. Sure, if possible, it would be the thing to do, but it is not. If you start protecting the workers, you lose on other fronts and in the end the workers and up worse. We are seeing this now at all fronts: The time of the worker is over. They are less and less needed, globalization just shifted it for a while. We likely go towards a society were, in addition to the well-known 1%, we will also have the 10%, and that will those whose work is still needed because it cannot be automatized. The interesting question, and the one critical for survival as a society, is what to to with the remaining 89%.
Protection of workers is possible, and it does not cause workers to end up worse. Workers fought for and won rights and wealth in Denmark, and the result was rights and wealth for everyone, causing Denmark to become a rich, dynamic and egalitarian country.
Even if your prediction is accurate (and that is a huge if), it is unlikely to happen within the next few decades. And I don't see how it applies to the push for globalization in the 1970s and 1980s.
Globalization was spearheaded by a number of free trade treaties. If I recall correctly, the US government was a major player in most of these treaties, and fought tooth and nail to ensure that neither workers rights nor the environment was protected by those treaties. Given that the US was the largest economy by far when most of these treaties were negotiated, the US government could have demanded some protection of workers rights, offsetting some of the damage done to regular people. Instead they gospelled the glory of free trade making everyone richer. What they did not say, was that "everyone" in the West actually meant "everyone already rich".
Indeed. Many of the comments here seem to think the rest of the world is some sort of US colony.
US companies frequently have to censor things in various countries in order to adhere to local laws which are less liberal than those in the US. Facebook, Twitter, youtube, etc. all have special country-specific censorship in order to deal with government requests to block content. Germany particularly has stricter laws on threats and Nazi propaganda which end up being enforced by US companies on a regular basis.
Indeed. And US companies often censor things in order to adhere to US culture, even if the local culture is more liberal than US culture. For instance Facebook and Apple routinely censor tits in Denmark even though they are not compelled to do so by Danish law or Danish culture.
...but got stopped by not being able to answer the security questions. *sigh*
Quite how someone can be smart enough to set up all that security on their account but not able to type their own damn email address I'll never know.
Many sites require you to set up security questions to actually access the site. Strange as it seems, it looks like this is one of the eventualities where the usually insecure security questions actually "helped" protecting the account.
Looking over the comments so far, it seems that the root of the problem is that names are not unique, but a lot of people seem to want their names for their email address. So, collisions are inevitable. I have always used more or less witty handles, so despite having a very common name, I have not been at the receiving end of email not intended for me.
Someone has a Royal Bank of Scotland account registered to my email and no amount of emailing, filling out their contact form, or tweeting at them ever did any good so I just filtered that domain out.
I had a somewhat similar snail mail issue where a hosting company kept sending me bills (I think, I never opened any of them) four times every year. Or rather, sent bills to the previous tenant at my flat. First, I tried to return their snail mail, but it kept comming. I even tried writing on the envelope.
After a few year of this, I contacted their customer service. They told me that there was nothing that they could do. It was not possible in their system. Their solution was to have me simply throw the mail in the trash. Legalities aside, that irked me. Especially given that the previous tenant had a rather unique name, so it would take them less than 5 minutes to get his phone number, dial him up and ask him to update his post address. After posting that to their customer service, I never heard from them again. Maybe they called him, maybe they just stopped sending snail mail.
Free email service were provided by many companies, and ISPs also often had email service as part of the subscription. On top of that you could create your own or buy access to an email service if you wanted. And best of all? Everything worked together, because the communication protocols were public and free.
Facebook is one company. You have to use Facebook to interface with all the goings on, because almost everyone else is using their closed (but free) platform.
Going back a century or so, many biologists and doctors were at the forefront of forced sterilization of "undesirables" and eugenics in general. Later, others worked very hard on nuclear bombs and biological warfare.
As always, the picture isn't as one sided as the above could suggest. As an example the scientific research of a Danish psychiatrist gave crucial arguments for legalizing gay sex (with some caveats) in Denmark in 1933. Another example is the work of Alfred Kinsey. Other scientists were hard at work exterminating polio, the measles and so many other horrors.
Since 2009, only 2 new antibiotics were approved in the United States. The number of new antibiotics approved for marketing per year declines continuously.
The reason is simple: Existing antibiotics have been used to such a degree that there are more and more bacteria that can resist exisiting antibiotica. Thus, new antibiotica must be held in reserve to fight the bacteria that shrugs off current antibiotics, implying that the new antibiotica is not going to be used much. The cost of researching and clearing the new antibiotica does not get any cheaper, so we have a situation where it is expensive to research and the likely profit is small.
