As someone who doesn't work in IT I have to ask, what are the chances of other big organizations learning from this? Are we talking other airlines will make sure they avoid the exact same scenario but don't bother putting any additional resources to other IT disasters, or are we talking other companies laugh at BA's customers and then cut IT support?
I say go for it. Millenials and whatever the younger generations are have been screwed over by boomers. If boomers want to throw peanuts to the younger generation in exchange for something they can easily regenerate, fine, it's better than the financial vampirism they've already done to education, social security etc.
No, but realize it also goes the other way too. I'm a biomedical researcher, I'll likely make more money quitting cutting edge research at a university and going into pharmecutical work. I'll be doing stuff that will have less risk of failing, but also has very little chance of being a big breakthrough. I'd love to continue doing what I am now, but I can't due to salary reasons. If money weren't an issue, I'd keep doing the high risk/high reward science as I am now.
My job puts food on the table and a roof over my head, sure, but I'm working mainly to accomplish stuff I can take pride in. If the necessities were guaranteed, I think plenty of people would take riskier work in order to feel accomplished.
Man, I hope no one realizes they could do this with taxes. The government would have no money and would have to shut down because the whole system would be broken.
You're saying you'd be unethical? I'll take your word for that. Just make sure you don't confuse that with thinking UBI would therefore be a failure because everyone is shameless like you.
Disagree. Virology as a field must progress if we want to avoid global pandemics. Manufacturing techniques for viruses aren't that different from biological research in general. Weaponizing them is the difficult part and has nothing to do with vaccination tech. Terrorist use of biological warfare doesn't require such technology either, all they'd need to do is find a smallpox or other pathogen sample and walk into an airport.
No. Smallpox, flu, chicken pox... all the viruses we vaccinate against don't kill genetically "weaker" people, they kill off the elderly, infants, and a few immunocompromised individuals, and make anyone else mildly to seriously sick.
If superflu or ebola is coming, it won't be because we have let such "weaker" individuals live. The elderly die off on their own, and infants of course grow out of susceptibility. Getting rid of them wouldn't have strengthened the human population any. Quite the opposite, it would have weakened us.
It's about risk, movie studios hate risking a loss on a big movie. Without people paying attention to reviews, they'll always break even.
Which is why it's so mind-boggling that they evidently don't bother reading the scripts they're producing. I mean "gods of egypt" sounded like a good idea to someone?
"lets make a movie based on that game 'battleship' that you played once as a kid then never again i bet everyone would line up to see that definitely."
Put up sanctions against us. Seriously. It would be entirely justified and then some. The world puts sanctions on countries for merely looking at certain countries the wrong way, and we're basically attacking all of you, and all your children, and all your children's children.
The areas of the country that realize climate change will be hurt by such sanctions, sure, but we didn't do enough to prevent this. Plus, it'll punish the red states that gleefully thumb their noses at the rest of you more. Deserved.
If you put sanctions on us and refuse to buy shit from us or trade with us, that drives down the amount of carbon we put in the air. It'll hurt us now, but that's better than letting us ruin shit.
Sanctions didn't really stop the spread of communism, despite many decades of trying, but I'm willing to bet that it could be effective in trying to prevent the spread of climate change.
Please, fuck us up economically. It's the only way we'll change and we deserve it now.
Possible exception being vaccines. I don't really see a downside there.
(and no, overpopulation is not a downside. We have enough resources and are not at overpopulation, the population is showing signs of stabilizing, and the diseases being vaccinated against generally weren't killing enough people to keep the numbers down).
Before Ulbricht was sentenced, prosecutors sent the judge a 16-page letter asking that in order to deter others he be given a lengthy sentence, one substantially above the mandatory minimum of 20 years.
Welp, I was about to setup a knockoff silk road, but given the harsh treatment of this guy, I'd better not. Good job prosecutors!
This is the equivalent of England taxing the colonies to pay for it's army which it then quartered in the houses of Americans, then without provocation declaring the Colonies were declaring war on it.
This argument is compelling, until one considers the quality of congress.
Elect congress and the president through actual democracy, like as in the people who get the most votes win, and it doesn't matter as much who decides. As such, aggressively ignorant, uneducated hicks are going to vote for a GOP congress that will do the same thing, only with slightly more polish.
Hell, as an American, I'm kind of thrilled. We have not been making good choices. The Chinese will make poor choices too undoubtedly, but at least I won't feel personally ashamed my country when they do it. FFS, "climate change is real and is the major issue of our time, but we're going to do the bare minimum to mitigate it" would be a massive improvement over our congress and red state decision makers.
