A) That mechanized fantasy is self-repairing. As time goes by, I suspect it will be quite resilient.
B) War will be mechanized also... I wouldn't count on there being an "other side of the fence". Try not to build your human outpost on any oil resources.
Who says the truck will be alone? It can be accompanied by self-driving armed escort, complete with arial drone cover support (using the other self-driving vehicles like aircraft carriers). And humans may be able to log in remotely to command those defenses as needed. The future possibilities are boundless... in all vectors.
It should be straightforward to hide those unpatched machines behind a proxy. Give them an Ethernet connection to only one other machine and let that other machine be fully patched and updatable.
That's a fix, but, honestly, I'm confused why critical medical equipment is fully exposed to the network in the first place.
Then why is it on the network? Give the scanner a local net of just itself and a proxy. Let the proxy run something modern and patched. There's no reason to have the antiquated system directly exposed.
It doesn't make the research useless. You can find plenty of recent research that any conversation with someone not in the vehicle -- i.e., someone who doesn't know when to shut up when road conditions get interesting -- raises accident risk considerably, whether the phone is hands-free or not. I've seen stats indicating that having kids in a car where the only adult is the driver shows the same tendency, although not the same degree.
You can Google around for the research. Someone earlier on this slashdot thread found this paper, for example. The exact level of risk varies between studies, but all of them are considerable. That's why studies of cell phone use have begun including hands-free use.
And the fact that a lot of the places to mine involve drinking water, endangered species, people's homes, existing structures... I would hardly call the regulatory process "the only problem." That rather seriously mischaracterizes the issue, as if it is the government needlessly standing in the way of harvesting these materials. The regulatory process is there to sort out competing claims for use of land and resources.
> Products with a defined "end of life" are extremely damaging to consumers and to the environment.
Not in all cases. There are some things where the environmental quality of the device has come such a long way, it would actually be better if they did have a defined end-of-life so they leave service. Other items are so environmentally intensive to replace, it makes sense to keep even the worst running as long as possible. It varies wildly by device depending upon manufacturing damage vs ongoing-use damage.
Can you post a list of tractor/combine manufacturing companies that DON'T do this? I think you'll find that there are none.
Meanwhile, there are fields to harvest, and if you prefer to work with the older tools, that's fine, but your competitor is using the new "locked-down" tractor.
This is one of those times when the only way out is collective action by a group of citizens acting as one to force a change... i.e., representative government regulation.
I have the impression that you are deliberately missing the point. Consider spending some time interviewing women in tech roles on this topic. Perhaps they can convey the depth of the problem better than I can.
I'm not sure how to go about checking this -- it's been years since I've had a regular print copy of any paper, and Times isn't local to me.
Having said that, when you search the online site for that article, the search results specifies that there was a print headline for the story:
https://query.nytimes.com/sear...
If I find a copy of the Times later this week, I'll take a look.
But your assertion still makes no sense... if they were as biased as you claim, why would they carry the story in their online reporting?
That's a reasonable hypothesis, and one that has been checked... the data does not tend to bear out that supposition. The head of HR is rarely in charge of all the entry level hiring... indeed, most hiring decisions aren't made by HR. HR rounds up candidates and on-boards them once they accept an offer, but the offers usually come from middle layer project management, and those positions are dominantly male (though, as I say, women in those roles tend to have the same bias, albeit to a slightly lesser degree).
Were those assholes liked by their superiors? That's what gets promotions. The data from numerous researchers finds that the people with decision making power in corporations (both male and female) TEND to see an up-and-coming assertive (asshole) male as an asset and an up-and-coming assertive (asshole) female as a detriment. At any given company, there may not be these limits, so your personal experience may vary, but across the industry, the bias shows up pretty significantly in data, even when correcting for an employee taking time out of the workforce. A woman who doesn't take time off to have or raise kids and who is excellent at her job will still tend to hit a ceiling, particularly in the tech industry, and that limitation appears to be because of bias against them. So to advance, most women have to take a less abrasive tone, and that generally weakens their bargaining position vis-a-vis the men during negotiations, both for projects and for salary.
