There is a regulation in the tax code, perpetually renewed, which bans the IRS from sending you a pre-filled tax form. Guess which lobby got it put there?
That only works if you're well off or have a huge support network to front both bail AND legal fees at the same time.
This is why there is a movement afoot to eliminate bail altogether. Instead they perform a theoretically impartial risk assessment and if you score low enough you are released pending trial.
What about the other people around the kid? Teachers, parents, other kids at their school - they all have an expectation that they are not under government surveillance.
Why would you have to leave early just because you arrived early? That stop was reserved for you until the scheduled departure time anyway. Hang out at the station for a few extra minutes and give the crew a break. You probably want to stick to your departure time anyway so you don't conflict with other trains.
Why not ship everything ahead of you? That's what I did when I was running regular training sessions. Sometimes I would even ship a 24 port switch, router, and cabling because I couldn't count on having a network at my destination.
Well of course, because while one might chill at White Castle because it is the best, when out west, lacking other options, it's preferable to be fly at Fat Burger.
Similar late fee problem here -- except it was for a movie that had been rented (and forgotten). Returned it weeks before and finally wanted a new rental. The late fees came to something like $96. I laughed at them and offered to buy the movie instead ($40 range). They declined. They wanted their ridiculous late fees.
They're not charging you for the price of the physical DVD. They are charging you for the lost revenue they could have been making renting it out to others while you were holding on to it. If they only expected to make $40 per copy of a movie, of course they would go out of business (sooner than they did) - they aren't even covering their overhead at that point. Every rental business is predicated on making more than the cost of the item back by charging more than it is worth if you had bought it outright.
A technology that has been supported by all major browsers since the beginning of time itself.
I've dealt with client certs quite a bit having been a government contractor both utilizing and writing software which does CAC/PIV (i.e. client certificate) authentication. While it is an effective way to secure an endpoint, the user experience is less than ideal. Because the client cert is negotiated as part of of the TLS handshake, when it fails it is difficult to give any meaningful feedback to the user. They usually end up just seeing an SSL error or a 401 HTTP server response. The UI browsers present to chose a certificate is rather rudimentary and for good reason not under the control of the application developer. In addition, most browsers pin the client certificate choice for the duration of the session, so if a user accidentally chooses the wrong certificate, they have to quit out and restart their browsers.
All of this is not to mention the logistical hassle of issuing certificates, maintaining a CRL, getting smart cards out to people, etc. This and the usability issues are tractable for a large organization whose users will receive training on how to deal with mutual authentication, but for the general public I think it would be kind of a non-starter.
"Oh but then who will pay for the web?!". I don't know, maybe everyone who paid up front to host their own website with providers for years before most of the worlds population ever heard of email? Maybe the people who don't need to spend billions of CPU cycles, hundreds of database requests, and tend of megabytes of bandwidth in add and shit to serve 100KB of text content? Maybe people who are willing and able to exist in a world which doesn't need to be funded by sleazy ad companies and snooped on by megacorps and who understand that we are moving o a world where people will be able to host websites on their fucking cellphones.
"Who will pay for the web?" Who fucking pays for email you greedy shits?!
The comparison in volume between a popular website and a non-spammign email user is not even close. Paying for hosting up front works fine as long as your hobby site doesn't generate too much traffic. When a website gets popular data fees for the person running it skyrocket and the person maintaining it has three choices - put it behind a paywall (which usually kills the site), take it offline, or start hosting adds. Many a great, free, content-driven site has been knocked offline because it became a victim of its own success and the maintainer couldn't afford to keep it up anymore.
I seriously doubt this is going to survive appeal. Providing your fingers and face, for fingerprints and lineups respectively, is already considered non-testimonial and well accepted.
I've always wondered that about lineups. In order for them to work, everyone has to stand there and act exactly the same so as not to bias the witness. Why doesn't the suspect just refuse to read the line given by the police or just jump around and point at one of the other participants and say "He did it!"?
We aren't talking about sea insects, now are we? Your OWN PDF states PR has seen a 1*F* (not even C) increase in land temperatures since mid 20th century... vastly less than seasonal variation.
That 1 degree shift is an average. Along with a "small" increase in the macro average are much more frequent and more wild swings in local weather patterns and temperature due to there just being a lot more energy in the system. It only takes one extreme weather event at the right time to disrupt a population. As these extreme events become more frequent with a warming climate, you get larger and more frequent population disruptions leading to species becoming extirpated from an area and eventually extinction.
