It's frustrating, but it's not personal. It's just that a lot of people are really bad drivers.
Sometimes it is just bad driving but I can verify from first hand experience that very often it is VERY personal. I've had drivers intentionally try to drive me off the road. It wasn't bad driving and it wasn't them not knowing I was there. It was intentional vehicular assault. There are quite a few cases of drivers pulling in front of bicycle riders and brake checking them. I've had drivers throw soft drinks on me and spit at me. There was nothing accidental about that.
There are more than a handful of people who honestly and earnestly believe that bicycles do not belong on public roads.
People in this country hate bicyclists because some bicyclists are gigantic fucking morons.
Funny I could say EXACTLY the same thing about a lot of automobile drivers. Furthermore as someone whose ridden for most of his life that VAST majority of drivers flipping out has precisely zero to do with anything the rider did. I've had people throw soft drinks on me while riding when there was no possible way I was causing them any problems or danger. I've had people maliciously try to drive me off the road. I've had morons moon me, scream obscenities, flip me the bird, clip me with their car and more. NONE of this is due to any any actions of mine. It is 100% them being assholes without any cause in as far as I can tell every single case. You are correct that a small minority of bike riders behave like complete idiots but that doesn't excuse people in cars from acting like assholes towards those who ride responsibly and safely.
Not all of them, but a large enough percentage to where you know you have a good chance that a cyclist will do something staggeringly stupid just as you drive past them which is dangerous for everyone involved, but especially them.
Yeah still can say the exact same thing about people in cars. Both me and my father have literal scars on our faces from motorists doing profoundly stupid and irresponsible things around us. In my father's case he even got a settlement from the moron. The difference is that motorists are insulated from their routine stupidity by a few thousand pounds of metal so they think they somehow have more right to the road than someone on a bicycle even though legally they don't.
Yeah funny how cars tend to be on roads. Same roads that bikes have to use.
Maybe in the US, it's normal for bikes and cars to drive next to each other (that happened in my limited experience there).
In the VAST majority of the world it is normal for bikes and cars to drive next to each other because dedicated bike lanes are not available.
Here in Europe, most cities are building bike lanes networks
Many cities I've seen in Europe barely have roads wide enough for the cars much less cars plus bike lanes. Those ancient cities Europeans are so (rightly) proud of weren't often designed with the automobile in mind. Those that were are those that were rebuilt after WWII. And in case you weren't aware, not everyone lives in a city and not every city has bike lanes and even those that do don't have bike lanes everywhere. Even in Europe. Sooner or later bikes and cars have to share space.
You need to separate the heavy vehicles (cars, truck) from the light (bikes).
Never going to happen. Certainly not in most of the US and I'm fairly confident it won't happen in most of Europe either. Hell in China where they have wide avenues for bikes even those are getting intruded on by cars. I've been there and seen it myself. Oh there are efforts to retrofit bike lanes but the city planning was done without that in mind in most cases so it's borderline impossible or prohibitively expensive outside of a few lucky areas.
Think of it a bit like movie credits. A small indie production probably only has a few people involved. A big blockbuster (like the Human Genome Project) easily has thousands of people making meaningful contributions. The size of the credits should match accordingly.
About 33 percent of the number of people killed by guns in the US - depending on your metrics.
Which has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with drunk driving.
Don't see too many people giving a shit about that number.
You think nobody is against guns in the US and that nobody gives a shit? Wow, you have no clue do you? Just because there is a powerful gun lobby (read the NRA) in the US doesn't mean there isn't anyone on the other side of that issue.
Respectfully, 10,000 people a year is a barely a blip on the radar when dealing with causes of death.
10,000 deaths a year is a fucking catastrophe and if you think otherwise you have no sense of humanity or compassion.
Because MADD. After largely accomplishing their original objectives, they needed a new raison d'être.
Umm, what gives you the idea that drunk driving is no longer a problem? Roughly 1/3 of all accidents in the US involve alcohol according to eh CDC. That was about 10,000 people in the US in 2013.
You weren't by any chance involved with George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner were you?
