Except it doesn't actually save energy. The last study which suggested it does was conducted in the 1970's and was the impetus behind the most recent change to the DST schedule in 1996 which lengthened it by several weeks throughout the year, and while the study predicted a measurable energy savings even for those few weeks, those savings completely failed to materialize, showing very clearly that the energy demands which the study had examined and predicted a savings on were an artifact of how energy was used at the time, and not reflective of how we use energy today. The reason the clocks were not changed back was because of the expense of invoking yet another change to DST. Abolishing it entirely, by comparison, would not produce anywhere nearly as much expense because there are many places that already do not observe DST.
Daylight until 8:30 PM during Summer never seemed all that helpful, but daylight when you're trying to drive home from work around 5:30? Now THAT is useful!
Not nearly as useful as having exposure to at least *some* sunlight in the morning before a person start's their work day. While it's true that many people begin their commute while it is still dark in the winter, a *vast* majority of them still get to experience at least some sunlight before heading indoors at the end of their commute. Exposure to even just 15 minutes of sunlight in the morning boosts seratonin levels, which in turn boosts melatonin production in the evening and is vital for having healthy and restful sleep... delaying exposure to sunlight until later in the day does not boost seratonin levels as high as it will in the morning and further delays melatonin production, leading to health problems related to the lack of restful sleep. You're talking about a "nice to have", but comparing it to something that we are biologically adapted to, which is to function primarily during the day.... well, as I've said before on this subject, evolution is not a democracy.
And while you wouldn't get the sudden chaos that changing the clocks twice per year brings, instead slowly ramping up and then slowly ramping down throughout the winter, but keeping the clocks pushed ahead through the winter months would be certainly disasterous for a period of about 3 to 4 weeks in the middle of winter for people who live north of about 45 degrees, which while not a majority of Americans, is still not a small a number.
The reason they report incorrect caller ID is because the exchange that the call is coming from is falsely reporting it.
The only way I can imagine to correct this would be to perform an end-to-end reverse lookup on the phone number that is claiming to be the one calling you and ask the exchange that is directly connected to that particular number if that number is making a call to your number, right now via a handshake protocol not entirely unlike starting a tcp connection.
I imagine it would be accompanied by an abrupt end to any sense of entitlement they thought they had as a US citizen.
Honestly, complying seems like a small price to pay to avoid what will likely seem like a living hell that will probably make a person wish they never lived there in the first place. Hope you don't have any connecting flight... oh, and you probably won't ever be allowed to fly ever again either.
Are you sure all that really worth "proving a point"?
The problem with debit cards for the consumer is the P.O.S. fees.
Depends where you bank.
And yes, many places charge fees for using a debit card.
The financial institution might (although again, it depends where you do your banking), but a store typically won't. By law, any additional fee the merchant asks for a debit charge is required to be displayed before you agree to complete the transaction, and cancellation of that transaction costs nothing to the consumer. In most cases, the merchant will simply stipulate a minimum purchase amount before accepting debit at all.
What people call "privacy" is nothing more than an illusion... it exists only because of whatever threshold a person might put up to prevent other people from seeing some particular detail about them happens to be greater than or at least equal to the effort that another hypothetically interested party is either willing or able to expend in order to surpass it. We are each responsible for our own privacy, and expecting laws to provide it for us is one of the worst things that we can do, because it's not going to stop people who are interested enough in what we do anyways, and there's absolutely no assurances beyond what measures we might take for ourselves to ensure that our privacy remains respected anyways.
Cashless is empirically proven to be safer, and the impact that has on the physical health and safety of civilization should trump any subjective desire that one has to "protect their own privacy". If a person desires so much privacy that they prefer to not be identifiable within a society when the mechanisms that might cause any appearance of less privacy still have a clear and measurable benefit to that society, then I would suggest that the most logical course of action for that person would be to withdraw from that society entirely.
Or... you could admit that we shouldn't be trying to force that kind of asinine attitude on our bodies in the first place, and forcing everyone to not have any morning sunlight just because some people think that having more sunlight in the evening is better. But evolution is not a democracy. Regardless of what people *think* might somehow be subjectively "better", we are biologically adapted to function at our best during the daytime, and depriving people of morning sunlight in exchange for more evening sunlight is a vain proposal that gives precisely zero thought to the measurable impacts that it would have on physical health of absolutely everyone during the winter.
