I'm a suburbanite and I've been driving a hybrid Camry since 2007 and I like it. But I don't think that insulting these truck owners (or vice versa) is going to help anybody.
Screw that. I'm a suburbanite and I drive an F150. These guys are the same jackasses that terrorized all of the other kids in high school. Our society would be better off if we passed laws that made engaging in this kind of behavior punishable by permanently removing them from the gene pool.
FWIW, we own both a Chevy volt and an F150. Since I work from home, my wife typically drives the volt and I drive the F150 mostly as a backup vehicle or as you said, if we need to haul something (mulch, tree branches, multiple kids, etc). Just wanted to let you know not all truck owners are raging assholes.
You will indeed see places like California, New York, and DC ranked poorly, but you will also see places like Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. On the other end of the scale the states with the least inequality include places like Utah, New Hampshire, Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota. Both ends of the spectrum include a number of liberal states and both ends include conservative states.
If you compare this with the list of states by poverty:
There's a correlation between states that have high income inequality and high levels of poverty and states that have low income inequality and low levels of poverty. IE, if we think that poverty is bad for society, reducing income inequality might help.
Meh, once you have enough stock with long term gains, the salary is basically noise. Who cares about a few million taxed as income when you have hundreds of millions or even billions in stock with gains taxed at 20% (or even 15% if you are selling slowly).
I was thinking about this exact question the last time this topic came up on Slashdot. I think it would be better to have something along the lines of:
"The board will not be composed with a greater than 50% membership of any one gender or race."
I think the explanation that high-achieving women tend to be proficient in both verbal and math abilities while men are more likely to be proficient primarily in math abilities is pretty compelling. It's possible that preference is the primary driver, but I'm not sure you can really separate preference and ability so cleanly.
Look at the gender breakdown of medical specialties here:
Notice how men tend to gravitate toward roles that involve less human interaction? Surgery, Anesthesiology, Radiology. There's no shame in admitting that women might be simultaneously as good as men at Math, but better, or at least more likely to enjoy, roles that require high levels of verbal aptitude as well.
Maybe the lesson is that the human race is full of narcissistic self-centered assholes that are selfish for a variety of reasons. If we don't kill ourselves off (relatively) quickly via war, we'll kill ourselves off slowly via general negligence. Ultimately we are fucked, and arguments about whether or not chick flicks or horror movies showcase worse psychosis is like arguing whether or not the band on the titanic was religiously insensitive for playing "Nearer my God to Thee" as their last song. On the other hand, maybe it's the people like the band on that ship, who sacrifice themselves for the betterment of the whole, that will ultimately save the rest of us. It's a nice thought at least.
Terribly sorry to hear about your situation. I hope things improve! FWIW, I think it's helpful to look at these issues (and really the the world in general) as a system of probabilities. Even absent these vulnerabilities your system is quite likely vulnerable to some other attack vector (as is mine, and as is basically every computer on the planet). It's just a question of how difficult is it to exploit and how likely is it that someone is going to do so.
If you are truly worried that your government might abuse a flaw like this against you, probably your first line of defense at the moment is to avoid any kind of remote code execution.
Ha, I remember thinking roughly the same thing. It took me a while before I finally made an account. Looks like there are still a number of us old dinosaurs kicking around. I was one of the high school script kiddies that hung around in the enlightenment channel running bitchx back in the 90s. Back when Rob was still best known for his afterstep plugins. Caught the tail end of the wave but never quite felt like I was riding it like some of the other folks that were already in college and working on interesting things. I found my way eventually into supercomputing and later programming open source distributed storage so it worked out in the end.
Can't speak for the Prius, but the volt has a fairly decent amount of cargo space in the back given it's size. Easily enough for a big Costco run. Hauling cords of firewood around isn't really what it was intended to be good at. You could make the same argument regarding most other small sedans though.
That's why we have a volt and an F150. When we need to bring home two dozen bags of mulch from home depot we use the F150. When we need to bring kids to school we drive the volt. Each is capable of doing what the other can do, but not optimally. Choose the right tool for the job.