Looking at changes to an entire nations food source is most certainly gambling, and based on the legal antics of the GMO players running the game today, what you label as a fear motivated ban others simply call common sense.
"Common sense" is based on evidence and good judgement. This is not common sense as it doesn't involve evidence, sound scientific advice or even a reasonable model of harm. If they want to treat GMO techniques with the sort of rigor they do drugs (plenty of testing of safety) then I don't have a principled objection to that provided the rules are vaguely sane and uniformly applied. But that isn't what they are doing. Just a blanket ban while dismissing the fact that all the evidence that so far shows no harm isn't common sense - it's idiotic.
Lots of people like to say things like 'there is no evidence that GMOs are dangerous.' But that is mirroring the hippy-dippy types who say that anything 'natural' is healthy.
That is a bad attempt at conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other. Saying there is no evidence of GMO crops being dangerous is (thus far) an accurate statement of fact. Doesn't mean or even imply there isn't something we don't know yet. But claiming GMO crops are dangerous when you have no evidence to support that claim is not remotely the same sort of statement as asserting that all "natural" things are healthy. One is a correct statement of the absence of evidence of harm and the other is an assertion of faith clearly contradicted by known facts about what is actually harmful. Saying there is no evidence that GMOs are dangerous does not imply that there will never be any such evidence. To use a poker analogy you play the hand you have until the known facts change. Anything else is irrational.
I don't remotely qualify as a "hippy dippy type". I very much have a scientific thought process on this. If there is some evidence of harm or even a credible model of potential harm then by all means let's slow down and figure out the best way to proceed. So far that doesn't appear to exist except in the mind of certain people. Their fears might even come to pass - I'm not dismissing the concern at all. If there is evidence of harm then I assure you I'll be first in line to mitigate that harm but until that day I'm going with the evidence over the fear.
Scotland's rural affairs minister has announced the country will ban the growing of genetically modified crops. He said, "I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14 billion food and drink sector."
Oh he's gambling with their food and drink sector but not in the way he thinks he is. Simply banning these crops in the absence of actual evidence of their harm will definitely cause an impact but probably not a positive one. I understand taking reasonable steps to evaluate the effects of new(ish) technologies but slapping a blanket ban on something without any actual evidence of harm seems rather short sighted. This is exactly the sort of thing that you need to have a rational and evidence based debate over. Not a fear motivated ban.
Fingerprints are Usernames, not Passwords. Using them as passwords is bad practice anyway.
Fingerprints are not usernames nor are they passwords. Security comes from having Things-You-Are, Things-You-Have, and Things-You-Know. Good security typically involves at least two of those Things if not all three. No security is unbreakable. Both usernames and passwords fall into the Things-You-Know which is why they are relatively easy to crack. This is why two factor authentication is a good idea because it generally relies on both a Thing-You-Know and a Thing-You-Have. Fingerprints are a Thing-You-Are though if not secured can become a Thing-You-Know/Have. At times they can be used like a username or a password but they are not the same thing and assuming they are the same thing is generally a mistake.
The biggest problem with Things-You-Are is also the biggest strength. Things-You-Are are generally the hardest to forge or circumvent but when they are they cannot be changed unlike Things-You-Have or Things-You-Know. So you don't want to use Things-You-Are too much.
Really? Because I do. I particularly object to pop-up ads, interstitial ads, large banner ads, and ANY ad that tries to track my behavior or browsing activity. Ads waste my time, intrude on my privacy and sometimes are malware vectors. I never have any interest in whatever crap they are trying to sell me so pretty much all the ads are nothing more than a waste of my time. My attention is valuable to me and I don't give it out for free. I don't buy shirts with large brands on them because I'm not being paid to promote them. If an ad company wants to pay me directly for my opinion on a product we can talk but it's going to be a direct negotiation most of the time.
I'm willing to pay for content which I think I have a reasonable chance of finding valuable or enjoyable. I occasionally purchase/rent/go-see movies. I subscribe to some journals. I subscribe to a few websites I find valuable. But if a company wants to use ads as their primary revenue source then chances are good I'm going to block or otherwise circumvent their attempt to hijack my time and attention.