I get that some people already have to be at work really early and don't get any sunlight during their morning commute already during the months of December and January, but pushing DST year-round will force those effects upon a *FAR* larger segment of the population. Instead of just one or two days of increased accidents right after an abrupt semi-annual time change, with the clocks permanently pushed an hour ahead you will instead get a slow ramping up of accidents associated with a lack of restful sleep as you get into late November and December (quite distinctly larger than the effects you already get associated with poorer road conditions), which will peak towards the end of the year, and then slowly ramp back down in January and early February as the sun starts to rise earlier and earlier again. "Recess" isn't going to fix that.
I'm in Florida and we have too much fucking sun here.
I empathize with you, seriously, but the problem I mentioned becomes quite serious the further north you go. I can imagine that in the southern states, such as Florida, this is less of an issue because the difference in the amount of daylight received between summer and winter is not as wide as it is once you start going further north. Basically, anything north of about the 45th parallel is going to start to experience problems with the sun rising too late in the day in the winter if DST is adopted year 'round. Not to mention the fact that in the middle of summer, especially as you go even further north, the sun is already setting very late. Does anyone really *NEED* the sun to still be up at 10:30pm, for example? Again, the closer you get to the equator, the less likely this is to be an issue, but Washington state is certainly far enough north to be impacted by this. Also, there's Canada, which would have significant economic incentive to follow suit, and would experience the effects even worse.
While the problems that DST creates with the adjustment of sleep schedules are severe,they are at least relatively shortlived... tending to take no more than a few days to typically resolve, particularly if one makes an concerted effort by perhaps going to bed slightly earlier the next night to give their body as much as maybe an extra 15 to 30 minutes to make up for the lack of sleep the previous night. The effects of insufficient sunlight exposure in the morning is by comparison far more subtle, but the effects are also going to also be far more long lasting. Exposure to sunlight increases seratonin levels, which in turn will boost melatonin production later in the day, both of which are extremely important in regulating a healthy sleep cycle. If you delay the production of serotonin until late in the day, then melatonin production is similarly delayed. Now imagine instead of not getting a good night's sleep for only one night, and needing perhaps as much as maybe a week to recover from it, you extend that by not getting a good night's sleep for several weeks on end. You wouldn't get the sudden trauma at all by keeping the clocks further ahead like you do with the semi-annual DST one-hour shift, but you'd still get the effects of people not getting a decent night's sleep for many weeks until the sun started coming up earlier again.
I am 100% in favor of abolishing DST, but I am categorically against keeping the clocks pushed ahead even during the winter.
... but there are quite proven medical benefits to having at least some amount of exposure to sunlight early in the day.... and while it's bad enough in the wintertime near the 49th parallel when the sun doesn't rise until nearly 8 am (or sometimes even later) in the middle of winter, with DST in effect, the sun wouldn't be up until nearly 9am. That might not seem to directly matter much for people who have to be at work before 8am anyways, or often even earlier, but by moving sunrise to an hour later than what it currently is, the decision to move the clocks ahead is going to impact *FAR* more people when the sun is already rising quite late.
At the very least, you know for sure that school-aged kids would be adversely impacted by this during the middle of winter, by not having exposure to sunlight before they start their day.
But hey... I'm sure that the convenience of an extra hour of daylight at the end of the day is going to *far* outweigh the medical issues associated with the lack of morning sunlight, amiright?
My point is that the party that is being paid $10k in this case is not the one providing any benefit to the other party, and any benefit the paying party might receive is arguably simply serendipitous, and certainly not grounds to suggest that the terms are inherently reciprocative.
No, but contracts are supposed to provide mutual benefit aren't they? One party giving up $10k while the other provides nothing in return is not a reciprocative agreement, and I would think that those terms could be considered unconscionable on those grounds.
No, the standard for success is that the new technology not necessarily be superior in *every* way, but unless the new technology can overcome at least most of the practical hurdles it faces in ubiquitous adoption, it cannot succeed.
In no particular order, these are the factors that keep most people away from EV's today.