But for every slam dunk case congress successfully prosecutes like that, there are silly nonsense things like investigating the financial crisis.
For those with republican brains, the above things were sarcasm. None of those things I mentioned as good congressional investigations were based on anything. Republicans endlessly pursue investigations based on absolutely nothing while ignoring serious crimes. "You can't even say what crimes Trump should be investigated on" is a massive double standard, and this should be obvious to anyone capable of voluntarily chewing. If voters held Trump to the same standard as we allow liberals to be held to, he would be in Guantanamo bay by now.
I suspect the finger pointing at "big government regulations" will dramatically increase as right-wing voters lose jobs. The writing on wall that the coal train isn't going to last forever has been there quite a while, and it's not rocket science that natural gas and automation are causing coal jobs to disappear, yet the useful idiot GOP voters of coal country are still convinced it was Obama deciding he didn't like white people.
Repealing protections will only make the situation worse, as will ripping up trade deals.
At some point, the right wing is going to decide that universal income totally fits into their ideology. To pay for it, we'll end social security, all federal funding will be distributed as block grants and left up to the states to allocate to universal incomes as needed, which will in most red states to be tax cuts to the wealthy. Kansas may be spared this as they seem to have already realized again reganomics don't work.
At the moment much of journalism has lost it's value.
Compared to when? Since the election, reporters seem to have started to grow up and take initiative.
The white house press corps has always been used to spread propaganda from the white house. There would be tough questions, sure, but the responses would be at most "uh, uh, uh, uh, lemme get back to you on that next question." It was never "crap, you win, we were being evil there." With the current administration, I think plenty of people are realizing real answers aren't being given in the press room. Political press conferences aren't investigative journalism of the kid that root out government corruption, and we're coming close to journalists realizing that.
Think of the big breaks during Obama and W. The ones I'm thinking of were manning and snowden. Those two patriots came forward, I got very little sense reporters went out and found them. I could be totally wrong here but I feel like those stories came to mainstream media, whereas now mainstream media is coming to the stories.
Doubtful. The farmers signed EULAs agreeing to not save seeds. The lexmark case here didn't seem to be covered by a EULA. Lexmark was suing a company that was refilling customers' printer cartridges. I'm guessing the refiller didn't sign an agreement with lexmark saying we won't do that. Lexmark maybe could have users sign EULAs agreeing to not refill their cartridges, but then they'd have to sue their own individual customers. Which would quickly kill lexmark. Monsanto on the other hand can clearly get away with suing their own customers since they're so dominant, and there are extremely high barriers for other competitors.
As I understand it, the seeds are hybrids designed to have a good balance of features. Second generation seeds from that wouldn't have those features. You plant a field of corn that's roundup ready. You spray glyphosphate on them. The corn lives, all other plants die. You save a bunch of money doing that instead of repeatedly spraying less effective heribcides. You decide to save even more money by replanting a portion of the corn you got from that crop. You spray glyphosphate on them and a lot of the corn dies. It's inbred corn, the glyphosphate resistance gene has not been carried in a good portion of the next generation. On top of that, the other traits carefully selected for aren't uniform either. Evidently even before Monsanto was around, most farmers weren't saving seeds for that reason.
Disclaimer: I'm not a farmer or a plant biologist, and monsanto DOES spend a ton of effort on punitive lawsuits and propaganda, so I could be entirely misinformed here.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it was more like this?
As someone who doesn't work in IT I have to ask, what are the chances of other big organizations learning from this? Are we talking other airlines will make sure they avoid the exact same scenario but don't bother putting any additional resources to other IT disasters, or are we talking other companies laugh at BA's customers and then cut IT support?
I say go for it. Millenials and whatever the younger generations are have been screwed over by boomers. If boomers want to throw peanuts to the younger generation in exchange for something they can easily regenerate, fine, it's better than the financial vampirism they've already done to education, social security etc.
Plus, as long as you match up the blood types and keep things clean, it doesn't hurt anyone. Unlike the stem cell superstition clinics currently targeting people with more money than ability to understand medical advice.
No, but realize it also goes the other way too. I'm a biomedical researcher, I'll likely make more money quitting cutting edge research at a university and going into pharmecutical work. I'll be doing stuff that will have less risk of failing, but also has very little chance of being a big breakthrough. I'd love to continue doing what I am now, but I can't due to salary reasons. If money weren't an issue, I'd keep doing the high risk/high reward science as I am now.