But to those (hopefully few) that catch the multi-resistant bacteria, such antibiotics could mean the difference between life and death. As the current misuse of antibiotics is likely to continue, those numbers are going to increase. So, at some point we are going to need those new antibiotics for more patients. However, given the time it takes to get new medication through clinical trials etc, there is going to be a period where there will be a large demand but no available drugs.
Which was all nice and dandy until Microsoft decided to ram Windows 10 down everyones throats. I can fully understand the annoyed users who simply disabled Windows Update because of those nasty practices on the part of Microsoft. Trust is easily lost and hard to regain.
If you read citylivins comment closely, it appears that the employee was sent a targeted phishing mail. Given that most mail servers these days block executables as email attachments, the malware payload could have been delivered as a macro inside a MS Word document, a link to a malicious site or something along those lines.
This is the first public office the guy will hold.
According to wikipedia, he was Minister of the Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs in France 26 August 2014 – 30 August 2016. I think that counts as a public office?
I agree that all candidates running for political office should be bound by law to give the public a full disclosure of their economy and the economy of their campaign, including all contributers over a certain size (e.g. $500), no investment clubs allowed. However, in the interest of a level playing field it should be required for all candidates, not just a single candidate - as I remember it the old blonde guy haven't disclosed his interests yet. AC is right in noting that the timing is highly suspicious, just before the campaigns and media are bound by law to not discuss the election, promoting hear-say of the contents of the leaks rather than giving reputable experts time to analyze the contents.
The documents regarding Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party leadership were published in good time before the election, giving reputable experts time to analyze their contents and the Clinton campaign time to respond. The Macron documents were being published at a time where both reputable experts and the Macron campaign are bound by French law to not discuss the documents in public. This gives rise to no end of hear-say, which *is* a huge problem as the electorate has no way to gauge which claims are supported by the leaked documents and which claims are not. (Assuming that the leaked documents are not manipulated.)
So the plan is to intermittently run a few pieces of machinery in some savanna when it isn't raining or dark?
Cloud cover reduces the amount of solar power generated by up to 25%. Being close to the equator, the day/night cycle is a lot more consistent, so you can plan your power usage or charge a battery.
Or maybe instead they can go to any of the industrial centers in Africa, hook their machinery up to a power grid (powered by WHO CARES, it comes outta the wall), and actually do something sane.
Drawing power lines and constructing a power grid is expensive as Hell. Which is why solar power is so interesting: The solar panels could be on your roof, compared to a power plant 10 miles (or more) down the road.
The ability of a solar panel to scale downwards to individual use cases is a nice feature of it. But it doesn't stand to change a status quo like "put your industry next to the other industries" in America, and it sure won't in Africa either.
Most industry operates during the day time where solar panels produce energy. There has also been a number of considerations on building collosal solar power plants, e.g. in the rocky deserts of the Sahara and Nevada. IIRC they suggested that it was possible to construct solar plants in Sahara that could power the entire energy consumption of Europe.
You don't have to bike the entire way. Maybe leave your car at a parking lot a few miles from your house or your work and then ride the bike back and forth between the parking lot?
Slashdot Mirror
China is investing heavily in electric cars, to the point that 352,000 electric cars were registered in 2016, compared to 159,000 electric cars in the USA. Most of the Chinese cars were produced in China by Chinese companies. In 2014 president Xi Jinping launched a strategy get China in the lead as a producer of electric cars, with a stated goal of getting 1/5 of all cars in China to be either electric or hybrid trough subsidies of those types of cars.
So, assuming GP is located somewhere in the USA, it is not just there.At least one superpower is pushing for it.
If they take their name after a roman numeral, XXVI, one cannot help wondering what happened to XXV? And XXIV etc?
Attempted reorganizations gone wrong?
Secret entities?
BLM and antifa have been using violence and arson for quite a while now, across the US and in Europe. Why are you suddenly concerned about violence now? Where have you been?
I don't know about the US, but in Europe there has been hundreds (if not thousands) of instances of arson against refugee centers over the last 2-3 years. While few of the arsonists have been caught, I think it is quite likely that they follow the same nasty ideology that the C'ville killer did. "Why are you suddenly concerned about violence now? Where have you been?"
To clarify, the author of complex password policies that have lasted 15+ years had regret for one reason; the rules were too complex for users. In other words, he underestimated just how stupid and ignorant the masses are.
Force complex passwords? Users write them down. Every time. And "hide" them in the same stupid place.
I'm registered at more than 50 sites (including work). How do you expect a sane person to remember that number of reasonably strong passwords? And change them at regular intervals?