Cost to buy: Fully electric vehicles currently typically cost at least $10k more than *comparable* gas-only models. That means a substantially bigger car payment each month.
Range: Only the most expensive EVs have a battery range exceeding 400 km. Most lower-cost models available now are below 200 km, particularly in cold weather. While fine for the average daily commuter, that kind of range means longer roadtrips come with pit stops and require some extra planning around the availability of charging stations.
Where to recharge: Coupled with the limited range of some EVs, you don't see anywhere near as many public chargers as you do gas stations across the country. That scares people.
Time to recharge: It takes a few minutes to refuel a gas vehicle. Recharging an EV takes about half an hour with the fastest public chargers available, but it can be double that at some public stations -- and as long as 14 hours for a full charge with the slowest types of chargers.
I would suggest that at *LEAST* one of these four factors needs to be permanently and entirely resolved, or some combination of them in part, before you can seriously expect electric cars to truly supplant gasoline vehicles.
"New" does not denote a number of days and is thus useless and vague. 0-day is a technical term to describe a technical concept. Yes. Don't like it? Too fucking bad, it's been there forever.
No, it has not... it has only been used in the context of exploits since the late 1990's. Go ahead... try and find a single reference to "0-day" used in the context of exploits or hacking before 1998.
Prior to this), the expression was only applied to copyright infringement, and specifically referred to any (pirated) copyrighted work that got released the same day as the original product, or sometimes even before. Adapting this definition to refer to exploits suggests that the exploit is discovered on the same day (or before) as the product that it exploits is released, or at least on or before the time when the developer releases the most up-to-date security updates. Obviously you cannot apply this meaning to software that hasn't been updated recently, such as Windows 7, and I believe that casually using the term to simply mean that the exploit was caught before the developer knew about it is liable to cause confusion. Absolutely *ANY* exploit that is discovered by someone other than the developer would meet this definition, so at best, the term is redundant, especially for software that isn't under active development anyways.
But you can go ahead... keep on saying how dumb I am for thinking like this... since you obviously feel some sort of need to keep saying it.
That's all I meant. I didn't mean anything about COBOL.
I had no particular way to know that, since you said:
Java is the COBOL of the 21st century. It will be around forever for the same reason as COBOL.
This is the particular statement I disagreed with. If you are asserting that Java will be around for a long time because it is entrenched, I can't disagree with that assessment.
I will, however, take exception that it will stick around for the same reasons as COBOL did. It is the design of COBOL and its paradigms that make it impractical to translate most programs written in it into a modern language, not simply the amount of code that is out there that is written in it. This reason would not apply to Java, and despite how entrenched it might be, rewriting even all of those Java applications would still remain a tractable problem. I expect that they might stick around for many decades to come because people will be too lazy or indifferent about translating them more than because it is genuinely economically impractical to do so.
"New" is plain english... "0-day" is a technical term that has a particular meaning which is not necessarily intuitively grasped from context, and as I have argued, is therefore more ambiguous.
But my opening question has been answered... apparently it is just me.
The same thing that makes unconscionable terms in a contract such as selling your children into slavery as unenforceable would, I think, also make any outrageous terms that allege to promise a large cash prize for someone who simply asked about it equally unenforceable.
I mean, it's all very well and good that they stepped up and paid it out, but can someone explain why the company would actually obligated be obligated to honor such terms?
Obviously it's 0 days since discovery, because if it was actually discovered before that, then it's not new... it would be a "known exploit" instead of a "new exploit". And how do you figure that "0-day" is shorter than "new"?
By itself, the expression "0-day exploit" on some software X might suggest, following simply an English definition of the words, an exploit that was discovered less than 1 day after the most recent update to software X. That's not what the term actually means, however, and it's why I think the expression is ambiguous, and quite honestly sounds like a buzzword being used by someone who is only trying to sell you something.
It entirely adequately describes it.... "0-day" is just jargon for "new", which by definition means it wasn't around before. It just happens mean it was discovered on the day that the developers knew about the exploit, but if the developers actually already knew about the exploit, then it isn't really new is it?
Worse, "0-day" can suggest to a person unfamiliar with the precise definition that the exploit was discovered less than one day after the relevant software had been most recently updated, which of course makes absolutely no sense when you are talking about software that hasn't been updated in years such as Windows 7.
