if you rent a car, and you get a ticket, it is most certainly your responsibility rather than the rental agenceyâ(TM)s.
The rental car I was driving was issued a speeding camera ticket. The rental car company was responsible for paying the ticket. They subsequently charged me for the amount they had to pay. Although it was my contention that the ticket was invalid (too complicated to go into why) there was, given these conditions, no way to argue my point. I paid the rental car company as requested. So although the rental car company could recover their cost from me, it was their responsibility to pay that particular ticket as it was their vehicle and registration under which the ticket was issued.
Too bad your comment wasn't posted on the internet so you could provide a link to said response.
I too am lazy and would have preferred to have just clicked a link rather than do my own original search. Therefore I have sacrificed my own free time by finding a link (and actually reading it) wherein the link that you requested can be found...
The meme that needs to be spread is that tracking the content of virtual circuits used by TCP/IP communications is "wiretapping" in just the same way that tracking the physical circuits of traditional telephony communications is "wiretapping." Anyone in a privileged position to "listen in" on virtual circuits by virtue of their being a communications carrier has a duty to NOT "listen in." To do otherwise is to break the laws against wiretapping.
For decades the "telephone company" had the ability to listen in on any phone call, but to do so was considered a heinous violation of privacy with stiff government penalties. The major difference between Internet (TCP/IP) communications and the original telephony services is that instead of physical circuits switched end-to-end, traffic is carried by virtual circuits identified by endpoint IP Address/Port number pairs. It is (in my opinion) just as heinous a privacy violation to tap into those virtual circuits as to tap into a physical circuit.
With this understanding in place, all this nonsense from *communications providers* about monitoring communications goes away, as it should. Listening in on other people's conversations is bad, and we (the public) should be able to expect that our communications carriers will not listen in to those communications. We expect the postal services to NOT open and read our mail, we expect the parcel services to NOT open and record the contents of our packages. We expect that the telephone company will NOT listen in on and record our voice communications. We should also expect the data communications services to NOT listen in on and record the communications that they carry.
Endpoints are a different issue that I'm not including in this meme - if I connect to Google, Google has the natural ability to collect information on me, just as any company that I might call in a traditional telecommunications setting would collect information on the number of times I called them as well as the nature of my calls (in their customer database). If I connect to Facebook, same thing (the "free" service is supported by the ads).
Heretics aren't dangerous because they're wrong. They're dangerous because they might be right. And here's a heretic with proof he's right. Hanging AND burning is not good enough for such a horrible person.
I think the parent post containing this quote hits the nail on the head. The individual in question has shown rampant foolishness exists in the educational system, and the system is reacting to defend itself. The same thing happens to some individuals who expose glaring IT security holes (and correctly notify the owners rather than sell off knowledge of the vulnerabilities) - instead of being thanked and the holes patched up, the individuals are excoriated as bad actors and the holes are retained.
If the educational institution in question was honestly bent on continual improvement, they would be focused on how to better the environment so that blatant horseshit wouldn't be put on a pedestal (published) rather than being filtered out. Sure, the individual intentionally created the material to be horseshit, but isn't even worse when material that is also certainly horseshit even though it wasn't meant to be such is published? The peer review process is supposed to filter out horseshit, and testing the system to see whether it works seems like a good idea to me. Shooting the person who found a fault in the system isn't going to encourage the elimination of faults in the future.
I care about privacy, and Iâ(TM)ve been using DDG, but have to manually switch to Google to find something I want fairly often. Yea! For DDG, but it isnâ(TM)t going to replace Google today or tomorrow.
I don't think losing the 3.5mm jack was an engineering decision, and I think it was stupid. I owned an iPhone 5, and I was getting ready to upgrade this fall when they discontinued the iPhone SE. So I bought a used iPhone SE (could not find a new one, and I still wanted a headphone jack) and not a new iPhone from Apple. Between things like the headphone jack and the ultra-expensive new iPhones, might this have impacted Apple's sales numbers? I also bought used Apple last June when I needed a new laptop b/c new Apple was priced way too high for me (and I've consistently bought Apple computers for personal use since my first Mac in 1987). So no manufactured outrage from me, because Apple is obviously free to make whatever product choices they want to make. However, unless things at Apple change, my next new phone and computer probably won't be from Apple, even used.
I think you're thinking of a movie. Not something that is actually observed in actual, real, human hunter-gatherer societies. In small hunter-gatherer groups, bullies a.k.a. those trying to force themselves to the top of the pile, are shunned and even exiled. Time to step up your knowledge of anthropology as a science.
I am not unfamiliar with anthropology. My "thought experiment" was obviously not anthropology. It was a reduction of the concept of ownership to the simplest possible example in order to illustrate that the concept of ownership alone was not unnatural. The fact that another commentator suggested that in my simplified example the act of "hoarding" my berries (in the short time between the time I gathered them and the time I would consume them) would lead to untold horrors exposes (in my opinion) the intellectually challenged biases of some people.