My point is that the strong password system may work well if you have a small number of passwords, but once the number of passwords increase beyond maybe a handful, the password system breaks. The problem is not stupid users; the problem is the notion of requiring users to remember many passwords. Something better is sorely needed.
The next step would be work out how much that 247MB is actual code, how much is images or other media resources, localizations, and even other frameworks (which may contain their own non-code resources and other frameworks...)?
If I recall correctly, one feature of Android since 4.x is that if you want to use a new feature not available on earlier Android versions and still want to target earlier Android versions with the same app, the updated parts can be included in your app. Could be that was what happened here?
I provided you with a short synopsis of why I thought you were wrong. You answered along the lines of "You are wrong" without providing any argument as to why I am wrong. And when I ask why you think I am wrong, your reply is "It is obvious that you are wrong". I had hoped you could at least point to your opinion on the dynamic behind the inevitable labor-hostile globalization.
Oh, well, have a nice day/evening/night/morning!
That is what appears to have happened. In actual reality, it was not those treaties, but the push for something in that direction that made it happen. And that push would have just found another outlet without these treaties.
Do you have anything to back up that claim?
Now the problem about worker protection is that it is infeasible. Sure, if possible, it would be the thing to do, but it is not. If you start protecting the workers, you lose on other fronts and in the end the workers and up worse. We are seeing this now at all fronts: The time of the worker is over. They are less and less needed, globalization just shifted it for a while. We likely go towards a society were, in addition to the well-known 1%, we will also have the 10%, and that will those whose work is still needed because it cannot be automatized. The interesting question, and the one critical for survival as a society, is what to to with the remaining 89%.
Protection of workers is possible, and it does not cause workers to end up worse. Workers fought for and won rights and wealth in Denmark, and the result was rights and wealth for everyone, causing Denmark to become a rich, dynamic and egalitarian country.
Even if your prediction is accurate (and that is a huge if), it is unlikely to happen within the next few decades. And I don't see how it applies to the push for globalization in the 1970s and 1980s.
Globalization was spearheaded by a number of free trade treaties. If I recall correctly, the US government was a major player in most of these treaties, and fought tooth and nail to ensure that neither workers rights nor the environment was protected by those treaties. Given that the US was the largest economy by far when most of these treaties were negotiated, the US government could have demanded some protection of workers rights, offsetting some of the damage done to regular people. Instead they gospelled the glory of free trade making everyone richer. What they did not say, was that "everyone" in the West actually meant "everyone already rich".
Indeed. Many of the comments here seem to think the rest of the world is some sort of US colony.
US companies frequently have to censor things in various countries in order to adhere to local laws which are less liberal than those in the US. Facebook, Twitter, youtube, etc. all have special country-specific censorship in order to deal with government requests to block content. Germany particularly has stricter laws on threats and Nazi propaganda which end up being enforced by US companies on a regular basis.
Indeed. And US companies often censor things in order to adhere to US culture, even if the local culture is more liberal than US culture. For instance Facebook and Apple routinely censor tits in Denmark even though they are not compelled to do so by Danish law or Danish culture.
...but got stopped by not being able to answer the security questions. *sigh*
Quite how someone can be smart enough to set up all that security on their account but not able to type their own damn email address I'll never know.
Many sites require you to set up security questions to actually access the site. Strange as it seems, it looks like this is one of the eventualities where the usually insecure security questions actually "helped" protecting the account.
Looking over the comments so far, it seems that the root of the problem is that names are not unique, but a lot of people seem to want their names for their email address. So, collisions are inevitable. I have always used more or less witty handles, so despite having a very common name, I have not been at the receiving end of email not intended for me.
Someone has a Royal Bank of Scotland account registered to my email and no amount of emailing, filling out their contact form, or tweeting at them ever did any good so I just filtered that domain out.
I had a somewhat similar snail mail issue where a hosting company kept sending me bills (I think, I never opened any of them) four times every year. Or rather, sent bills to the previous tenant at my flat. First, I tried to return their snail mail, but it kept comming. I even tried writing on the envelope.
After a few year of this, I contacted their customer service. They told me that there was nothing that they could do. It was not possible in their system. Their solution was to have me simply throw the mail in the trash. Legalities aside, that irked me. Especially given that the previous tenant had a rather unique name, so it would take them less than 5 minutes to get his phone number, dial him up and ask him to update his post address. After posting that to their customer service, I never heard from them again. Maybe they called him, maybe they just stopped sending snail mail.
Or maybe Micro Softsmash?