100 corporations are responsible for 71% of carbon emissions. Even if every would-be environmentalist dropped dead tomorrow and took themselves off the board, we'd still be in trouble (assuming you want carbon emissions to go down). Meaningful change is only going to come at the the policy level. As an individual the change you can effect isn't even a a drop in the bucket.
It's nice if you try to be "green" as an individual if it makes you feel good, but as a consumer it's not very obvious whether a given admittedly ineffective decision will actually be a net benefit, and it's unreasonable to expect every consumer to read an environmental impact report every time they buy a can of beans.
Modern farming is unsustainable only when profit is the main motive. If sustainability is the main motive it's fine. We can fix the economic system simply by legislating that sustainability must be the priority and imposing penalties for not doing it.
The bread basket of the US is only that because of tapping aquifers and putting nutrients back into the soil that we are pulling out and shipping all over the country/world. If we moved to sustainable techniques like rotating in non-food crops, leaving fields fallow for long enough for the aquifer to recover from a year's worth of growing, and recovering nutrients from sewage all over the country to ship back to fields as fertilizer, then food prices would skyrocket as supply plummets. Even if there was enough to go around, people would starve because they couldn't afford it.
The prairies have enough rainfall to support prairie grass, not water-hungry food crops, otherwise they would have been covered by forests. There aren't enough sustainable resources to feed the number of people we need to feed at a price our economy can afford. Legislating fines from above to force sustainable practices might work to change the practices, but it won't fix the resulting change in supply nor in the concomitant rise in the cost of goods.
There is really no need for that. We have basically got population growth under control, with the fertility rate being around static (2.2) in most places. Yes, even third world countries.
The population is still growing because people are living longer. But it's levelling off, and at a level which is sustainable with modern farming methods and renewable energy.
In the longer term, past 2100, the population will probably fall as the fertility rate continues to decline
Modern farming techniques aren't sustainable. Modern farming relies on tapping fossil water (aquifers), mining phosphorus, and petro chemicals. All of these are exhaustible resources. And beyond that fertilizer runoff in waterways, excessive antibiotics used to raise livestock, and pesticides are all ecological disasters in their own right.
I'm not saying that we should just stop all those things now and let a bunch of people starve, but we need to realize we are drawing down resources in decades that were built up over millions of years. We should do our best to improve these practices, figure out how many people actually sustainable agriculture and industry can support, and work on getting our birthrate down below replacement until we hit that number.
And of course, we'd have to come up with an economic system that isn't predicated on constant growth. Right now severalcountries that have flat or negative growth rates are running PR campaigns and social programs to incentivize people to have more children to stave off economic repercussions of a shrinking population.
....so like a listserv. This app sounds fine if it works for a given community, but it seems like a solution in search of a problem given that email exists.
In my daughter's class the parents just got together and shared everyone's email address (and phone number if they wanted to), and the teacher sends out a weekly summary/reminder about what is going on, assignments, etc. I don't really see the big deal in sharing some basic contact information with people who are going to have a huge influence on your kid's development via their children. If one of them turns out to be a jerk, you can always block them.
There are plenty of interoperability functions like HIE interfaces that hang out on the public internet. They are secured but can be DDOS'd. Taking them down won't get anyone killed most likely, but will lower the overall quality of care as staff get spread more thinly having to handle things over the phone/fax that should be handled electronically.
Also some facilities that are part of larger care networks have their EMRs tightly coupled with their parent org through cloud services. I'm not sure what effect taking such a facility offline would have, but I'm sure it would be disruptive.
2 & 3 are why I like grid systems like MGRS. The precision is inherent in the coordinate data, and there is no illusion that the coordinates represent a precise point.
--Dude, you don't really want people showing up at the front door of your secret military facility looking for cheap goods and sales at the "new store"...
I think the barbed wire, "Last Exit Before Checkpoint" signs, barricades, and the whir of an autocannon spinning up might clue them in.
Due to the holographic principal, at the most compact, the entire universe's information could be stored on the surface of a black hole the size of Sagittarius A*. You'll have to wait for the black hole to decay to get your simulation results out however.
There was an article on this site several years ago about a robot that hunted for and "ate" slugs. It had a bio-reactor that produced energy from the fermenting the slug bodies. Ok, found it - by "several years ago" I guess I mean 2 decades, when did I get so old?
The report notes that "all calls" will still receive standard police response, whether or not any swatting concerns are filed. "Nothing about this solution is designed to minimize or slow emergency services," the site reads. "At the same time, if information is available, it is more useful for responding officers to have it than to not."