FWIW, I own both a 2012 Chevy Volt and a Ford F150 (I work from home so we rarely drive the F150 except for hauling things)
We've owned our volt for about 4-5 years now. We're currently sitting at something like 108MPG. We mostly drive it around town but haven't made any real effort to get the MPG up. We also live in Minnesota where the cold winters drop the battery range to something like 25 miles.
The volt is an absolutely fantastic vehicle. The only real downside is that visibility is really limited and it's a bit too small. A slightly bigger version with better visibility and better range (Though frankly it's more or less fine as is) would be about as close to the perfect small sedan as you can get imho.
I dont like luxuray car producers like tesla I also think the whole idea of electric car is a bad direction. Yet there are other companies that produce epic fails: there were broken ignition keys, self accelerating cars and least we forget a company that tried to fulfill silly regulation by nasty nasty and failing in covering its tracks. There were many more. If Tesla sinks it is not because it failed to inspect the bolts.
Regarding electric cars: We've owned a Chevy Volt for the last 4 years and it's the best and most reliable car we've ever owned. There's no question in my mind that electric is the future for the vast majority of vehicles. I also own an F150 for hauling things, so I'm not opposed to gas vehicles where appropriate.
For most people electric cars are simply going to end up being better. Higher torque, lower maintenance requirements, and I think in the long run, likely better range and cheaper fueling costs. There will still be a place for gas engines but their advantages are becoming more limited every year.
Self driving cars are a totally different can of worms.
"the National Transportation Safety Board determined that it was a design flaw, and not deferred maintenance, neglect, or other problems, that caused the 35W bridge to collapse. Gusset plates that hold the bridge's huge steel beams together were only half as thick as they should have been. The NTSB also found that nearly 300 tons of construction equipment and materials stockpiled on the bridge deck for the ongoing repair work contributed to the collapse by further stressing the crucial gusset plate that failed."
It seems amazing to me to draw the conclusion that because the bridge failure was due to underspecced gusset plates we should just stop worrying and do nothing despite so much of our infrastructure being found to be structurally deficient. Isn't a design flaw that makes the bridge unsafe sort of the very definition of structurally deficient? Is that exactly the kind of thing you should be spending money to inspect and fix? Does it not strike you that as other components age and weaken, an underspecced component might be more likely to fail?
Yep, I'm going to point out a bridge. I drove over the I35 bridge in Minneapolis nearly every day coming home from work prior to it's collapse. It was dumb luck I didn't leave work 10 minutes later that day or I would likely have been on it when it went down.
But hey, if you don't want to take my anecdotal example, you can just go check transportation.gov and get a state by state breakdown of structurally deficient bridges yourself:
Now maybe you don't take much stock in their numbers, but personally after watching the bridge I made my daily commute over for years catastrophically collapse, I think it's worth at least considering that there may be some truth to these claims.
IF you look at his past and posts I think Murder would have been more appropriate charge, it seems obvious his intent was to get someone hurt or killed, though I guess for prosecutors manslaughter will be the easier to prove and at least keeps him off the streets for a few more years.
Personally I wouldn't be opposed to murder charges with the possibility of death penalty (let a jury decide his fate). It's one thing for a stupid 15yo kid to do this their first time (though they still should be punished).
"Barriss, 25, was already well known to local law enforcement. Glendale Police Sgt. Daniel Suttles said he was behind at least two dozen fake bomb threats in the area in recent years, including incidents that prompted the evacuations of television stations and an elementary school."
"In May 2016, he pleaded no contest to making a false bomb threat and was sentenced to two years and eight months in jail" "He was released on Jan. 20, 2017. A day later, he was arrested in the San Fernando Valley and spent another seven months in jail"
âoeHe knows exactly what to say. He is very meticulous,â Suttles said. âoeHe knows what a 911 operator will ask and is convincing.â
He's shown by his repeated actions that he has no interest in being redeemed. Punishment has not deterred him, and now someone innocent has died. He needs to be permanently denied the ability to do this again.
What makes you think that? Security through obscurity just means that it will take longer for the majority of the world (including yourself) to find out about the flaws. All it really does is grant the people with resources to find those flaws a bigger window of time to operate on them before being caught.