Your exposition that in a primitive society someone who would use force to take away my berries would be shunned or exiled illustrates why people form societies in the first place. Without a society that enforces rules of behavior, humans would be reduced to a survival of the fittest, might makes right existence under which no higher form of civilization could emerge. In my opinion, some form of "ownership" naturally emerges and is protected by societies through the rules that they enforce. It is not unnatural. There are those who believe that "private property" was the beginning of the downfall of society. I have considered this proposition since it was first proposed to me when I was studying ancient and classical civilizations in college, and I rejected it then and continue to reject it now. The concept of private property is useful, even though it can be abused, just as practically every other construct of human culture can be abused (albeit some constructs are far less useful). The point I was trying to make was the ownership was not unnatural. Apparently either my argument or my audience was deficient, perhaps both.
Taking is just simple harvesting of a accumulation of resources. It's people and animals naturally do when they come across useful things. also things tend to flow from where there's more to where there is less when allowed to follow natural courses. To hold onto something is to take it out the natural Flows In Cycles. To forcibly prevent natural harvesting of Resources by others that you would like to hold on to. That's the concept of ownership. To maintain exclusive access requires Force to artificially maintained control
If I were in a primitive state of nature, and I had just spent an hour gathering berries to eat by a stream in the sun for my lunch, I don't think it would be very nice (or "natural") for Oog, who spent the morning sleeping in the sun, to take my berries away from me. I wouldn't just hand them over, so Oog would have to initiate the takeover by force to take them from me (hitting me over the head, perhaps, with the thighbone of a deer). Which is when I would be forced to shoot Oog with my Glock 17.
To suggest that it is "natural" for someone to take from another when they come across useful things, and that to hold on to things that one has accumulated is somehow "unnatural", is to describe a world in which I have no desire to live naturally.
I believe that it is right and proper for me to seek to better my circumstances, by accumulating things which will make my circumstances better. And I believe that it is quite natural for me to retain that which I have accumulated for my own use. If I must use force to do so, then my use of force is natural.
There will always be those among us who will seek to better their position the easy way, taking by force or subterfuge that which others have worked to accumulate. I have no use for such people.
Having a government "confiscate" a domain name is so much better than making a registrar responsible for responding to a 3rd party request. The registrar is not a government authority and should not be in the position of acting as one, as it will probably give the 3rd parties too much power (the registrar will act out of self-preservation and probably err on the side of caution). Insane.
My solution to the traveling salesman problem is to just shoot them when they ring the doorbell. Problem solved. Iâ(TM)m US; I suspect the Brits would rather use a knife because gun violence is bad. Iâ(TM)m surprised the Japanese are using amoebas - I thought swords would be more their style. If we all get to work, however, we can solve the traveling salesman problem once and forever, just like polio.
In the United States, package delivery services (including the United States Postal Service) provide a range of delivery guarantee options, ranging roughly from "drop it on the porch" to "requires signature from the recipient who is over the age of 21". The entity sending the package generally determines the type of delivery guarantee requested.
People who live in neighborhoods generally regarded as "safe" may not think about risks involved in package delivery until they are hit with theft themselves. I think that the rise in package deliveries due to the adoption of shopping by web over the last ten years has cultivated a new type of criminal behavior that seems to be "normalized" for some individuals. I wonder if they don't believe they are stealing from the individuals receiving the package, because they aren't breaking into their house to get it. From observing the folks in the YouTube video, what is painfully obvious is just how casual the folks are at their thefts. Walking up on porches in broad daylight, scooping up the package, and casually walking away or getting in a car and driving away. A few opened the packages in their car, others obviously took them home to see what they had stolen.
I first observed this problem when I began finding packages ripped open/discarded on my road - a relatively out of the way street nearby a more dense suburban area - around Christmas time about 10 years ago. Not a lot the police can do... people need to understand the risk involved in deliveries to their property and request delivery guarantees that match the risk. People living in dense neighborhoods with easily-accessible front porches should probably use package lockers or delivery signatures. Those with more hidden/less accessible delivery spots can probably do without.
Mostly because diagnosing a modern car usually means plugging in an ODB-2 scanner and reading codes.
This is probably NOT the way to diagnose modern cars. There is lots of instrumentation, and the OBD-II interface allows access to the codes and sensors, but diagnosing problems requires a system-level understanding of what those readouts that are exposed by the OBD-II interface actually mean. Simply replacing the "most likely" or "most proximate" part indicated by the code will only work some of the time. Context IS very important, and the context of a modern vehicle engine is very complicated.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, however. I don't think that straight As are a guarantee of ability, and I've known "B" average students who were quite capable on the job. Being able to apply "book knowledge" to practical situations is a hard thing to test for, I suspect.
When a male elephant urinates his penis is only partially extended from the preputial sheath. So a pendulum oscillation calculation would not give you the full length.