Calling it a new exploit, or previously unknown exploit, is descriptive to anyone who knows english, and does not require familiarity with some fancy term that quite honestly just sounds like an overused buzzword.
Exactly, so why bother with the jargon? "New" is plain english, 0-day is jargon. It obfuscates what is being talked about and sounds like its trying to grab headlines by using a fancy buzzword.
The problem with "0-day", is, as I said, that it sounds like jargon... like a buzzword that people overuse when they want to invoke an emotional reaction to the concept rather than using regular English words to say the same thing.
Calling it a a newly discovered exploit instead of a 0-day exploit is both more informative by virtue of being in plain English and doesn't come across as trying to push some agenda for software that detects and removes malware.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it doesn't actually save energy. The last study which suggested it does was conducted in the 1970's and was the impetus behind the most recent change to the DST schedule in 1996 which lengthened it by several weeks throughout the year, and while the study predicted a measurable energy savings even for those few weeks, those savings completely failed to materialize, showing very clearly that the energy demands which the study had examined and predicted a savings on were an artifact of how energy was used at the time, and not reflective of how we use energy today. The reason the clocks were not changed back was because of the expense of invoking yet another change to DST. Abolishing it entirely, by comparison, would not produce anywhere nearly as much expense because there are many places that already do not observe DST.
Not nearly as useful as having exposure to at least *some* sunlight in the morning before a person start's their work day. While it's true that many people begin their commute while it is still dark in the winter, a *vast* majority of them still get to experience at least some sunlight before heading indoors at the end of their commute. Exposure to even just 15 minutes of sunlight in the morning boosts seratonin levels, which in turn boosts melatonin production in the evening and is vital for having healthy and restful sleep... delaying exposure to sunlight until later in the day does not boost seratonin levels as high as it will in the morning and further delays melatonin production, leading to health problems related to the lack of restful sleep. You're talking about a "nice to have", but comparing it to something that we are biologically adapted to, which is to function primarily during the day.... well, as I've said before on this subject, evolution is not a democracy.
And while you wouldn't get the sudden chaos that changing the clocks twice per year brings, instead slowly ramping up and then slowly ramping down throughout the winter, but keeping the clocks pushed ahead through the winter months would be certainly disasterous for a period of about 3 to 4 weeks in the middle of winter for people who live north of about 45 degrees, which while not a majority of Americans, is still not a small a number.
[nt]
Sure, but what do you do if they falsely report it?
The reason they report incorrect caller ID is because the exchange that the call is coming from is falsely reporting it.
The only way I can imagine to correct this would be to perform an end-to-end reverse lookup on the phone number that is claiming to be the one calling you and ask the exchange that is directly connected to that particular number if that number is making a call to your number, right now via a handshake protocol not entirely unlike starting a tcp connection.
... would it really hurt to give some kind of warning to that effect?
I imagine it would be accompanied by an abrupt end to any sense of entitlement they thought they had as a US citizen.
Honestly, complying seems like a small price to pay to avoid what will likely seem like a living hell that will probably make a person wish they never lived there in the first place. Hope you don't have any connecting flight... oh, and you probably won't ever be allowed to fly ever again either.
Are you sure all that really worth "proving a point"?
Depends where you bank.
The financial institution might (although again, it depends where you do your banking), but a store typically won't. By law, any additional fee the merchant asks for a debit charge is required to be displayed before you agree to complete the transaction, and cancellation of that transaction costs nothing to the consumer. In most cases, the merchant will simply stipulate a minimum purchase amount before accepting debit at all.
Perhaps, but to continue with the metaphor, the cars that are only doing 60 might be easier to catch.
Cashless is empirically proven to be safer, and the impact that has on the physical health and safety of civilization should trump any subjective desire that one has to "protect their own privacy". If a person desires so much privacy that they prefer to not be identifiable within a society when the mechanisms that might cause any appearance of less privacy still have a clear and measurable benefit to that society, then I would suggest that the most logical course of action for that person would be to withdraw from that society entirely.