The ramifications are huge too. It's one thing to get hacked, it's another thing to get hacked and never find out (or never be able to plausibly claim that's what happened).
Look especially at the section summarizing Wang, Eccles, and Kenny (2013). I find one conclusion Dr. Jussim draws from the paper particularly interesting:
"People (regardless of whether they were male or female) who had only strong math skills as students were more likely to be working in STEM fields at age 33 than were other students".
I wonder a bit if our collective arrogance (at least in computer science related fields) blinds us into thinking that anyone who is highly skilled must want to pursue a job in our field. Maybe we think a little too highly of ourselves and STEM is a niche for people that are highly skilled at math with poor verbal skills. Why would anyone that has strong verbal skills want to surround themselves with people who don't?
That's sort of the whole point of the article though. The author discovered evidence that (amonst other things) historical research findings on tea and coffee related fatalities may have used samples with dihydrogen monoxide contamination that previously went unnoticed all the way back to the 1950s. while correlation does not equal causation, there's a strong body of evidence that anyone who ingests large quantities of dihydrogen monoxide eventually dies.
How much dihydrogen monoxide contamination did the samples have? Are there specific interactions (say with tea and coffee respectively) that have unique and unforeseen effects? Hopefully this new research will help us better refine and answer those questions.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a suburbanite and I've been driving a hybrid Camry since 2007 and I like it.
But I don't think that insulting these truck owners (or vice versa) is going to help anybody.
Screw that. I'm a suburbanite and I drive an F150. These guys are the same jackasses that terrorized all of the other kids in high school. Our society would be better off if we passed laws that made engaging in this kind of behavior punishable by permanently removing them from the gene pool.
FWIW, we own both a Chevy volt and an F150. Since I work from home, my wife typically drives the volt and I drive the F150 mostly as a backup vehicle or as you said, if we need to haul something (mulch, tree branches, multiple kids, etc). Just wanted to let you know not all truck owners are raging assholes.
These numbers are a little old (2010), but if you look at a list of states ranked by gini coefficient:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You will indeed see places like California, New York, and DC ranked poorly, but you will also see places like Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. On the other end of the scale the states with the least inequality include places like Utah, New Hampshire, Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota. Both ends of the spectrum include a number of liberal states and both ends include conservative states.
If you compare this with the list of states by poverty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's a correlation between states that have high income inequality and high levels of poverty and states that have low income inequality and low levels of poverty. IE, if we think that poverty is bad for society, reducing income inequality might help.
And yet I keep on hearing the left claim that the right is as corrupt as they are...
I... I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim the right is as corrupt as the left.
FWIW, here is how your expectations line up with mediabiasfactcheck.com:
Wall Street Journal: Highly Factual, Center-Right
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
New York Times: Highly Factual, Center-Left
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
New Yorker: High Factual, Left
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
Whether or not it's their bias or your bias, you seem to view all of those sites one rank to the left relative to how they rate them.
Meh, once you have enough stock with long term gains, the salary is basically noise. Who cares about a few million taxed as income when you have hundreds of millions or even billions in stock with gains taxed at 20% (or even 15% if you are selling slowly).
The first problem is: who gets to decide what's unethical?
That one is easy. The answer is always: I do.
I was thinking about this exact question the last time this topic came up on Slashdot. I think it would be better to have something along the lines of:
"The board will not be composed with a greater than 50% membership of any one gender or race."
There is supporting evidence for your hypothesis:
http://journals.sagepub.com/do...
I think the explanation that high-achieving women tend to be proficient in both verbal and math abilities while men are more likely to be proficient primarily in math abilities is pretty compelling. It's possible that preference is the primary driver, but I'm not sure you can really separate preference and ability so cleanly.
Look at the gender breakdown of medical specialties here:
https://wire.ama-assn.org/educ...
Notice how men tend to gravitate toward roles that involve less human interaction? Surgery, Anesthesiology, Radiology. There's no shame in admitting that women might be simultaneously as good as men at Math, but better, or at least more likely to enjoy, roles that require high levels of verbal aptitude as well.