Obviously the respondent must make additional assumptions to perform the calculation, and these assumptions should be noted in their answer. Apparently these assumptions include an estimate of the elephant's state of arousal. Must be a pretty comprehensive engineering curriculum.
I would love to know where exactly a public school teacher can make six figures. Until you prove that's actually true, I call bullshit.
I'm in a small town in northwestern Washington state. A large number of teachers in my town appear to all be being paid around $80k/year in salary plus bonus/stipend, not including additional compensation for things like insurance (looks like some kind of max value because so many get the same amount). The principals and senior staff members in the district all all making low $100K six figures (like around $110k to $115K). There is a distribution down from the $80k/year teachers that reaches as low as about $40k for what I assume are new/fresh elementary school teachers. Although these aren't "six figure" salaries for the teachers, they are a lot closer to that than I would have thought based on the average income in town, and they put the lie to the idea that teachers aren't paid well (at least around here). To the south of me are urban environments including Seattle; I'm interested to know if those communities get up over the $100k mark for ordinary teacher salaries - it seems quite possible.
But I don't trust Apple with my Location Data. Who's to say they are not collecting it and working with it nefariously themselves and simply superficiating authentic control over it not being gathered? Frankly there is just too much bad going on within these big companies for me to trust any of it.
If you don't trust Apple, who of all of the corporations at least appears to be trying to respect privacy, you can choose to not use a smartphone, or to have one that you only turn on when you want to make a call or access the Internet. If you need to be accessible by phone no matter where you are, you can choose to have a simple cellular phone that doesn't run apps, assuming that you trust that the cellular telephone company's tracking of your location by cell phone tower location isn't violating your privacy.
What appears to be impossible, without at least some level of trust, is to both enjoy the always-on connected feeling of having a smartphone AND the "only me and the people around me know where I am" feeling that used to be natural (unless you were a heinous criminal being tracked at great expense by law enforcement or a cheating spouse being tracked by a private detective hired by your better half). Welcome to the new age. At least the government hasn't mandated that everyone wear a tracking device at all times for "public safety reasons" (yet).
This is slashdot after all. Microsoft is permanently evil and bad in literally everything they do (even when they do things we say they should do) because of their behavior two decades and two CEOs ago.
Microsoft has a history of playing O/S games that others find distasteful, and it isn't all ancient. Surely Windows 10 contributes to the negative viewpoints about Microsoft. On the other hand, I appreciate MS Office, and was glad that it was an alternative to WordPerfect (back in the day) and is still around today as a de facto standard for basic business documents.
it's similar story to the tale from the crypts about yellow rain and wet feet of yellow snow consumers who are under impression that if it's under den of storm roof - its safe to eat. they want you to believe that all that bullshit that happens to your personal computing adventures happens for the reason attributable to some forces of negative nature. You know they are forces of nurturing love that trumps negativity with positively charged particles of positron gun. Try putting it in perspective. It's even more mission impossible to code simple website by using pure HTML nowadays than 20 years ago..
So, after reading all of the "ha! you are a russian troll" postings, I finally see a posting that looks so much like a russian troll that I wonder "Is this really a russian troll, or is it just someone pretending to be a russian troll? What do they really want?"
Most people need to learn basic money management strategy meaning you don't spend more than your income is unless you're in a emergency, and for that people need to save some money for the rainy days. Long time ago I decided to save money and have a f...ck you fund to cover ALL my expenses for a year in case I get laid off or something else. Unfortunately this won't cover medical emergency if you don't have health insurance since the health system is so screwed up that an couple of days of an ER visit with put you back in the 10s of thousand of $$.
I'm not sure why your post is at "0" when you hit the nail on the head for a big part of American society, the so-called "middle class." Sure, there are extremes on both ends (lower and upper class), and every decade there are new challenges to be met, but the idea that somehow the majority of the US population is to be pitied or needs a handout is ridiculous. For many, the person in the mirror is the one that they need to look to.
I have spent decades living within my means, having climbed out of the "lower class" on the coattails of the computer revolution and not wanting to slip back down by being stupid. I watched "defined benefit" (pension) plans sunset as "defined contribution" (401(k) or CODA) plans rose up and I acted accordingly. I vastly preferred trading the uncertainty of a future pension (if the company stayed in business, if I stayed working for the company long enough, and if the pension's funding/investment choices held out long term) for my own portable retirement nest egg. Social Security as a "retirement fund" was known to be inadequate when I entered the workforce in the 1980s. For the middle class, the problem with planning for retirement is that people (in the US anyway) tend to be more grasshoppers than ants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper. My wife and I have friends/relatives who are still putting their noses to the grindstone as we slip into semi-retirement despite the same (if not more) opportunity than us, the difference being that we were more ant-like, and they were more grasshopper-like.
