"There is a potential silver lining here: Just as oil spills give scientists an opportunity to try out new cleanup techniques, a large-scale smartphone recall may allow us to learn more about how to recycle smartphones."
We do know how to recycle smartphones. Apple even made a fancy robot called Liam to do it (where the impressive thing is that it does disassembly, which means a much higher rate of recovery of usable materials than standard methods). This is not an issue of skill but will.
What the fuck are you talking about? Why would a competitor know in advance that part of the deal is that an old man will kiss her on the mouth whether she likes it or not?
She was the court-appointed defence lawyer who didn't want the case.
If you had the wit to be a lawyer (IKR, but bear with me on this...), what would you have done when assigned the case by the judge? You'd have turned it down, right? Because you're a Man of Principle. Do you know what would have happened next? No? Let me enlighten you: you'd have had to stop practising law. Because providing every defendant with a decent defence is a principle of the law.
How can people be so dumb as to not know this. Seriously, did you never read a legal thriller? Or watch a TV show about the criminal law? Or pay any attention *at all* in class?
And the transcripts and recordings are there for all to review, and she did not laugh about cutting the defendant loose. If you weren't hard of thinking, you could find this out for yourself.
Do you lot ever stop to even listen to yourself? Have you never heard of CHIP? Or her efforts on behalf of 9/11 first responders to secure them help for their health issues?
This is the woman whose husband helped broker the Good Friday agreement, and who as SoS has no doubt been involved in many other negotiations. The Good Friday agreement was, notoriously, brought into being partly at a time when the public position of the UK government was that it would not talk to the IRA at all. And talking to the IRA certainly involved moral compromise -- the sausage making she referred to -- which many found difficult to stomach. But the PONI* have benefited immeasurably from a move away from moral rigour to an acknowledgment of the value of peace, and even Ian bloody Paisley made that journey.
The triumphant pouncing of Trump's supporters on this statement is so depressing: it's like listening to a particularly dimwitted five year old complain about a physicist's line of reasoning.
* People of Northern Ireland. I still miss you, Simon Hoggart
It's pretty clear that there are plenty of undecided voters out there, and that some of them are being swayed by what they're hearing in the last few days (with more breaking for Clinton than Trump). The notion that there's nothing left to play for is decidedly at odds with the facts: this election is especially volatile.
You assert that the only defence he has it whataboutery or personal attacks, yet the *very post you are replying to* specifically defended her on other grounds, to wit, "asked & answered". It makes you look really really stupid when you accuse someone of something that is not only demonstrably not true, but something that has immediately beforehand been demonstrated not to be true.
Don't be a twat. People here on Slashdot and in lots of other places are comparing Trump to fascist demagogues because he is labelling entire races and religions as flawed, and has proposed Muslim Americans be put on a register and all Muslim visitors be banned. Here's an exciting challenge for you: name a leader of a developed world country who's done this sort of thing in the last 70 years who's *not* been a fascist.
It is not true that it is illegal to lose your drivers' licence -- where on earth did you get that idea? It is illegal to drive without a licence in your possession but you are not breaking the law merely by losing your licence.
It is also not true that it is illegal to lose tax receipts from the last seven years. The Cohan Rule famously applies. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro...
If you're going to analogise, you need good analogies.
It *really* helps if you read the whole thread. The issue is not remembering the phrase, it's typing it accurately lots of times a day when you can't see what you're typing because the text is obscured.
I don't mentally parse a sentence each time -- it quickly becomes a mnemonic requiring no mental effort to recall. By contrast, typing 24 characters in a row without making a mistake while they're obscured is tricky.
Let's say your sentence is "A generation which ignores history has no past and no future" (Thanks, Robert Heinlein!). Your password becomes Agwihhnpanf. Probably you'll add or substitute a special character in there somewhere. It won't take more than five uses before you remember the letters. Then another 20 or so and it'll be muscle memory.