After all, it's the bread and butter to support a lot of sites.
Their shitty business model is not my problem. If your business depends on pushing obnoxious ads and tracking my activity then you deserve to be blocked.
If I turn my steering wheel the wrong way, or if I run a stop sign, or even if I'm driving drunk - If i plow into your trusting kester, I might just kill myself as well. I have a really really good reason not to do any of that stuff because I have skin in that game. So that's nota reall good argument except in the case of a suicidal driver.
The fact that you have skin in the game means little. There are over 30,000 deaths each year in the US in automobiles and I assure you that most of them are far from suicidal.
The idea that you trust your ignition key to start the car is just silly.
Really? Ask GM whether we should worry about about trusting our lives to ignition switches.
Because people are trusting their life to a system that has consistently proven that it is not secure
You know what else I'm trusting my life to? You not turning your steering wheel a quarter turn left when we pass each other on the road. I'm trusting that you will actually stop at a stop sign. I'm trusting that my airbag will not malfunction. I'm trusting the ignition to actually work. I'm trusting that you are capable of driving competently unimpaired by alcohol. We trust our lives to a lot of things that have consistently proven to not be secure and this bit of hacking is no where near the top of the danger list. Sure, let's be concerned about it but let's not blow it out of proportion either.
The last time my 80s era roadster was patched was when it rolled off the production line. 30+ years on the long-term stable release! Beat that with your Tesla.
That's like bragging that you haven't patched your 486DX computer in 25 years. It's an obsolete POS and nobody is really impressed. Do you still use a Motorola MicroTAC phone or an Apple IIe too?
Why do we need to connect cars to the internet again?
Because you can do interesting and useful things by connecting to the internet. Up to date weather, traffic, and map data. Streaming media, OTA updates, OTA patches, inter-vehicle communications, and much more. Seriously you can't think of any use for internet connectivity in a vehicle?
Not going to happen, both the EPA and the CAFE standards have seen to that. There is ZERO chance you can meet the emission and mileage standards for any vehicle which doesn't include some kind of engine and drive train control electronics.
Those only apply to new cars. Old cars are still on the road and probably always will be. Plus you are able to build vehicles yourself that do not meet emissions standards. Not exactly difficult to source an engine and a chassis.
While true that this is a lot less worrisome than a remote attack, the fact that someone with an ethernet cable can bollix up the car it still attention worthy.
If a bad guy has physical access to my car, what they can do with an ethernet cable is frankly the least of my concerns.
Oh thank God. I have no idea why everyone doesn't do this wirelessly - cuz on the air updates are perfectly secure.
Unless someone has physical access to the car they should be very secure as long as the encryption algorithms used are secure. Key distribution isn't a problem because Tesla can load up the car with a cryptographic key during manufacturing. Hell they could even put in a stack of one time pads if they wanted. Key distribution is usually the big problem but it's not (or shouldn't be) an issue here.
While they could always make an error somewhere along the way, it should be reasonably straightforward to make the OTA updates very secure under most circumstances.
Any car or computer can be hacked when you have physical access to the car. Furthermore Tesla has apparently already issued a patch making this pretty much a non-event.
When they get hacked remotely with no physical access (which is conceivable) then we should sit up and pay attention.
This chart was made before Obama was elected, but it does show 40 years of trying dem policies and trying republican policies:
Your chart is nonsense because it doesn't indicate the unit of measure. It could be growth in bunny rabbits for all we know. Furthermore there are plenty of actually reputable sources of data that say you are wrong. See below.
You'll notice that economic growth has ALWAYS gotten worse under the EVERY democrat administration's budgets
The actual facts show you have that backwards. GDP growth has been higher when a democrat is in the white house. That said, you have missed the point. Arguing about which president was responsible for improving the economy is idiotic. The president has very limited control of the direction of the economy. Blaming or applauding the president for the state of the economy is basically and admission you have no idea how economics actually works.
In his first two years, when the dems had full control,of the houee and senate, he made the economy significantly WORSE.