The big company failures (GM, Sears, and Toys-R-Us) that are cited in the article as failures were struggling for years (Toys-R-Us) if not decades (GM, Sears). Adverse economic circumstances are one of the risks that a company has to be prepared to deal with, the same as individuals. GM has struggled since the 1980s, with big ups and downs as they (and other automobile manufacturers) try to figure out how to stay product-agile in an industry with multi-year development cycles [Japanese industry seems to have adapted more quickly and successfully than domestic auto production]. Sears was a big empire that apparently failed from within, totally missing the boat in on-line sales despite their heritage as a tele-sales company in addition to brick-and-mortar stores. Toys-R-Us was saddled with unbearable debt due to the leveraged buyout in 2005.
Ups and downs in the marketplace and supply chains are normal, but expose and exacerbate weaknesses in businesses. Ups and downs in the economy are natural, but expose weaknesses in personal financial planning. Expectations that the government will somehow provide a risk-free business or individual economic foundation are misguided at best. Companies and households that fail to anticipate and plan for risk and that aren't adaptable to circumstances will have hard times when risks turn into problems and circumstances change.
Monitoring can provide very efficient government. Whether it is good government is another question. An efficient tyranny would not be good. If we have learned nothing else from our experience with the adoption of the internet, we have shown just how a technical capability enables both positive and negative behavior. Removing âoenaturalâ limitations on systems can result in significant increases in undesirable behavior. Adapting the new system by introducing artificial limitations that recreate the beneficial effects of the lost natural limitations takes insight, planning, time, and will. Genies are hard to partially bottle back up. Color me skeptical.
Bingo. An adversary is holding war games. You increase a threat or compromise a capability, and observe the effect on your adversaryâ(TM)s behavior. Now you have learned something about your adversary (and they about you), but who gave away more? These are the games militaries play.
I do have sympathy. Many people ate told that a copy is a backup and raid is backup. It is not the peoples fault they where sold the wrong solution.
Even "Time Machine" on MacOS isn't a hardcore backup (not what I would use with $250,000 at stake). It is typically making a copy of files to an attached drive, using multiply-linked files to reduce storage requirements. Anything that wipes the attached drive, or any fault in the file system, and the data may be difficult or impossible to recover.
On my home machine, I use Time Machine, but with two separate backup drives, one of which I only attach periodically (once a week). I *should* be using a tape backup system, but so far have apparently accepted the risk of my weak backup practices over the cost of a hardcore tape-based backup system. I think many people (and some businesses) have a mental disconnect when they have to spend $$ more than the original storage system on a good backup system for that storage system, as well as swallowing the operational cost of doing regular backups. Time Machine gives home users a "better than nothing" solution at a low cost (the cost of a second drive), and virtually no operational expense as it works "automagically" in the background. Time Machine's protection can even be improved by using multiple Time Machine target drives. However, it does not provide the security of regularly backing up files to tape with a cycle of incremental and full backups, and should not be considered a strong backup system by anyone with significant value invested in their data.
Not quite able to put my finger on it, but something tells me you're not American.
I don't think you were trolling, and I'm interested in understanding why you would think that someone from the United States would have trouble believing an unfortunate consequence could have more than one person at fault. What is the context of your understanding that leads to this remark?
My experience is that Americans understand that multiple people can be at fault. The idea of "contributory negligence" is certainly at work in the United States. Lawsuits frequently include multiple parties with the idea that someone with deep pockets who is only partially at fault (and not even most at fault) should still pay. Root cause analysis, another activity practiced widely within the United States, always looks for multiple causal factors. (Although, to be fair, the emphasis in root cause analysis is usually not towards placing blame on people, but finding problems with training, testing, procedures, etc.. Having said this, it is not impossible for a failure to be mostly an individual's fault to execute their duties/responsibilities correctly.)
And, unfortunately, the subtle nuances of this correction may get lost in a "they had to withdraw their claims" discussion. If I understand what I read, the errors were in calculating the uncertainty present in their results, with more uncertainty being present than originally reported. This doesn't mean they were wrong and need to go back to the beginning, just that they can't be as certain that they were right. Which should engender more work to reduce the uncertainty. Which could reduce the uncertainty, or identify other factors at work that expand their model and result in a better overall explanation of the observations. That's science.
You aren't thinking big enough. Patent "space" - with an Internet. Then shut down anyone doing anything in space with data communications that go through more than one hop...
What do we know? About SpaceX SAT architecture, network topology and service niche opportunity?
Well, this is slashdot. Full of uncountable self-appointed experts in all matters, both technical and otherwise. We still don't understand why business people all over the world don't flesh their concepts out with input from slashdot so as to make sure they are only wildly successful.
My personal opinion is that if SpaceX has $$ that they are willing to throw at this, they probably have done some of the basic back of the envelope calculations necessary to justify it. Unless they like lighting $100 bills on fire and watching them burn, that is. Having said that, I *do* like reading the analyses that people share from their viewpoints and knowledge, and I *do* learn things from them that I would otherwise not know.
Slashdot Mirror
if you rent a car, and you get a ticket, it is most certainly your responsibility rather than the rental agenceyâ(TM)s.