Of course, YMMV. But this has been my experience. Even more so when trying to use a mobile device.
24 character passwords are pretty impractical in my life, and indeed the life of tens of millions of others. Security engineering is much more successful when it works *with* the grain of human nature, not against it.
And single sodding sign-on never works reliably, so there's always some system that doesn't get updated in any reasonable timeframe with your new password
I have never been able to accurately type four common words without spaces and with the letters obscured. For that reason, I've always used Ross Anderson's suggested method of taking a phrase that means something to me and using the first letter of each word in the phrase. Sure 8 to 10 characters are less secure than 24, but it's a damn sight easier to type.
The reason people re-use passwords is overwhelmingly because so many sites require them. A vanishingly small percentage of the population could realistically expect to remember what may be 100 or more passwords to manage all their online activities. The variations in password acceptance across all those sites is equally irritating ("Do not use special characters" "You must use at least one special character" "Password must be at least 8 characters" "Password must be exactly six characters" etc etc).
Eh? The legislative process is influenceable by reference to external events (and internal processes), and while that may include lobbying, taking out ads in newspapers, writing to your legislators, etc etc, it also includes having regard to courts striking down laws as unconstitutional and having regard to court awards for damages against individuals and institutions.
So what if Tesla has a larger mark-up than other manufacturers? Are you arguing that this is immoral? What level of margin is moral, then, in your eyes?
The key point is that would-be drivers have plenty of choice of cars. They don't have to go with Tesla. Dealers are no longer a force driving down prices, even if that's what they were originally intended to be. They are third party intermediaries who drive prices up and make the market more complex, not less.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is a potential silver lining here: Just as oil spills give scientists an opportunity to try out new cleanup techniques, a large-scale smartphone recall may allow us to learn more about how to recycle smartphones."
We do know how to recycle smartphones. Apple even made a fancy robot called Liam to do it (where the impressive thing is that it does disassembly, which means a much higher rate of recovery of usable materials than standard methods). This is not an issue of skill but will.
The authentic voice of a Trump supporter. My, what a pleasure to have people like you around.
What the fuck are you talking about? Why would a competitor know in advance that part of the deal is that an old man will kiss her on the mouth whether she likes it or not?
Who said those were his worst offences? Oh, right. You did. But they're not.
Thank fuck for voices of sanity on Slashdot. It's extraordinary to see how many numpties there are here now. And fascist apologists.
She was the court-appointed defence lawyer who didn't want the case.
If you had the wit to be a lawyer (IKR, but bear with me on this...), what would you have done when assigned the case by the judge? You'd have turned it down, right? Because you're a Man of Principle. Do you know what would have happened next? No? Let me enlighten you: you'd have had to stop practising law. Because providing every defendant with a decent defence is a principle of the law.
How can people be so dumb as to not know this. Seriously, did you never read a legal thriller? Or watch a TV show about the criminal law? Or pay any attention *at all* in class?
And the transcripts and recordings are there for all to review, and she did not laugh about cutting the defendant loose. If you weren't hard of thinking, you could find this out for yourself.
Do you lot ever stop to even listen to yourself? Have you never heard of CHIP? Or her efforts on behalf of 9/11 first responders to secure them help for their health issues?
This is the woman whose husband helped broker the Good Friday agreement, and who as SoS has no doubt been involved in many other negotiations. The Good Friday agreement was, notoriously, brought into being partly at a time when the public position of the UK government was that it would not talk to the IRA at all. And talking to the IRA certainly involved moral compromise -- the sausage making she referred to -- which many found difficult to stomach. But the PONI* have benefited immeasurably from a move away from moral rigour to an acknowledgment of the value of peace, and even Ian bloody Paisley made that journey.
The triumphant pouncing of Trump's supporters on this statement is so depressing: it's like listening to a particularly dimwitted five year old complain about a physicist's line of reasoning.