Neither the president nor congress controls the economy. The economy went in the tank due to events that occurred during the Bush administration. Lehman Brothers and the rest of it occurred prior to Obama taking office. But as much as I might dislike either of those presidents neither of them were responsible for the economy tanking and their tools to help fix it are limited. Arguments that this president or that one "made the economy worse" are by and large stupid and ill informed.
The logical fallacy you are falling prey to is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because things happen in a temporal order doesn't mean they are causal. Economic cycles rarely have much to do with who is in office at a given time.
The unemployment rate for tech pros currently stands at 2.1 percent, down from 2.3 percent in the first quarter. However, that dip isn't uniform for all sectors: The unemployment rate for Web developers climbed from 2.1 percent to 3.1 percent.
A 1% or less change pretty much amounts to statistical noise. It is meaningless. That is almost certainly well within the amount of normal variation we should expect over short time periods. Furthermore those unemployment figures are roughly half that of the 5-6% unemployment rate currently enjoyed by the overall economy. Basically a 2-3% unemployment rate is as close as you ever get to full employment. It doesn't get better than that.
If you read the forums and the news pieces with comments, you'll see opinions are really divided:
Opinions are almost always divided. Some people think Windows 8 is great even though the consensus seems to be that it's crap. (I agree with the consensus opinion for the record) I agree that Microsoft is trying to make a single unified interface which isn't a dumb idea in principle but hard to pull off in practice. I haven't tried Win10 yet so I'm reserving judgement but I haven't been impressed with their design decisions so far so I'm not optimistic. Of course every other version of Windows is crap so maybe Win10 will be one they get right. (XP=good, Vista=crap, Win7=good, Win8=crap,...)
I think objectively the Windows 8 interface is a failure for people using a mouse/keyboard. Not to say with adjustments they couldn't get it working well but I have NO interest in working with Win8 any more than I absolutely have to.
Wrong. The problem is that Microsoft tried to cram a touch based interface onto a keyboard/mouse based system where it was wildly inappropriate. It has nothing to do with expectations and EVERYTHING to do with usability. Age and experience of the user is irrelevant to the problem. I'm perfectly comfortable getting used to a new interface despite being relatively older but Windows 8 just makes NO sense on a PC. All the interface conventions are for a touch based tablet which does not and never will work well with a mouse/keyboard.
In the end it's about sales, and "new and pretty" sells, and the changes aren't all that big of a leap for the younger crowd. It is what it is, adapter or die.
Microsoft gets virtually all their Windows sales through OEM channels where there is minimal or no choice in operating system. This wasn't users wanting new and pretty, it was Microsoft trying to integrate two different interfaces so they could get in the game for tablets and mobile devices. And they blew it. They didn't allow for the fact that the requirements of a PC are different than those of a tablet. Any system that wants to have both touch and keyboard/mouse input will need to be designed with that in mind from the ground up. You cannot take one or the other and cram them together. Microsoft didn't learn their lesson from their earlier attempts for tablet PCs where they attempted to put some touch features on a bog standard PC. Windows XP wasn't designed for that. Then they went 100% to the other extreme with Windows 8 and took a tablet interface and tried to cram it onto a PC which (predictably) didn't work either.
It's because it's never that simple. First of all, a government mandate that it refuses to pay for is an act of political cowardice.
Yes it really is that simple. And who said anything about a government mandate without funding? There absolutely should be funding to help small businesses out on this and yes this will mean raising taxes.
Other than that, if the government mandates employers pay for such long leaves, it will hugely penalize small companies, and prospective employment of women.
Only if our policies regarding that leave are as stupid as the barbaric policies we have now. Right now if a worker has a child they have the un-enviable choice of keeping their job or spending the appropriate amount of time with their child which is particularly hard during the first year of their life. If everyone (male and female) is guaranteed leave without fear of losing their job then it will not disadvantage any group or company of any size. We raise taxes and help small businesses out with funding employees who take parental leave.
Slashdot Mirror
It's frustrating, but it's not personal. It's just that a lot of people are really bad drivers.