My job puts food on the table and a roof over my head, sure, but I'm working mainly to accomplish stuff I can take pride in. If the necessities were guaranteed, I think plenty of people would take riskier work in order to feel accomplished.
Man, I hope no one realizes they could do this with taxes. The government would have no money and would have to shut down because the whole system would be broken.
You're saying you'd be unethical? I'll take your word for that. Just make sure you don't confuse that with thinking UBI would therefore be a failure because everyone is shameless like you.
If we're ignorant and foolish enough to go to war with Europe rather than give up our right to fuck up the atmosphere, we deserve it.
You're wildly uninformed. Nigeria is the most dense country on the african continent. Number 73 worldwide. Well below several US territories. And hunger worldwide is falling dramatically. At least until climate change fucks everything up again.
Disagree. Virology as a field must progress if we want to avoid global pandemics. Manufacturing techniques for viruses aren't that different from biological research in general. Weaponizing them is the difficult part and has nothing to do with vaccination tech. Terrorist use of biological warfare doesn't require such technology either, all they'd need to do is find a smallpox or other pathogen sample and walk into an airport.
No. Smallpox, flu, chicken pox... all the viruses we vaccinate against don't kill genetically "weaker" people, they kill off the elderly, infants, and a few immunocompromised individuals, and make anyone else mildly to seriously sick.
If superflu or ebola is coming, it won't be because we have let such "weaker" individuals live. The elderly die off on their own, and infants of course grow out of susceptibility. Getting rid of them wouldn't have strengthened the human population any. Quite the opposite, it would have weakened us.
It's about risk, movie studios hate risking a loss on a big movie. Without people paying attention to reviews, they'll always break even.
Which is why it's so mind-boggling that they evidently don't bother reading the scripts they're producing. I mean "gods of egypt" sounded like a good idea to someone?
"lets make a movie based on that game 'battleship' that you played once as a kid then never again i bet everyone would line up to see that definitely."
Put up sanctions against us. Seriously. It would be entirely justified and then some. The world puts sanctions on countries for merely looking at certain countries the wrong way, and we're basically attacking all of you, and all your children, and all your children's children.
The areas of the country that realize climate change will be hurt by such sanctions, sure, but we didn't do enough to prevent this. Plus, it'll punish the red states that gleefully thumb their noses at the rest of you more. Deserved.
If you put sanctions on us and refuse to buy shit from us or trade with us, that drives down the amount of carbon we put in the air. It'll hurt us now, but that's better than letting us ruin shit.
Sanctions didn't really stop the spread of communism, despite many decades of trying, but I'm willing to bet that it could be effective in trying to prevent the spread of climate change.
Please, fuck us up economically. It's the only way we'll change and we deserve it now.
Possible exception being vaccines. I don't really see a downside there.
(and no, overpopulation is not a downside. We have enough resources and are not at overpopulation, the population is showing signs of stabilizing, and the diseases being vaccinated against generally weren't killing enough people to keep the numbers down).
They really only get out that early if they're white and rich. This guy presumably made the mistake of not being rich.
Before Ulbricht was sentenced, prosecutors sent the judge a 16-page letter asking that in order to deter others he be given a lengthy sentence, one substantially above the mandatory minimum of 20 years.
Welp, I was about to setup a knockoff silk road, but given the harsh treatment of this guy, I'd better not. Good job prosecutors!
Look at Kansas and tell me reganomics work at the state level.
Natural gas and automation killed coal. We didn't even begin to make the coal industry pay for its externalized costs.
This is the equivalent of England taxing the colonies to pay for it's army which it then quartered in the houses of Americans, then without provocation declaring the Colonies were declaring war on it.
This argument is compelling, until one considers the quality of congress.
Elect congress and the president through actual democracy, like as in the people who get the most votes win, and it doesn't matter as much who decides. As such, aggressively ignorant, uneducated hicks are going to vote for a GOP congress that will do the same thing, only with slightly more polish.
Which is why Nicaragua didn't sign it.. The other non-signer, Syria, is in a civil war.
The US is alone in insisting "climate change isn't real because fuck you, liberals, scientists, and future generations, that's why."
Hell, as an American, I'm kind of thrilled. We have not been making good choices. The Chinese will make poor choices too undoubtedly, but at least I won't feel personally ashamed my country when they do it. FFS, "climate change is real and is the major issue of our time, but we're going to do the bare minimum to mitigate it" would be a massive improvement over our congress and red state decision makers.
I would think that if people wanted him out so desperately and they had the goods they would have provided the evidence by now.