The rental car I was driving was issued a speeding camera ticket. The rental car company was responsible for paying the ticket. They subsequently charged me for the amount they had to pay. Although it was my contention that the ticket was invalid (too complicated to go into why) there was, given these conditions, no way to argue my point. I paid the rental car company as requested. So although the rental car company could recover their cost from me, it was their responsibility to pay that particular ticket as it was their vehicle and registration under which the ticket was issued.
Too bad your comment wasn't posted on the internet so you could provide a link to said response.
I too am lazy and would have preferred to have just clicked a link rather than do my own original search. Therefore I have sacrificed my own free time by finding a link (and actually reading it) wherein the link that you requested can be found...
ArsTechnica article with more information and LINKS to the original infringement claim letter as well as the EFF's (great) response can be found here https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/eff-flips-bird-the-bird-says-boing-boing-post-doesnt-violate-copyright-law/.
The meme that needs to be spread is that tracking the content of virtual circuits used by TCP/IP communications is "wiretapping" in just the same way that tracking the physical circuits of traditional telephony communications is "wiretapping." Anyone in a privileged position to "listen in" on virtual circuits by virtue of their being a communications carrier has a duty to NOT "listen in." To do otherwise is to break the laws against wiretapping.
For decades the "telephone company" had the ability to listen in on any phone call, but to do so was considered a heinous violation of privacy with stiff government penalties. The major difference between Internet (TCP/IP) communications and the original telephony services is that instead of physical circuits switched end-to-end, traffic is carried by virtual circuits identified by endpoint IP Address/Port number pairs. It is (in my opinion) just as heinous a privacy violation to tap into those virtual circuits as to tap into a physical circuit.
With this understanding in place, all this nonsense from *communications providers* about monitoring communications goes away, as it should. Listening in on other people's conversations is bad, and we (the public) should be able to expect that our communications carriers will not listen in to those communications. We expect the postal services to NOT open and read our mail, we expect the parcel services to NOT open and record the contents of our packages. We expect that the telephone company will NOT listen in on and record our voice communications. We should also expect the data communications services to NOT listen in on and record the communications that they carry.
Endpoints are a different issue that I'm not including in this meme - if I connect to Google, Google has the natural ability to collect information on me, just as any company that I might call in a traditional telecommunications setting would collect information on the number of times I called them as well as the nature of my calls (in their customer database). If I connect to Facebook, same thing (the "free" service is supported by the ads).
Heretics aren't dangerous because they're wrong. They're dangerous because they might be right. And here's a heretic with proof he's right. Hanging AND burning is not good enough for such a horrible person.
I think the parent post containing this quote hits the nail on the head. The individual in question has shown rampant foolishness exists in the educational system, and the system is reacting to defend itself. The same thing happens to some individuals who expose glaring IT security holes (and correctly notify the owners rather than sell off knowledge of the vulnerabilities) - instead of being thanked and the holes patched up, the individuals are excoriated as bad actors and the holes are retained.
If the educational institution in question was honestly bent on continual improvement, they would be focused on how to better the environment so that blatant horseshit wouldn't be put on a pedestal (published) rather than being filtered out. Sure, the individual intentionally created the material to be horseshit, but isn't even worse when material that is also certainly horseshit even though it wasn't meant to be such is published? The peer review process is supposed to filter out horseshit, and testing the system to see whether it works seems like a good idea to me. Shooting the person who found a fault in the system isn't going to encourage the elimination of faults in the future.
I care about privacy, and Iâ(TM)ve been using DDG, but have to manually switch to Google to find something I want fairly often. Yea! For DDG, but it isnâ(TM)t going to replace Google today or tomorrow.
I don't think losing the 3.5mm jack was an engineering decision, and I think it was stupid. I owned an iPhone 5, and I was getting ready to upgrade this fall when they discontinued the iPhone SE. So I bought a used iPhone SE (could not find a new one, and I still wanted a headphone jack) and not a new iPhone from Apple. Between things like the headphone jack and the ultra-expensive new iPhones, might this have impacted Apple's sales numbers? I also bought used Apple last June when I needed a new laptop b/c new Apple was priced way too high for me (and I've consistently bought Apple computers for personal use since my first Mac in 1987). So no manufactured outrage from me, because Apple is obviously free to make whatever product choices they want to make. However, unless things at Apple change, my next new phone and computer probably won't be from Apple, even used.
I think you're thinking of a movie. Not something that is actually observed in actual, real, human hunter-gatherer societies. In small hunter-gatherer groups, bullies a.k.a. those trying to force themselves to the top of the pile, are shunned and even exiled. Time to step up your knowledge of anthropology as a science.
I am not unfamiliar with anthropology. My "thought experiment" was obviously not anthropology. It was a reduction of the concept of ownership to the simplest possible example in order to illustrate that the concept of ownership alone was not unnatural. The fact that another commentator suggested that in my simplified example the act of "hoarding" my berries (in the short time between the time I gathered them and the time I would consume them) would lead to untold horrors exposes (in my opinion) the intellectually challenged biases of some people.