Sometimes it is just bad driving but I can verify from first hand experience that very often it is VERY personal. I've had drivers intentionally try to drive me off the road. It wasn't bad driving and it wasn't them not knowing I was there. It was intentional vehicular assault. There are quite a few cases of drivers pulling in front of bicycle riders and brake checking them. I've had drivers throw soft drinks on me and spit at me. There was nothing accidental about that.
There are more than a handful of people who honestly and earnestly believe that bicycles do not belong on public roads.
Wouldn't a reasonably complicated combination lock basically serve the same purpose without needing any fancy electronics?
People in this country hate bicyclists because some bicyclists are gigantic fucking morons.
Funny I could say EXACTLY the same thing about a lot of automobile drivers. Furthermore as someone whose ridden for most of his life that VAST majority of drivers flipping out has precisely zero to do with anything the rider did. I've had people throw soft drinks on me while riding when there was no possible way I was causing them any problems or danger. I've had people maliciously try to drive me off the road. I've had morons moon me, scream obscenities, flip me the bird, clip me with their car and more. NONE of this is due to any any actions of mine. It is 100% them being assholes without any cause in as far as I can tell every single case. You are correct that a small minority of bike riders behave like complete idiots but that doesn't excuse people in cars from acting like assholes towards those who ride responsibly and safely.
Not all of them, but a large enough percentage to where you know you have a good chance that a cyclist will do something staggeringly stupid just as you drive past them which is dangerous for everyone involved, but especially them.
Yeah still can say the exact same thing about people in cars. Both me and my father have literal scars on our faces from motorists doing profoundly stupid and irresponsible things around us. In my father's case he even got a settlement from the moron. The difference is that motorists are insulated from their routine stupidity by a few thousand pounds of metal so they think they somehow have more right to the road than someone on a bicycle even though legally they don't.
...which requires the presence of cars.
Yeah funny how cars tend to be on roads. Same roads that bikes have to use.
Maybe in the US, it's normal for bikes and cars to drive next to each other (that happened in my limited experience there).
In the VAST majority of the world it is normal for bikes and cars to drive next to each other because dedicated bike lanes are not available.
Here in Europe, most cities are building bike lanes networks
Many cities I've seen in Europe barely have roads wide enough for the cars much less cars plus bike lanes. Those ancient cities Europeans are so (rightly) proud of weren't often designed with the automobile in mind. Those that were are those that were rebuilt after WWII. And in case you weren't aware, not everyone lives in a city and not every city has bike lanes and even those that do don't have bike lanes everywhere. Even in Europe. Sooner or later bikes and cars have to share space.
You need to separate the heavy vehicles (cars, truck) from the light (bikes).
Never going to happen. Certainly not in most of the US and I'm fairly confident it won't happen in most of Europe either. Hell in China where they have wide avenues for bikes even those are getting intruded on by cars. I've been there and seen it myself. Oh there are efforts to retrofit bike lanes but the city planning was done without that in mind in most cases so it's borderline impossible or prohibitively expensive outside of a few lucky areas.
Think of it a bit like movie credits. A small indie production probably only has a few people involved. A big blockbuster (like the Human Genome Project) easily has thousands of people making meaningful contributions. The size of the credits should match accordingly.
About 33 percent of the number of people killed by guns in the US - depending on your metrics.
Which has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with drunk driving.
Don't see too many people giving a shit about that number.
You think nobody is against guns in the US and that nobody gives a shit? Wow, you have no clue do you? Just because there is a powerful gun lobby (read the NRA) in the US doesn't mean there isn't anyone on the other side of that issue.
Respectfully, 10,000 people a year is a barely a blip on the radar when dealing with causes of death.
10,000 deaths a year is a fucking catastrophe and if you think otherwise you have no sense of humanity or compassion.
Because MADD. After largely accomplishing their original objectives, they needed a new raison d'être.
Umm, what gives you the idea that drunk driving is no longer a problem? Roughly 1/3 of all accidents in the US involve alcohol according to eh CDC. That was about 10,000 people in the US in 2013.