How about the police just consider being more measured in their response everywhere instead of sending a paramilitary force into citizens' homes with guns drawn. We shouldn't have to opt out of getting shot in our own home by a guy with a shield and a ski mask.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a regulation in the tax code, perpetually renewed, which bans the IRS from sending you a pre-filled tax form. Guess which lobby got it put there?
Or how about just taking random snippets of conversation out of context and playing them back at the trial?
That only works if you're well off or have a huge support network to front both bail AND legal fees at the same time.
This is why there is a movement afoot to eliminate bail altogether. Instead they perform a theoretically impartial risk assessment and if you score low enough you are released pending trial.
What about the other people around the kid? Teachers, parents, other kids at their school - they all have an expectation that they are not under government surveillance.
Why would you have to leave early just because you arrived early? That stop was reserved for you until the scheduled departure time anyway. Hang out at the station for a few extra minutes and give the crew a break. You probably want to stick to your departure time anyway so you don't conflict with other trains.
Why not ship everything ahead of you? That's what I did when I was running regular training sessions. Sometimes I would even ship a 24 port switch, router, and cabling because I couldn't count on having a network at my destination.
Well of course, because while one might chill at White Castle because it is the best, when out west, lacking other options, it's preferable to be fly at Fat Burger.
Similar late fee problem here -- except it was for a movie that had been rented (and forgotten). Returned it weeks before and finally wanted a new rental. The late fees came to something like $96. I laughed at them and offered to buy the movie instead ($40 range). They declined. They wanted their ridiculous late fees.
They're not charging you for the price of the physical DVD. They are charging you for the lost revenue they could have been making renting it out to others while you were holding on to it. If they only expected to make $40 per copy of a movie, of course they would go out of business (sooner than they did) - they aren't even covering their overhead at that point. Every rental business is predicated on making more than the cost of the item back by charging more than it is worth if you had bought it outright.
A technology that has been supported by all major browsers since the beginning of time itself.
I've dealt with client certs quite a bit having been a government contractor both utilizing and writing software which does CAC/PIV (i.e. client certificate) authentication. While it is an effective way to secure an endpoint, the user experience is less than ideal. Because the client cert is negotiated as part of of the TLS handshake, when it fails it is difficult to give any meaningful feedback to the user. They usually end up just seeing an SSL error or a 401 HTTP server response. The UI browsers present to chose a certificate is rather rudimentary and for good reason not under the control of the application developer. In addition, most browsers pin the client certificate choice for the duration of the session, so if a user accidentally chooses the wrong certificate, they have to quit out and restart their browsers.
All of this is not to mention the logistical hassle of issuing certificates, maintaining a CRL, getting smart cards out to people, etc. This and the usability issues are tractable for a large organization whose users will receive training on how to deal with mutual authentication, but for the general public I think it would be kind of a non-starter.
"Oh but then who will pay for the web?!". I don't know, maybe everyone who paid up front to host their own website with providers for years before most of the worlds population ever heard of email? Maybe the people who don't need to spend billions of CPU cycles, hundreds of database requests, and tend of megabytes of bandwidth in add and shit to serve 100KB of text content? Maybe people who are willing and able to exist in a world which doesn't need to be funded by sleazy ad companies and snooped on by megacorps and who understand that we are moving o a world where people will be able to host websites on their fucking cellphones.
"Who will pay for the web?" Who fucking pays for email you greedy shits?!
The comparison in volume between a popular website and a non-spammign email user is not even close. Paying for hosting up front works fine as long as your hobby site doesn't generate too much traffic. When a website gets popular data fees for the person running it skyrocket and the person maintaining it has three choices - put it behind a paywall (which usually kills the site), take it offline, or start hosting adds. Many a great, free, content-driven site has been knocked offline because it became a victim of its own success and the maintainer couldn't afford to keep it up anymore.
No, the dumbest thing is to move off-earth.
I'm beginning to think that coming down out of the trees in the first place was a bad move.
I seriously doubt this is going to survive appeal. Providing your fingers and face, for fingerprints and lineups respectively, is already considered non-testimonial and well accepted.
I've always wondered that about lineups. In order for them to work, everyone has to stand there and act exactly the same so as not to bias the witness. Why doesn't the suspect just refuse to read the line given by the police or just jump around and point at one of the other participants and say "He did it!"?
We aren't talking about sea insects, now are we? Your OWN PDF states PR has seen a 1*F* (not even C) increase in land temperatures since mid 20th century... vastly less than seasonal variation.