Your exposition that in a primitive society someone who would use force to take away my berries would be shunned or exiled illustrates why people form societies in the first place. Without a society that enforces rules of behavior, humans would be reduced to a survival of the fittest, might makes right existence under which no higher form of civilization could emerge. In my opinion, some form of "ownership" naturally emerges and is protected by societies through the rules that they enforce. It is not unnatural. There are those who believe that "private property" was the beginning of the downfall of society. I have considered this proposition since it was first proposed to me when I was studying ancient and classical civilizations in college, and I rejected it then and continue to reject it now. The concept of private property is useful, even though it can be abused, just as practically every other construct of human culture can be abused (albeit some constructs are far less useful). The point I was trying to make was the ownership was not unnatural. Apparently either my argument or my audience was deficient, perhaps both.
Taking is just simple harvesting of a accumulation of resources. It's people and animals naturally do when they come across useful things. also things tend to flow from where there's more to where there is less when allowed to follow natural courses. To hold onto something is to take it out the natural Flows In Cycles. To forcibly prevent natural harvesting of Resources by others that you would like to hold on to. That's the concept of ownership. To maintain exclusive access requires Force to artificially maintained control
If I were in a primitive state of nature, and I had just spent an hour gathering berries to eat by a stream in the sun for my lunch, I don't think it would be very nice (or "natural") for Oog, who spent the morning sleeping in the sun, to take my berries away from me. I wouldn't just hand them over, so Oog would have to initiate the takeover by force to take them from me (hitting me over the head, perhaps, with the thighbone of a deer). Which is when I would be forced to shoot Oog with my Glock 17.
To suggest that it is "natural" for someone to take from another when they come across useful things, and that to hold on to things that one has accumulated is somehow "unnatural", is to describe a world in which I have no desire to live naturally.
I believe that it is right and proper for me to seek to better my circumstances, by accumulating things which will make my circumstances better. And I believe that it is quite natural for me to retain that which I have accumulated for my own use. If I must use force to do so, then my use of force is natural.
There will always be those among us who will seek to better their position the easy way, taking by force or subterfuge that which others have worked to accumulate. I have no use for such people.
Having a government "confiscate" a domain name is so much better than making a registrar responsible for responding to a 3rd party request. The registrar is not a government authority and should not be in the position of acting as one, as it will probably give the 3rd parties too much power (the registrar will act out of self-preservation and probably err on the side of caution). Insane.
My solution to the traveling salesman problem is to just shoot them when they ring the doorbell. Problem solved. Iâ(TM)m US; I suspect the Brits would rather use a knife because gun violence is bad. Iâ(TM)m surprised the Japanese are using amoebas - I thought swords would be more their style. If we all get to work, however, we can solve the traveling salesman problem once and forever, just like polio.
In the United States, package delivery services (including the United States Postal Service) provide a range of delivery guarantee options, ranging roughly from "drop it on the porch" to "requires signature from the recipient who is over the age of 21". The entity sending the package generally determines the type of delivery guarantee requested.
People who live in neighborhoods generally regarded as "safe" may not think about risks involved in package delivery until they are hit with theft themselves. I think that the rise in package deliveries due to the adoption of shopping by web over the last ten years has cultivated a new type of criminal behavior that seems to be "normalized" for some individuals. I wonder if they don't believe they are stealing from the individuals receiving the package, because they aren't breaking into their house to get it. From observing the folks in the YouTube video, what is painfully obvious is just how casual the folks are at their thefts. Walking up on porches in broad daylight, scooping up the package, and casually walking away or getting in a car and driving away. A few opened the packages in their car, others obviously took them home to see what they had stolen.
I first observed this problem when I began finding packages ripped open/discarded on my road - a relatively out of the way street nearby a more dense suburban area - around Christmas time about 10 years ago. Not a lot the police can do... people need to understand the risk involved in deliveries to their property and request delivery guarantees that match the risk. People living in dense neighborhoods with easily-accessible front porches should probably use package lockers or delivery signatures. Those with more hidden/less accessible delivery spots can probably do without.
Mostly because diagnosing a modern car usually means plugging in an ODB-2 scanner and reading codes.
This is probably NOT the way to diagnose modern cars. There is lots of instrumentation, and the OBD-II interface allows access to the codes and sensors, but diagnosing problems requires a system-level understanding of what those readouts that are exposed by the OBD-II interface actually mean. Simply replacing the "most likely" or "most proximate" part indicated by the code will only work some of the time. Context IS very important, and the context of a modern vehicle engine is very complicated.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, however. I don't think that straight As are a guarantee of ability, and I've known "B" average students who were quite capable on the job. Being able to apply "book knowledge" to practical situations is a hard thing to test for, I suspect.
When a male elephant urinates his penis is only partially extended from the preputial sheath. So a pendulum oscillation calculation would not give you the full length.