Or... you could admit that we shouldn't be trying to force that kind of asinine attitude on our bodies in the first place, and forcing everyone to not have any morning sunlight just because some people think that having more sunlight in the evening is better. But evolution is not a democracy. Regardless of what people *think* might somehow be subjectively "better", we are biologically adapted to function at our best during the daytime, and depriving people of morning sunlight in exchange for more evening sunlight is a vain proposal that gives precisely zero thought to the measurable impacts that it would have on physical health of absolutely everyone during the winter.
I get that some people already have to be at work really early and don't get any sunlight during their morning commute already during the months of December and January, but pushing DST year-round will force those effects upon a *FAR* larger segment of the population. Instead of just one or two days of increased accidents right after an abrupt semi-annual time change, with the clocks permanently pushed an hour ahead you will instead get a slow ramping up of accidents associated with a lack of restful sleep as you get into late November and December (quite distinctly larger than the effects you already get associated with poorer road conditions), which will peak towards the end of the year, and then slowly ramp back down in January and early February as the sun starts to rise earlier and earlier again. "Recess" isn't going to fix that.
I empathize with you, seriously, but the problem I mentioned becomes quite serious the further north you go. I can imagine that in the southern states, such as Florida, this is less of an issue because the difference in the amount of daylight received between summer and winter is not as wide as it is once you start going further north. Basically, anything north of about the 45th parallel is going to start to experience problems with the sun rising too late in the day in the winter if DST is adopted year 'round. Not to mention the fact that in the middle of summer, especially as you go even further north, the sun is already setting very late. Does anyone really *NEED* the sun to still be up at 10:30pm, for example? Again, the closer you get to the equator, the less likely this is to be an issue, but Washington state is certainly far enough north to be impacted by this. Also, there's Canada, which would have significant economic incentive to follow suit, and would experience the effects even worse.
While the problems that DST creates with the adjustment of sleep schedules are severe,they are at least relatively shortlived... tending to take no more than a few days to typically resolve, particularly if one makes an concerted effort by perhaps going to bed slightly earlier the next night to give their body as much as maybe an extra 15 to 30 minutes to make up for the lack of sleep the previous night. The effects of insufficient sunlight exposure in the morning is by comparison far more subtle, but the effects are also going to also be far more long lasting. Exposure to sunlight increases seratonin levels, which in turn will boost melatonin production later in the day, both of which are extremely important in regulating a healthy sleep cycle. If you delay the production of serotonin until late in the day, then melatonin production is similarly delayed. Now imagine instead of not getting a good night's sleep for only one night, and needing perhaps as much as maybe a week to recover from it, you extend that by not getting a good night's sleep for several weeks on end. You wouldn't get the sudden trauma at all by keeping the clocks further ahead like you do with the semi-annual DST one-hour shift, but you'd still get the effects of people not getting a decent night's sleep for many weeks until the sun started coming up earlier again.
I am 100% in favor of abolishing DST, but I am categorically against keeping the clocks pushed ahead even during the winter.
At the very least, you know for sure that school-aged kids would be adversely impacted by this during the middle of winter, by not having exposure to sunlight before they start their day.
But hey... I'm sure that the convenience of an extra hour of daylight at the end of the day is going to *far* outweigh the medical issues associated with the lack of morning sunlight, amiright?
My point is that the party that is being paid $10k in this case is not the one providing any benefit to the other party, and any benefit the paying party might receive is arguably simply serendipitous, and certainly not grounds to suggest that the terms are inherently reciprocative.
No, but contracts are supposed to provide mutual benefit aren't they? One party giving up $10k while the other provides nothing in return is not a reciprocative agreement, and I would think that those terms could be considered unconscionable on those grounds.
Are you are about that? I've heard that they are very popular in the places they are used.
No, the standard for success is that the new technology not necessarily be superior in *every* way, but unless the new technology can overcome at least most of the practical hurdles it faces in ubiquitous adoption, it cannot succeed.
In no particular order, these are the factors that keep most people away from EV's today.
Cost to buy: Fully electric vehicles currently typically cost at least $10k more than *comparable* gas-only models. That means a substantially bigger car payment each month.
Range: Only the most expensive EVs have a battery range exceeding 400 km. Most lower-cost models available now are below 200 km, particularly in cold weather. While fine for the average daily commuter, that kind of range means longer roadtrips come with pit stops and require some extra planning around the availability of charging stations.