You weren't by any chance involved with George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner were you?
Looking at changes to an entire nations food source is most certainly gambling, and based on the legal antics of the GMO players running the game today, what you label as a fear motivated ban others simply call common sense.
"Common sense" is based on evidence and good judgement. This is not common sense as it doesn't involve evidence, sound scientific advice or even a reasonable model of harm. If they want to treat GMO techniques with the sort of rigor they do drugs (plenty of testing of safety) then I don't have a principled objection to that provided the rules are vaguely sane and uniformly applied. But that isn't what they are doing. Just a blanket ban while dismissing the fact that all the evidence that so far shows no harm isn't common sense - it's idiotic.
Lots of people like to say things like 'there is no evidence that GMOs are dangerous.' But that is mirroring the hippy-dippy types who say that anything 'natural' is healthy.
That is a bad attempt at conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other. Saying there is no evidence of GMO crops being dangerous is (thus far) an accurate statement of fact. Doesn't mean or even imply there isn't something we don't know yet. But claiming GMO crops are dangerous when you have no evidence to support that claim is not remotely the same sort of statement as asserting that all "natural" things are healthy. One is a correct statement of the absence of evidence of harm and the other is an assertion of faith clearly contradicted by known facts about what is actually harmful. Saying there is no evidence that GMOs are dangerous does not imply that there will never be any such evidence. To use a poker analogy you play the hand you have until the known facts change. Anything else is irrational.
I don't remotely qualify as a "hippy dippy type". I very much have a scientific thought process on this. If there is some evidence of harm or even a credible model of potential harm then by all means let's slow down and figure out the best way to proceed. So far that doesn't appear to exist except in the mind of certain people. Their fears might even come to pass - I'm not dismissing the concern at all. If there is evidence of harm then I assure you I'll be first in line to mitigate that harm but until that day I'm going with the evidence over the fear.
Scotland's rural affairs minister has announced the country will ban the growing of genetically modified crops. He said, "I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14 billion food and drink sector."
Oh he's gambling with their food and drink sector but not in the way he thinks he is. Simply banning these crops in the absence of actual evidence of their harm will definitely cause an impact but probably not a positive one. I understand taking reasonable steps to evaluate the effects of new(ish) technologies but slapping a blanket ban on something without any actual evidence of harm seems rather short sighted. This is exactly the sort of thing that you need to have a rational and evidence based debate over. Not a fear motivated ban.
Fingerprints are Usernames, not Passwords. Using them as passwords is bad practice anyway .
Fingerprints are not usernames nor are they passwords. Security comes from having Things-You-Are, Things-You-Have, and Things-You-Know. Good security typically involves at least two of those Things if not all three. No security is unbreakable. Both usernames and passwords fall into the Things-You-Know which is why they are relatively easy to crack. This is why two factor authentication is a good idea because it generally relies on both a Thing-You-Know and a Thing-You-Have. Fingerprints are a Thing-You-Are though if not secured can become a Thing-You-Know/Have. At times they can be used like a username or a password but they are not the same thing and assuming they are the same thing is generally a mistake.
The biggest problem with Things-You-Are is also the biggest strength. Things-You-Are are generally the hardest to forge or circumvent but when they are they cannot be changed unlike Things-You-Have or Things-You-Know. So you don't want to use Things-You-Are too much.
I have no objection of watching ads.
Really? Because I do. I particularly object to pop-up ads, interstitial ads, large banner ads, and ANY ad that tries to track my behavior or browsing activity. Ads waste my time, intrude on my privacy and sometimes are malware vectors. I never have any interest in whatever crap they are trying to sell me so pretty much all the ads are nothing more than a waste of my time. My attention is valuable to me and I don't give it out for free. I don't buy shirts with large brands on them because I'm not being paid to promote them. If an ad company wants to pay me directly for my opinion on a product we can talk but it's going to be a direct negotiation most of the time.
I'm willing to pay for content which I think I have a reasonable chance of finding valuable or enjoyable. I occasionally purchase/rent/go-see movies. I subscribe to some journals. I subscribe to a few websites I find valuable. But if a company wants to use ads as their primary revenue source then chances are good I'm going to block or otherwise circumvent their attempt to hijack my time and attention.