Maybe the lesson is that the human race is full of narcissistic self-centered assholes that are selfish for a variety of reasons. If we don't kill ourselves off (relatively) quickly via war, we'll kill ourselves off slowly via general negligence. Ultimately we are fucked, and arguments about whether or not chick flicks or horror movies showcase worse psychosis is like arguing whether or not the band on the titanic was religiously insensitive for playing "Nearer my God to Thee" as their last song. On the other hand, maybe it's the people like the band on that ship, who sacrifice themselves for the betterment of the whole, that will ultimately save the rest of us. It's a nice thought at least.
Yes it is.
... Other Barry. Yes it is.
Terribly sorry to hear about your situation. I hope things improve! FWIW, I think it's helpful to look at these issues (and really the the world in general) as a system of probabilities. Even absent these vulnerabilities your system is quite likely vulnerable to some other attack vector (as is mine, and as is basically every computer on the planet). It's just a question of how difficult is it to exploit and how likely is it that someone is going to do so.
If you are truly worried that your government might abuse a flaw like this against you, probably your first line of defense at the moment is to avoid any kind of remote code execution.
Ha, I remember thinking roughly the same thing. It took me a while before I finally made an account. Looks like there are still a number of us old dinosaurs kicking around. I was one of the high school script kiddies that hung around in the enlightenment channel running bitchx back in the 90s. Back when Rob was still best known for his afterstep plugins. Caught the tail end of the wave but never quite felt like I was riding it like some of the other folks that were already in college and working on interesting things. I found my way eventually into supercomputing and later programming open source distributed storage so it worked out in the end.
RIP
Can't speak for the Prius, but the volt has a fairly decent amount of cargo space in the back given it's size. Easily enough for a big Costco run. Hauling cords of firewood around isn't really what it was intended to be good at. You could make the same argument regarding most other small sedans though.
That's why we have a volt and an F150. When we need to bring home two dozen bags of mulch from home depot we use the F150. When we need to bring kids to school we drive the volt. Each is capable of doing what the other can do, but not optimally. Choose the right tool for the job.
FWIW, I own both a 2012 Chevy Volt and a Ford F150 (I work from home so we rarely drive the F150 except for hauling things)
We've owned our volt for about 4-5 years now. We're currently sitting at something like 108MPG. We mostly drive it around town but haven't made any real effort to get the MPG up. We also live in Minnesota where the cold winters drop the battery range to something like 25 miles.
The volt is an absolutely fantastic vehicle. The only real downside is that visibility is really limited and it's a bit too small. A slightly bigger version with better visibility and better range (Though frankly it's more or less fine as is) would be about as close to the perfect small sedan as you can get imho.
I dont like luxuray car producers like tesla I also think the whole idea of electric car is a bad direction. Yet there are other companies that produce epic fails: there were broken ignition keys, self accelerating cars and least we forget a company that tried to fulfill silly regulation by nasty nasty and failing in covering its tracks. There were many more. If Tesla sinks it is not because it failed to inspect the bolts.
Regarding electric cars: We've owned a Chevy Volt for the last 4 years and it's the best and most reliable car we've ever owned. There's no question in my mind that electric is the future for the vast majority of vehicles. I also own an F150 for hauling things, so I'm not opposed to gas vehicles where appropriate.
For most people electric cars are simply going to end up being better. Higher torque, lower maintenance requirements, and I think in the long run, likely better range and cheaper fueling costs. There will still be a place for gas engines but their advantages are becoming more limited every year.
Self driving cars are a totally different can of worms.
So CPAC was willing to give up it's member's rights for the convenience of having their conference at the Marriott? Why not have it at a Trump Hotel?
Let's get specific:
"the National Transportation Safety Board determined that it was a design flaw, and not deferred maintenance, neglect, or other problems, that caused the 35W bridge to collapse. Gusset plates that hold the bridge's huge steel beams together were only half as thick as they should have been. The NTSB also found that nearly 300 tons of construction equipment and materials stockpiled on the bridge deck for the ongoing repair work contributed to the collapse by further stressing the crucial gusset plate that failed."