Obviously the respondent must make additional assumptions to perform the calculation, and these assumptions should be noted in their answer. Apparently these assumptions include an estimate of the elephant's state of arousal. Must be a pretty comprehensive engineering curriculum.
I would love to know where exactly a public school teacher can make six figures. Until you prove that's actually true, I call bullshit.
I'm in a small town in northwestern Washington state. A large number of teachers in my town appear to all be being paid around $80k/year in salary plus bonus/stipend, not including additional compensation for things like insurance (looks like some kind of max value because so many get the same amount). The principals and senior staff members in the district all all making low $100K six figures (like around $110k to $115K). There is a distribution down from the $80k/year teachers that reaches as low as about $40k for what I assume are new/fresh elementary school teachers. Although these aren't "six figure" salaries for the teachers, they are a lot closer to that than I would have thought based on the average income in town, and they put the lie to the idea that teachers aren't paid well (at least around here). To the south of me are urban environments including Seattle; I'm interested to know if those communities get up over the $100k mark for ordinary teacher salaries - it seems quite possible.
But I don't trust Apple with my Location Data. Who's to say they are not collecting it and working with it nefariously themselves and simply superficiating authentic control over it not being gathered? Frankly there is just too much bad going on within these big companies for me to trust any of it.
If you don't trust Apple, who of all of the corporations at least appears to be trying to respect privacy, you can choose to not use a smartphone, or to have one that you only turn on when you want to make a call or access the Internet. If you need to be accessible by phone no matter where you are, you can choose to have a simple cellular phone that doesn't run apps, assuming that you trust that the cellular telephone company's tracking of your location by cell phone tower location isn't violating your privacy.
What appears to be impossible, without at least some level of trust, is to both enjoy the always-on connected feeling of having a smartphone AND the "only me and the people around me know where I am" feeling that used to be natural (unless you were a heinous criminal being tracked at great expense by law enforcement or a cheating spouse being tracked by a private detective hired by your better half). Welcome to the new age. At least the government hasn't mandated that everyone wear a tracking device at all times for "public safety reasons" (yet).
This is slashdot after all. Microsoft is permanently evil and bad in literally everything they do (even when they do things we say they should do) because of their behavior two decades and two CEOs ago.
Microsoft has a history of playing O/S games that others find distasteful, and it isn't all ancient. Surely Windows 10 contributes to the negative viewpoints about Microsoft. On the other hand, I appreciate MS Office, and was glad that it was an alternative to WordPerfect (back in the day) and is still around today as a de facto standard for basic business documents.
it's similar story to the tale from the crypts about yellow rain and wet feet of yellow snow consumers who are under impression that if it's under den of storm roof - its safe to eat. they want you to believe that all that bullshit that happens to your personal computing adventures happens for the reason attributable to some forces of negative nature. You know they are forces of nurturing love that trumps negativity with positively charged particles of positron gun. Try putting it in perspective. It's even more mission impossible to code simple website by using pure HTML nowadays than 20 years ago..
So, after reading all of the "ha! you are a russian troll" postings, I finally see a posting that looks so much like a russian troll that I wonder "Is this really a russian troll, or is it just someone pretending to be a russian troll? What do they really want?"
Most people need to learn basic money management strategy meaning you don't spend more than your income is unless you're in a emergency, and for that people need to save some money for the rainy days. Long time ago I decided to save money and have a f...ck you fund to cover ALL my expenses for a year in case I get laid off or something else. Unfortunately this won't cover medical emergency if you don't have health insurance since the health system is so screwed up that an couple of days of an ER visit with put you back in the 10s of thousand of $$.
I'm not sure why your post is at "0" when you hit the nail on the head for a big part of American society, the so-called "middle class." Sure, there are extremes on both ends (lower and upper class), and every decade there are new challenges to be met, but the idea that somehow the majority of the US population is to be pitied or needs a handout is ridiculous. For many, the person in the mirror is the one that they need to look to.
I have spent decades living within my means, having climbed out of the "lower class" on the coattails of the computer revolution and not wanting to slip back down by being stupid. I watched "defined benefit" (pension) plans sunset as "defined contribution" (401(k) or CODA) plans rose up and I acted accordingly. I vastly preferred trading the uncertainty of a future pension (if the company stayed in business, if I stayed working for the company long enough, and if the pension's funding/investment choices held out long term) for my own portable retirement nest egg. Social Security as a "retirement fund" was known to be inadequate when I entered the workforce in the 1980s. For the middle class, the problem with planning for retirement is that people (in the US anyway) tend to be more grasshoppers than ants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper. My wife and I have friends/relatives who are still putting their noses to the grindstone as we slip into semi-retirement despite the same (if not more) opportunity than us, the difference being that we were more ant-like, and they were more grasshopper-like.