After all, it's the bread and butter to support a lot of sites.
Their shitty business model is not my problem. If your business depends on pushing obnoxious ads and tracking my activity then you deserve to be blocked.
If I turn my steering wheel the wrong way, or if I run a stop sign, or even if I'm driving drunk - If i plow into your trusting kester, I might just kill myself as well. I have a really really good reason not to do any of that stuff because I have skin in that game. So that's nota reall good argument except in the case of a suicidal driver.
The fact that you have skin in the game means little. There are over 30,000 deaths each year in the US in automobiles and I assure you that most of them are far from suicidal.
The idea that you trust your ignition key to start the car is just silly.
Really? Ask GM whether we should worry about about trusting our lives to ignition switches.
Because people are trusting their life to a system that has consistently proven that it is not secure
You know what else I'm trusting my life to? You not turning your steering wheel a quarter turn left when we pass each other on the road. I'm trusting that you will actually stop at a stop sign. I'm trusting that my airbag will not malfunction. I'm trusting the ignition to actually work. I'm trusting that you are capable of driving competently unimpaired by alcohol. We trust our lives to a lot of things that have consistently proven to not be secure and this bit of hacking is no where near the top of the danger list. Sure, let's be concerned about it but let's not blow it out of proportion either.
The last time my 80s era roadster was patched was when it rolled off the production line. 30+ years on the long-term stable release! Beat that with your Tesla.
That's like bragging that you haven't patched your 486DX computer in 25 years. It's an obsolete POS and nobody is really impressed. Do you still use a Motorola MicroTAC phone or an Apple IIe too?
Why do we need to connect cars to the internet again?
Because you can do interesting and useful things by connecting to the internet. Up to date weather, traffic, and map data. Streaming media, OTA updates, OTA patches, inter-vehicle communications, and much more. Seriously you can't think of any use for internet connectivity in a vehicle?
Not going to happen, both the EPA and the CAFE standards have seen to that. There is ZERO chance you can meet the emission and mileage standards for any vehicle which doesn't include some kind of engine and drive train control electronics.
Those only apply to new cars. Old cars are still on the road and probably always will be. Plus you are able to build vehicles yourself that do not meet emissions standards. Not exactly difficult to source an engine and a chassis.
While true that this is a lot less worrisome than a remote attack, the fact that someone with an ethernet cable can bollix up the car it still attention worthy.
If a bad guy has physical access to my car, what they can do with an ethernet cable is frankly the least of my concerns.
Oh thank God. I have no idea why everyone doesn't do this wirelessly - cuz on the air updates are perfectly secure.
Unless someone has physical access to the car they should be very secure as long as the encryption algorithms used are secure. Key distribution isn't a problem because Tesla can load up the car with a cryptographic key during manufacturing. Hell they could even put in a stack of one time pads if they wanted. Key distribution is usually the big problem but it's not (or shouldn't be) an issue here.
While they could always make an error somewhere along the way, it should be reasonably straightforward to make the OTA updates very secure under most circumstances.
Any car or computer can be hacked when you have physical access to the car. Furthermore Tesla has apparently already issued a patch making this pretty much a non-event.
When they get hacked remotely with no physical access (which is conceivable) then we should sit up and pay attention.
This chart was made before Obama was elected, but it does show 40 years of trying dem policies and trying republican policies:
Your chart is nonsense because it doesn't indicate the unit of measure. It could be growth in bunny rabbits for all we know. Furthermore there are plenty of actually reputable sources of data that say you are wrong. See below.
You'll notice that economic growth has ALWAYS gotten worse under the EVERY democrat administration's budgets
The actual facts show you have that backwards. GDP growth has been higher when a democrat is in the white house. That said, you have missed the point. Arguing about which president was responsible for improving the economy is idiotic. The president has very limited control of the direction of the economy. Blaming or applauding the president for the state of the economy is basically and admission you have no idea how economics actually works.