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/01...
It seems amazing to me to draw the conclusion that because the bridge failure was due to underspecced gusset plates we should just stop worrying and do nothing despite so much of our infrastructure being found to be structurally deficient. Isn't a design flaw that makes the bridge unsafe sort of the very definition of structurally deficient? Is that exactly the kind of thing you should be spending money to inspect and fix? Does it not strike you that as other components age and weaken, an underspecced component might be more likely to fail?
Yep, I'm going to point out a bridge. I drove over the I35 bridge in Minneapolis nearly every day coming home from work prior to it's collapse. It was dumb luck I didn't leave work 10 minutes later that day or I would likely have been on it when it went down.
But hey, if you don't want to take my anecdotal example, you can just go check transportation.gov and get a state by state breakdown of structurally deficient bridges yourself:
https://www.transportation.gov...
Now maybe you don't take much stock in their numbers, but personally after watching the bridge I made my daily commute over for years catastrophically collapse, I think it's worth at least considering that there may be some truth to these claims.
IF you look at his past and posts I think Murder would have been more appropriate charge, it seems obvious his intent was to get someone hurt or killed, though I guess for prosecutors manslaughter will be the easier to prove and at least keeps him off the streets for a few more years.
Personally I wouldn't be opposed to murder charges with the possibility of death penalty (let a jury decide his fate). It's one thing for a stupid 15yo kid to do this their first time (though they still should be punished).
"Barriss, 25, was already well known to local law enforcement. Glendale Police Sgt. Daniel Suttles said he was behind at least two dozen fake bomb threats in the area in recent years, including incidents that prompted the evacuations of television stations and an elementary school."
"In May 2016, he pleaded no contest to making a false bomb threat and was sentenced to two years and eight months in jail" "He was released on Jan. 20, 2017. A day later, he was arrested in the San Fernando Valley and spent another seven months in jail"
âoeHe knows exactly what to say. He is very meticulous,â Suttles said. âoeHe knows what a 911 operator will ask and is convincing.â
He's shown by his repeated actions that he has no interest in being redeemed. Punishment has not deterred him, and now someone innocent has died. He needs to be permanently denied the ability to do this again.
What makes you think that? Security through obscurity just means that it will take longer for the majority of the world (including yourself) to find out about the flaws. All it really does is grant the people with resources to find those flaws a bigger window of time to operate on them before being caught.
The ramifications are huge too. It's one thing to get hacked, it's another thing to get hacked and never find out (or never be able to plausibly claim that's what happened).
Here's where the sleight of hand comes in with your argument:
Liberal: "...and we should acknowledge and operate under the reality that men and women may have different preferences..."
Merely stating "that" without answering "why" is more or less meaningless.
There's a very good article at Psychology Today that summarizes a number of the same research articles I've cited on this topic in the past.
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
Look especially at the section summarizing Wang, Eccles, and Kenny (2013). I find one conclusion Dr. Jussim draws from the paper particularly interesting:
"People (regardless of whether they were male or female) who had only strong math skills as students were more likely to be working in STEM fields at age 33 than were other students".
I wonder a bit if our collective arrogance (at least in computer science related fields) blinds us into thinking that anyone who is highly skilled must want to pursue a job in our field. Maybe we think a little too highly of ourselves and STEM is a niche for people that are highly skilled at math with poor verbal skills. Why would anyone that has strong verbal skills want to surround themselves with people who don't?
That's sort of the whole point of the article though. The author discovered evidence that (amonst other things) historical research findings on tea and coffee related fatalities may have used samples with dihydrogen monoxide contamination that previously went unnoticed all the way back to the 1950s. while correlation does not equal causation, there's a strong body of evidence that anyone who ingests large quantities of dihydrogen monoxide eventually dies.
How much dihydrogen monoxide contamination did the samples have? Are there specific interactions (say with tea and coffee respectively) that have unique and unforeseen effects? Hopefully this new research will help us better refine and answer those questions.
He comes out of the woodwork pretty regularly for security related articles. :)