Let me rephrase -- you get a reputation for being bitchy, then you get denied promotions, cut out of projects, and become the first one management thinks of if layoffs are necessary.
It is true that women who do make it in tend to become part of the problem. I phrased it as "gentlemen" just because there are relatively few women who are part of the problem at this time.
Statistics from many studies do not bear that out. Guys tend to be seen as assertive (positive quality) and engaging (positive quality) for the same actions.
The NYT is a morning paper; The Guardian published this story at 6pm GMT, after the Times finished its main run.
And a few hours later... here's the NYTimes story: US Regulators Accuse Google of Underpaying Female Workers https://www.nytimes.com/aponli...
So... you're wrong.
The other genders have difficulties as well, but your point is well taken -- this story should have used the term "sexes" and not "genders" if it is going to follow modern terminology. The "gender pay gap" phrase is a holdover from earlier times, so it tends to stick around.
Right. What actually happens is the woman just doesn't get the job offer because she's too argumentative, combative, bitchy, . The stats are born out across the tech industry and the education pipeline that gets them there in the first place: there's a strong bias against women, even correcting for time out of the workforce. Gentlemen, I know many of you don't want to believe it, but we are collectively biased against hiring women even (especially) if they are particularly competent.
But if you're a woman and you ask, you get a reputation for being bitchy.
Both of my sisters have fought this problem repeatedly. One of my sisters and I work in similar fields, an we have compared notes on similar approaches to problems at our respective jobs, and it amazes me just how little room she has to negotiate on ANY topic before e-mails from co-workers get pretty negative about her attitude. When negotiating for salary up front the wiggle room is even smaller because the chances go up of not getting the job at all.
How does a woman solve that Catch-22?
Slashdot Mirror
A) That mechanized fantasy is self-repairing. As time goes by, I suspect it will be quite resilient. B) War will be mechanized also... I wouldn't count on there being an "other side of the fence". Try not to build your human outpost on any oil resources.
Who says the truck will be alone? It can be accompanied by self-driving armed escort, complete with arial drone cover support (using the other self-driving vehicles like aircraft carriers). And humans may be able to log in remotely to command those defenses as needed. The future possibilities are boundless... in all vectors.
It should be straightforward to hide those unpatched machines behind a proxy. Give them an Ethernet connection to only one other machine and let that other machine be fully patched and updatable. That's a fix, but, honestly, I'm confused why critical medical equipment is fully exposed to the network in the first place.
Then why is it on the network? Give the scanner a local net of just itself and a proxy. Let the proxy run something modern and patched. There's no reason to have the antiquated system directly exposed.
Canada or Mexico, where the Americans can drive to join in?
Water that is bought and paid for fairly. Those other states made poor decisions when they sold their water rights downstream to CA.
That's a reasonable point.
Faraday cages for car bodies? White noise broadcasting on all transmission channels on major streets? Or... self-driving cars! :-)
It doesn't make the research useless. You can find plenty of recent research that any conversation with someone not in the vehicle -- i.e., someone who doesn't know when to shut up when road conditions get interesting -- raises accident risk considerably, whether the phone is hands-free or not. I've seen stats indicating that having kids in a car where the only adult is the driver shows the same tendency, although not the same degree.
You can Google around for the research. Someone earlier on this slashdot thread found this paper, for example. The exact level of risk varies between studies, but all of them are considerable. That's why studies of cell phone use have begun including hands-free use.
> Well the phone is different because it was not designed to be used while driving.
Kids weren't designed to be used while driving either. Just saying.
And the fact that a lot of the places to mine involve drinking water, endangered species, people's homes, existing structures... I would hardly call the regulatory process "the only problem." That rather seriously mischaracterizes the issue, as if it is the government needlessly standing in the way of harvesting these materials. The regulatory process is there to sort out competing claims for use of land and resources.
By that logic, any system running human intelligence is not to be trusted since we don't really understand what goes into human decisions.
:-)
That may be valid logic! But it isn't going to get you very far in the world.