In his first two years, when the dems had full control,of the houee and senate, he made the economy significantly WORSE.
Neither the president nor congress controls the economy. The economy went in the tank due to events that occurred during the Bush administration. Lehman Brothers and the rest of it occurred prior to Obama taking office. But as much as I might dislike either of those presidents neither of them were responsible for the economy tanking and their tools to help fix it are limited. Arguments that this president or that one "made the economy worse" are by and large stupid and ill informed.
The logical fallacy you are falling prey to is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because things happen in a temporal order doesn't mean they are causal. Economic cycles rarely have much to do with who is in office at a given time.
The unemployment rate for tech pros currently stands at 2.1 percent, down from 2.3 percent in the first quarter. However, that dip isn't uniform for all sectors: The unemployment rate for Web developers climbed from 2.1 percent to 3.1 percent.
A 1% or less change pretty much amounts to statistical noise. It is meaningless. That is almost certainly well within the amount of normal variation we should expect over short time periods. Furthermore those unemployment figures are roughly half that of the 5-6% unemployment rate currently enjoyed by the overall economy. Basically a 2-3% unemployment rate is as close as you ever get to full employment. It doesn't get better than that.
If you read the forums and the news pieces with comments, you'll see opinions are really divided:
Opinions are almost always divided. Some people think Windows 8 is great even though the consensus seems to be that it's crap. (I agree with the consensus opinion for the record) I agree that Microsoft is trying to make a single unified interface which isn't a dumb idea in principle but hard to pull off in practice. I haven't tried Win10 yet so I'm reserving judgement but I haven't been impressed with their design decisions so far so I'm not optimistic. Of course every other version of Windows is crap so maybe Win10 will be one they get right. (XP=good, Vista=crap, Win7=good, Win8=crap,...)
I think objectively the Windows 8 interface is a failure for people using a mouse/keyboard. Not to say with adjustments they couldn't get it working well but I have NO interest in working with Win8 any more than I absolutely have to.
The issue is people want different things.
Wrong. The problem is that Microsoft tried to cram a touch based interface onto a keyboard/mouse based system where it was wildly inappropriate. It has nothing to do with expectations and EVERYTHING to do with usability. Age and experience of the user is irrelevant to the problem. I'm perfectly comfortable getting used to a new interface despite being relatively older but Windows 8 just makes NO sense on a PC. All the interface conventions are for a touch based tablet which does not and never will work well with a mouse/keyboard.
In the end it's about sales, and "new and pretty" sells, and the changes aren't all that big of a leap for the younger crowd. It is what it is, adapter or die.
Microsoft gets virtually all their Windows sales through OEM channels where there is minimal or no choice in operating system. This wasn't users wanting new and pretty, it was Microsoft trying to integrate two different interfaces so they could get in the game for tablets and mobile devices. And they blew it. They didn't allow for the fact that the requirements of a PC are different than those of a tablet. Any system that wants to have both touch and keyboard/mouse input will need to be designed with that in mind from the ground up. You cannot take one or the other and cram them together. Microsoft didn't learn their lesson from their earlier attempts for tablet PCs where they attempted to put some touch features on a bog standard PC. Windows XP wasn't designed for that. Then they went 100% to the other extreme with Windows 8 and took a tablet interface and tried to cram it onto a PC which (predictably) didn't work either.
It's because it's never that simple. First of all, a government mandate that it refuses to pay for is an act of political cowardice.
Yes it really is that simple. And who said anything about a government mandate without funding? There absolutely should be funding to help small businesses out on this and yes this will mean raising taxes.
Other than that, if the government mandates employers pay for such long leaves, it will hugely penalize small companies, and prospective employment of women.
Only if our policies regarding that leave are as stupid as the barbaric policies we have now. Right now if a worker has a child they have the un-enviable choice of keeping their job or spending the appropriate amount of time with their child which is particularly hard during the first year of their life. If everyone (male and female) is guaranteed leave without fear of losing their job then it will not disadvantage any group or company of any size. We raise taxes and help small businesses out with funding employees who take parental leave.