* People of Northern Ireland. I still miss you, Simon Hoggart
It's pretty clear that there are plenty of undecided voters out there, and that some of them are being swayed by what they're hearing in the last few days (with more breaking for Clinton than Trump). The notion that there's nothing left to play for is decidedly at odds with the facts: this election is especially volatile.
Apparently, Warren Buffet disagrees with you to the tune of more than $2bn
Thank you for articulating what I thought but couldn't be arsed to type.
You assert that the only defence he has it whataboutery or personal attacks, yet the *very post you are replying to* specifically defended her on other grounds, to wit, "asked & answered". It makes you look really really stupid when you accuse someone of something that is not only demonstrably not true, but something that has immediately beforehand been demonstrated not to be true.
Don't be a twat. People here on Slashdot and in lots of other places are comparing Trump to fascist demagogues because he is labelling entire races and religions as flawed, and has proposed Muslim Americans be put on a register and all Muslim visitors be banned. Here's an exciting challenge for you: name a leader of a developed world country who's done this sort of thing in the last 70 years who's *not* been a fascist.
"If people were inherently honest"
And if pigs had wings, they'd be pigeons. Security engineering is about the real world, not the world as we would like it to be.
It is not true that it is illegal to lose your drivers' licence -- where on earth did you get that idea? It is illegal to drive without a licence in your possession but you are not breaking the law merely by losing your licence.
It is also not true that it is illegal to lose tax receipts from the last seven years. The Cohan Rule famously applies. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro...
If you're going to analogise, you need good analogies.
It *really* helps if you read the whole thread. The issue is not remembering the phrase, it's typing it accurately lots of times a day when you can't see what you're typing because the text is obscured.
I don't mentally parse a sentence each time -- it quickly becomes a mnemonic requiring no mental effort to recall. By contrast, typing 24 characters in a row without making a mistake while they're obscured is tricky.
Let's say your sentence is "A generation which ignores history has no past and no future" (Thanks, Robert Heinlein!). Your password becomes Agwihhnpanf. Probably you'll add or substitute a special character in there somewhere. It won't take more than five uses before you remember the letters. Then another 20 or so and it'll be muscle memory.
Of course, YMMV. But this has been my experience. Even more so when trying to use a mobile device.
24 character passwords are pretty impractical in my life, and indeed the life of tens of millions of others. Security engineering is much more successful when it works *with* the grain of human nature, not against it.
And single sodding sign-on never works reliably, so there's always some system that doesn't get updated in any reasonable timeframe with your new password
I have never been able to accurately type four common words without spaces and with the letters obscured. For that reason, I've always used Ross Anderson's suggested method of taking a phrase that means something to me and using the first letter of each word in the phrase. Sure 8 to 10 characters are less secure than 24, but it's a damn sight easier to type.
There are a number of sites I use infrequently, such as my pensions website, where I have to rely on password reset *every* *goddamn* *time*.
The reason people re-use passwords is overwhelmingly because so many sites require them. A vanishingly small percentage of the population could realistically expect to remember what may be 100 or more passwords to manage all their online activities. The variations in password acceptance across all those sites is equally irritating ("Do not use special characters" "You must use at least one special character" "Password must be at least 8 characters" "Password must be exactly six characters" etc etc).
I believe what the OP is on, is "sarcasm". It wasn't that hard to spot.
Eh? The legislative process is influenceable by reference to external events (and internal processes), and while that may include lobbying, taking out ads in newspapers, writing to your legislators, etc etc, it also includes having regard to courts striking down laws as unconstitutional and having regard to court awards for damages against individuals and institutions.
So what if Tesla has a larger mark-up than other manufacturers? Are you arguing that this is immoral? What level of margin is moral, then, in your eyes?
The key point is that would-be drivers have plenty of choice of cars. They don't have to go with Tesla. Dealers are no longer a force driving down prices, even if that's what they were originally intended to be. They are third party intermediaries who drive prices up and make the market more complex, not less.