> Products with a defined "end of life" are extremely damaging to consumers and to the environment. Not in all cases. There are some things where the environmental quality of the device has come such a long way, it would actually be better if they did have a defined end-of-life so they leave service. Other items are so environmentally intensive to replace, it makes sense to keep even the worst running as long as possible. It varies wildly by device depending upon manufacturing damage vs ongoing-use damage.
Can you post a list of tractor/combine manufacturing companies that DON'T do this? I think you'll find that there are none. Meanwhile, there are fields to harvest, and if you prefer to work with the older tools, that's fine, but your competitor is using the new "locked-down" tractor. This is one of those times when the only way out is collective action by a group of citizens acting as one to force a change... i.e., representative government regulation.
I have the impression that you are deliberately missing the point. Consider spending some time interviewing women in tech roles on this topic. Perhaps they can convey the depth of the problem better than I can.
I'm not sure how to go about checking this -- it's been years since I've had a regular print copy of any paper, and Times isn't local to me. Having said that, when you search the online site for that article, the search results specifies that there was a print headline for the story: https://query.nytimes.com/sear... If I find a copy of the Times later this week, I'll take a look. But your assertion still makes no sense... if they were as biased as you claim, why would they carry the story in their online reporting?
That's a reasonable hypothesis, and one that has been checked... the data does not tend to bear out that supposition. The head of HR is rarely in charge of all the entry level hiring... indeed, most hiring decisions aren't made by HR. HR rounds up candidates and on-boards them once they accept an offer, but the offers usually come from middle layer project management, and those positions are dominantly male (though, as I say, women in those roles tend to have the same bias, albeit to a slightly lesser degree).
Were those assholes liked by their superiors? That's what gets promotions. The data from numerous researchers finds that the people with decision making power in corporations (both male and female) TEND to see an up-and-coming assertive (asshole) male as an asset and an up-and-coming assertive (asshole) female as a detriment. At any given company, there may not be these limits, so your personal experience may vary, but across the industry, the bias shows up pretty significantly in data, even when correcting for an employee taking time out of the workforce. A woman who doesn't take time off to have or raise kids and who is excellent at her job will still tend to hit a ceiling, particularly in the tech industry, and that limitation appears to be because of bias against them. So to advance, most women have to take a less abrasive tone, and that generally weakens their bargaining position vis-a-vis the men during negotiations, both for projects and for salary.
Let me rephrase -- you get a reputation for being bitchy, then you get denied promotions, cut out of projects, and become the first one management thinks of if layoffs are necessary.
It is true that women who do make it in tend to become part of the problem. I phrased it as "gentlemen" just because there are relatively few women who are part of the problem at this time.
Isn't this the case for everyone, though?
Statistics from many studies do not bear that out. Guys tend to be seen as assertive (positive quality) and engaging (positive quality) for the same actions.
The NYT is a morning paper; The Guardian published this story at 6pm GMT, after the Times finished its main run.
And a few hours later... here's the NYTimes story:
US Regulators Accuse Google of Underpaying Female Workers
https://www.nytimes.com/aponli...
So... you're wrong.
The other genders have difficulties as well, but your point is well taken -- this story should have used the term "sexes" and not "genders" if it is going to follow modern terminology. The "gender pay gap" phrase is a holdover from earlier times, so it tends to stick around.
Right. What actually happens is the woman just doesn't get the job offer because she's too argumentative, combative, bitchy, . The stats are born out across the tech industry and the education pipeline that gets them there in the first place: there's a strong bias against women, even correcting for time out of the workforce. Gentlemen, I know many of you don't want to believe it, but we are collectively biased against hiring women even (especially) if they are particularly competent.
But if you're a woman and you ask, you get a reputation for being bitchy. Both of my sisters have fought this problem repeatedly. One of my sisters and I work in similar fields, an we have compared notes on similar approaches to problems at our respective jobs, and it amazes me just how little room she has to negotiate on ANY topic before e-mails from co-workers get pretty negative about her attitude. When negotiating for salary up front the wiggle room is even smaller because the chances go up of not getting the job at all. How does a woman solve that Catch-22?