The big company failures (GM, Sears, and Toys-R-Us) that are cited in the article as failures were struggling for years (Toys-R-Us) if not decades (GM, Sears). Adverse economic circumstances are one of the risks that a company has to be prepared to deal with, the same as individuals. GM has struggled since the 1980s, with big ups and downs as they (and other automobile manufacturers) try to figure out how to stay product-agile in an industry with multi-year development cycles [Japanese industry seems to have adapted more quickly and successfully than domestic auto production]. Sears was a big empire that apparently failed from within, totally missing the boat in on-line sales despite their heritage as a tele-sales company in addition to brick-and-mortar stores. Toys-R-Us was saddled with unbearable debt due to the leveraged buyout in 2005.
Ups and downs in the marketplace and supply chains are normal, but expose and exacerbate weaknesses in businesses. Ups and downs in the economy are natural, but expose weaknesses in personal financial planning. Expectations that the government will somehow provide a risk-free business or individual economic foundation are misguided at best. Companies and households that fail to anticipate and plan for risk and that aren't adaptable to circumstances will have hard times when risks turn into problems and circumstances change.
Monitoring can provide very efficient government. Whether it is good government is another question. An efficient tyranny would not be good. If we have learned nothing else from our experience with the adoption of the internet, we have shown just how a technical capability enables both positive and negative behavior. Removing âoenaturalâ limitations on systems can result in significant increases in undesirable behavior. Adapting the new system by introducing artificial limitations that recreate the beneficial effects of the lost natural limitations takes insight, planning, time, and will. Genies are hard to partially bottle back up. Color me skeptical.
Bingo. An adversary is holding war games. You increase a threat or compromise a capability, and observe the effect on your adversaryâ(TM)s behavior. Now you have learned something about your adversary (and they about you), but who gave away more? These are the games militaries play.
I do have sympathy. Many people ate told that a copy is a backup and raid is backup. It is not the peoples fault they where sold the wrong solution.
Even "Time Machine" on MacOS isn't a hardcore backup (not what I would use with $250,000 at stake). It is typically making a copy of files to an attached drive, using multiply-linked files to reduce storage requirements. Anything that wipes the attached drive, or any fault in the file system, and the data may be difficult or impossible to recover.
On my home machine, I use Time Machine, but with two separate backup drives, one of which I only attach periodically (once a week). I *should* be using a tape backup system, but so far have apparently accepted the risk of my weak backup practices over the cost of a hardcore tape-based backup system. I think many people (and some businesses) have a mental disconnect when they have to spend $$ more than the original storage system on a good backup system for that storage system, as well as swallowing the operational cost of doing regular backups. Time Machine gives home users a "better than nothing" solution at a low cost (the cost of a second drive), and virtually no operational expense as it works "automagically" in the background. Time Machine's protection can even be improved by using multiple Time Machine target drives. However, it does not provide the security of regularly backing up files to tape with a cycle of incremental and full backups, and should not be considered a strong backup system by anyone with significant value invested in their data.
Not quite able to put my finger on it, but something tells me you're not American.
I don't think you were trolling, and I'm interested in understanding why you would think that someone from the United States would have trouble believing an unfortunate consequence could have more than one person at fault. What is the context of your understanding that leads to this remark?
My experience is that Americans understand that multiple people can be at fault. The idea of "contributory negligence" is certainly at work in the United States. Lawsuits frequently include multiple parties with the idea that someone with deep pockets who is only partially at fault (and not even most at fault) should still pay. Root cause analysis, another activity practiced widely within the United States, always looks for multiple causal factors. (Although, to be fair, the emphasis in root cause analysis is usually not towards placing blame on people, but finding problems with training, testing, procedures, etc.. Having said this, it is not impossible for a failure to be mostly an individual's fault to execute their duties/responsibilities correctly.)
And, unfortunately, the subtle nuances of this correction may get lost in a "they had to withdraw their claims" discussion. If I understand what I read, the errors were in calculating the uncertainty present in their results, with more uncertainty being present than originally reported. This doesn't mean they were wrong and need to go back to the beginning, just that they can't be as certain that they were right. Which should engender more work to reduce the uncertainty. Which could reduce the uncertainty, or identify other factors at work that expand their model and result in a better overall explanation of the observations. That's science.
Patent: The internet ... but in space.
You aren't thinking big enough. Patent "space" - with an Internet. Then shut down anyone doing anything in space with data communications that go through more than one hop...
What do we know? About SpaceX SAT architecture, network topology and service niche opportunity?
Well, this is slashdot. Full of uncountable self-appointed experts in all matters, both technical and otherwise. We still don't understand why business people all over the world don't flesh their concepts out with input from slashdot so as to make sure they are only wildly successful.
My personal opinion is that if SpaceX has $$ that they are willing to throw at this, they probably have done some of the basic back of the envelope calculations necessary to justify it. Unless they like lighting $100 bills on fire and watching them burn, that is. Having said that, I *do* like reading the analyses that people share from their viewpoints and knowledge, and I *do* learn things from them that I would otherwise not know.