To a republican senate who won't even commit to pretending to investigate him?
Hell, they can't even articulate what crimes may have been committed. All they can do is throw out vague, over the top accusations.
Awful hard to do when no one with any power will actually investigate him.
And when has that stopped a congressional investigation before? We spent seven million dollars investigating whether Hillary Clinton personally led a band of islamic terrorists to murder soldiers and government employees and that was well worth it, she'll spend her prison time she earned from that thinking about what she's done. And of course all those climate change scientists, without congress we'd never have punished them for using a hockey stick to heat up the earth. And obviously, Congress very effectively ended the criminal organization that was ACORN many times, which as you know committed the double sin of trying to get poor people houses and also something clearly involving legalizing child prostitution.
But for every slam dunk case congress successfully prosecutes like that, there are silly nonsense things like investigating the financial crisis.
For those with republican brains, the above things were sarcasm. None of those things I mentioned as good congressional investigations were based on anything. Republicans endlessly pursue investigations based on absolutely nothing while ignoring serious crimes. "You can't even say what crimes Trump should be investigated on" is a massive double standard, and this should be obvious to anyone capable of voluntarily chewing. If voters held Trump to the same standard as we allow liberals to be held to, he would be in Guantanamo bay by now.
I suspect the finger pointing at "big government regulations" will dramatically increase as right-wing voters lose jobs. The writing on wall that the coal train isn't going to last forever has been there quite a while, and it's not rocket science that natural gas and automation are causing coal jobs to disappear, yet the useful idiot GOP voters of coal country are still convinced it was Obama deciding he didn't like white people.
Repealing protections will only make the situation worse, as will ripping up trade deals.
At some point, the right wing is going to decide that universal income totally fits into their ideology. To pay for it, we'll end social security, all federal funding will be distributed as block grants and left up to the states to allocate to universal incomes as needed, which will in most red states to be tax cuts to the wealthy. Kansas may be spared this as they seem to have already realized again reganomics don't work.
At the moment much of journalism has lost it's value.
Compared to when? Since the election, reporters seem to have started to grow up and take initiative.
The white house press corps has always been used to spread propaganda from the white house. There would be tough questions, sure, but the responses would be at most "uh, uh, uh, uh, lemme get back to you on that next question." It was never "crap, you win, we were being evil there." With the current administration, I think plenty of people are realizing real answers aren't being given in the press room. Political press conferences aren't investigative journalism of the kid that root out government corruption, and we're coming close to journalists realizing that.
Think of the big breaks during Obama and W. The ones I'm thinking of were manning and snowden. Those two patriots came forward, I got very little sense reporters went out and found them. I could be totally wrong here but I feel like those stories came to mainstream media, whereas now mainstream media is coming to the stories.
I dunno about immune. Just the bell curve of blackhat effort has passed it by. It's security through obscurity, not real security.
Doubtful. The farmers signed EULAs agreeing to not save seeds. The lexmark case here didn't seem to be covered by a EULA. Lexmark was suing a company that was refilling customers' printer cartridges. I'm guessing the refiller didn't sign an agreement with lexmark saying we won't do that. Lexmark maybe could have users sign EULAs agreeing to not refill their cartridges, but then they'd have to sue their own individual customers. Which would quickly kill lexmark. Monsanto on the other hand can clearly get away with suing their own customers since they're so dominant, and there are extremely high barriers for other competitors.
Additionally, there's not much reason to save seeds.
As I understand it, the seeds are hybrids designed to have a good balance of features. Second generation seeds from that wouldn't have those features. You plant a field of corn that's roundup ready. You spray glyphosphate on them. The corn lives, all other plants die. You save a bunch of money doing that instead of repeatedly spraying less effective heribcides. You decide to save even more money by replanting a portion of the corn you got from that crop. You spray glyphosphate on them and a lot of the corn dies. It's inbred corn, the glyphosphate resistance gene has not been carried in a good portion of the next generation. On top of that, the other traits carefully selected for aren't uniform either. Evidently even before Monsanto was around, most farmers weren't saving seeds for that reason.
Disclaimer: I'm not a farmer or a plant biologist, and monsanto DOES spend a ton of effort on punitive lawsuits and propaganda, so I could be entirely misinformed here.
That way if the laptop gets damaged, your data is safe and the airline has to buy you a new laptop.
Which airline? They all seem to say "You assume the risk of us breaking your stuff if you put it into checked baggage."
Additionally, most seem to say "Don't check your laptop because we can't be sure it won't get broken." Except now you have to. wah-wah.