Where to recharge: Coupled with the limited range of some EVs, you don't see anywhere near as many public chargers as you do gas stations across the country. That scares people.
Time to recharge: It takes a few minutes to refuel a gas vehicle. Recharging an EV takes about half an hour with the fastest public chargers available, but it can be double that at some public stations -- and as long as 14 hours for a full charge with the slowest types of chargers.
I would suggest that at *LEAST* one of these four factors needs to be permanently and entirely resolved, or some combination of them in part, before you can seriously expect electric cars to truly supplant gasoline vehicles.
No, it has not... it has only been used in the context of exploits since the late 1990's. Go ahead... try and find a single reference to "0-day" used in the context of exploits or hacking before 1998.
Prior to this), the expression was only applied to copyright infringement, and specifically referred to any (pirated) copyrighted work that got released the same day as the original product, or sometimes even before. Adapting this definition to refer to exploits suggests that the exploit is discovered on the same day (or before) as the product that it exploits is released, or at least on or before the time when the developer releases the most up-to-date security updates. Obviously you cannot apply this meaning to software that hasn't been updated recently, such as Windows 7, and I believe that casually using the term to simply mean that the exploit was caught before the developer knew about it is liable to cause confusion. Absolutely *ANY* exploit that is discovered by someone other than the developer would meet this definition, so at best, the term is redundant, especially for software that isn't under active development anyways.
But you can go ahead... keep on saying how dumb I am for thinking like this... since you obviously feel some sort of need to keep saying it.
I had no particular way to know that, since you said:
This is the particular statement I disagreed with. If you are asserting that Java will be around for a long time because it is entrenched, I can't disagree with that assessment.
I will, however, take exception that it will stick around for the same reasons as COBOL did. It is the design of COBOL and its paradigms that make it impractical to translate most programs written in it into a modern language, not simply the amount of code that is out there that is written in it. This reason would not apply to Java, and despite how entrenched it might be, rewriting even all of those Java applications would still remain a tractable problem. I expect that they might stick around for many decades to come because people will be too lazy or indifferent about translating them more than because it is genuinely economically impractical to do so.
"New" is plain english... "0-day" is a technical term that has a particular meaning which is not necessarily intuitively grasped from context, and as I have argued, is therefore more ambiguous.
But my opening question has been answered... apparently it is just me.
I mean, it's all very well and good that they stepped up and paid it out, but can someone explain why the company would actually obligated be obligated to honor such terms?
Obviously it's 0 days since discovery, because if it was actually discovered before that, then it's not new... it would be a "known exploit" instead of a "new exploit". And how do you figure that "0-day" is shorter than "new"?
By itself, the expression "0-day exploit" on some software X might suggest, following simply an English definition of the words, an exploit that was discovered less than 1 day after the most recent update to software X. That's not what the term actually means, however, and it's why I think the expression is ambiguous, and quite honestly sounds like a buzzword being used by someone who is only trying to sell you something.
It entirely adequately describes it.... "0-day" is just jargon for "new", which by definition means it wasn't around before. It just happens mean it was discovered on the day that the developers knew about the exploit, but if the developers actually already knew about the exploit, then it isn't really new is it?
Worse, "0-day" can suggest to a person unfamiliar with the precise definition that the exploit was discovered less than one day after the relevant software had been most recently updated, which of course makes absolutely no sense when you are talking about software that hasn't been updated in years such as Windows 7.
Calling it a new exploit, or previously unknown exploit, is descriptive to anyone who knows english, and does not require familiarity with some fancy term that quite honestly just sounds like an overused buzzword.
Exactly, so why bother with the jargon? "New" is plain english, 0-day is jargon. It obfuscates what is being talked about and sounds like its trying to grab headlines by using a fancy buzzword.
The problem with "0-day", is, as I said, that it sounds like jargon... like a buzzword that people overuse when they want to invoke an emotional reaction to the concept rather than using regular English words to say the same thing.
Calling it a a newly discovered exploit instead of a 0-day exploit is both more informative by virtue of being in plain English and doesn't come across as trying to push some agenda for software that detects and removes malware.