Let's also ban trucks and vans while we're at it.
There is a big difference: Choice.
Free email service were provided by many companies, and ISPs also often had email service as part of the subscription. On top of that you could create your own or buy access to an email service if you wanted. And best of all? Everything worked together, because the communication protocols were public and free.
Facebook is one company. You have to use Facebook to interface with all the goings on, because almost everyone else is using their closed (but free) platform.
That would give me serenity ...
Going back a century or so, many biologists and doctors were at the forefront of forced sterilization of "undesirables" and eugenics in general. Later, others worked very hard on nuclear bombs and biological warfare.
As always, the picture isn't as one sided as the above could suggest. As an example the scientific research of a Danish psychiatrist gave crucial arguments for legalizing gay sex (with some caveats) in Denmark in 1933. Another example is the work of Alfred Kinsey. Other scientists were hard at work exterminating polio, the measles and so many other horrors.
Some socially valuable things aren't profitable
Name one.
New antibiotics. As described on wikipedia:
Since 2009, only 2 new antibiotics were approved in the United States. The number of new antibiotics approved for marketing per year declines continuously.
The reason is simple: Existing antibiotics have been used to such a degree that there are more and more bacteria that can resist exisiting antibiotica. Thus, new antibiotica must be held in reserve to fight the bacteria that shrugs off current antibiotics, implying that the new antibiotica is not going to be used much. The cost of researching and clearing the new antibiotica does not get any cheaper, so we have a situation where it is expensive to research and the likely profit is small.
But to those (hopefully few) that catch the multi-resistant bacteria, such antibiotics could mean the difference between life and death. As the current misuse of antibiotics is likely to continue, those numbers are going to increase. So, at some point we are going to need those new antibiotics for more patients. However, given the time it takes to get new medication through clinical trials etc, there is going to be a period where there will be a large demand but no available drugs.
Which was all nice and dandy until Microsoft decided to ram Windows 10 down everyones throats. I can fully understand the annoyed users who simply disabled Windows Update because of those nasty practices on the part of Microsoft. Trust is easily lost and hard to regain.
If you read citylivins comment closely, it appears that the employee was sent a targeted phishing mail. Given that most mail servers these days block executables as email attachments, the malware payload could have been delivered as a macro inside a MS Word document, a link to a malicious site or something along those lines.
This is the first public office the guy will hold.
According to wikipedia, he was Minister of the Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs in France 26 August 2014 – 30 August 2016. I think that counts as a public office?
I agree that all candidates running for political office should be bound by law to give the public a full disclosure of their economy and the economy of their campaign, including all contributers over a certain size (e.g. $500), no investment clubs allowed. However, in the interest of a level playing field it should be required for all candidates, not just a single candidate - as I remember it the old blonde guy haven't disclosed his interests yet. AC is right in noting that the timing is highly suspicious, just before the campaigns and media are bound by law to not discuss the election, promoting hear-say of the contents of the leaks rather than giving reputable experts time to analyze the contents.
The documents regarding Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party leadership were published in good time before the election, giving reputable experts time to analyze their contents and the Clinton campaign time to respond. The Macron documents were being published at a time where both reputable experts and the Macron campaign are bound by French law to not discuss the documents in public. This gives rise to no end of hear-say, which *is* a huge problem as the electorate has no way to gauge which claims are supported by the leaked documents and which claims are not. (Assuming that the leaked documents are not manipulated.)
So the plan is to intermittently run a few pieces of machinery in some savanna when it isn't raining or dark?
Cloud cover reduces the amount of solar power generated by up to 25%. Being close to the equator, the day/night cycle is a lot more consistent, so you can plan your power usage or charge a battery.
Or maybe instead they can go to any of the industrial centers in Africa, hook their machinery up to a power grid (powered by WHO CARES, it comes outta the wall), and actually do something sane.
Drawing power lines and constructing a power grid is expensive as Hell. Which is why solar power is so interesting: The solar panels could be on your roof, compared to a power plant 10 miles (or more) down the road.
The ability of a solar panel to scale downwards to individual use cases is a nice feature of it. But it doesn't stand to change a status quo like "put your industry next to the other industries" in America, and it sure won't in Africa either.
Most industry operates during the day time where solar panels produce energy. There has also been a number of considerations on building collosal solar power plants, e.g. in the rocky deserts of the Sahara and Nevada. IIRC they suggested that it was possible to construct solar plants in Sahara that could power the entire energy consumption of Europe.
You don't have to bike the entire way. Maybe leave your car at a parking lot a few miles from your house or your work and then ride the bike back and forth between the parking lot?