That 1 degree shift is an average. Along with a "small" increase in the macro average are much more frequent and more wild swings in local weather patterns and temperature due to there just being a lot more energy in the system. It only takes one extreme weather event at the right time to disrupt a population. As these extreme events become more frequent with a warming climate, you get larger and more frequent population disruptions leading to species becoming extirpated from an area and eventually extinction.
100 corporations are responsible for 71% of carbon emissions. Even if every would-be environmentalist dropped dead tomorrow and took themselves off the board, we'd still be in trouble (assuming you want carbon emissions to go down). Meaningful change is only going to come at the the policy level. As an individual the change you can effect isn't even a a drop in the bucket.
It's nice if you try to be "green" as an individual if it makes you feel good, but as a consumer it's not very obvious whether a given admittedly ineffective decision will actually be a net benefit, and it's unreasonable to expect every consumer to read an environmental impact report every time they buy a can of beans.
Modern farming is unsustainable only when profit is the main motive. If sustainability is the main motive it's fine. We can fix the economic system simply by legislating that sustainability must be the priority and imposing penalties for not doing it.
The bread basket of the US is only that because of tapping aquifers and putting nutrients back into the soil that we are pulling out and shipping all over the country/world. If we moved to sustainable techniques like rotating in non-food crops, leaving fields fallow for long enough for the aquifer to recover from a year's worth of growing, and recovering nutrients from sewage all over the country to ship back to fields as fertilizer, then food prices would skyrocket as supply plummets. Even if there was enough to go around, people would starve because they couldn't afford it.
The prairies have enough rainfall to support prairie grass, not water-hungry food crops, otherwise they would have been covered by forests. There aren't enough sustainable resources to feed the number of people we need to feed at a price our economy can afford. Legislating fines from above to force sustainable practices might work to change the practices, but it won't fix the resulting change in supply nor in the concomitant rise in the cost of goods.
Remove 2 billion people from the planet.
There is really no need for that. We have basically got population growth under control, with the fertility rate being around static (2.2) in most places. Yes, even third world countries.
The population is still growing because people are living longer. But it's levelling off, and at a level which is sustainable with modern farming methods and renewable energy.
In the longer term, past 2100, the population will probably fall as the fertility rate continues to decline
Modern farming techniques aren't sustainable. Modern farming relies on tapping fossil water (aquifers), mining phosphorus, and petro chemicals. All of these are exhaustible resources. And beyond that fertilizer runoff in waterways, excessive antibiotics used to raise livestock, and pesticides are all ecological disasters in their own right.
I'm not saying that we should just stop all those things now and let a bunch of people starve, but we need to realize we are drawing down resources in decades that were built up over millions of years. We should do our best to improve these practices, figure out how many people actually sustainable agriculture and industry can support, and work on getting our birthrate down below replacement until we hit that number.
And of course, we'd have to come up with an economic system that isn't predicated on constant growth. Right now several countries that have flat or negative growth rates are running PR campaigns and social programs to incentivize people to have more children to stave off economic repercussions of a shrinking population.
Interesting.... what law does Remind imply the school is breaking?
....so like a listserv. This app sounds fine if it works for a given community, but it seems like a solution in search of a problem given that email exists.
In my daughter's class the parents just got together and shared everyone's email address (and phone number if they wanted to), and the teacher sends out a weekly summary/reminder about what is going on, assignments, etc. I don't really see the big deal in sharing some basic contact information with people who are going to have a huge influence on your kid's development via their children. If one of them turns out to be a jerk, you can always block them.
There are plenty of interoperability functions like HIE interfaces that hang out on the public internet. They are secured but can be DDOS'd. Taking them down won't get anyone killed most likely, but will lower the overall quality of care as staff get spread more thinly having to handle things over the phone/fax that should be handled electronically.
Also some facilities that are part of larger care networks have their EMRs tightly coupled with their parent org through cloud services. I'm not sure what effect taking such a facility offline would have, but I'm sure it would be disruptive.
2 & 3 are why I like grid systems like MGRS. The precision is inherent in the coordinate data, and there is no illusion that the coordinates represent a precise point.
--Dude, you don't really want people showing up at the front door of your secret military facility looking for cheap goods and sales at the "new store"...
I think the barbed wire, "Last Exit Before Checkpoint" signs, barricades, and the whir of an autocannon spinning up might clue them in.
Due to the holographic principal, at the most compact, the entire universe's information could be stored on the surface of a black hole the size of Sagittarius A*. You'll have to wait for the black hole to decay to get your simulation results out however.
It's all here, fresh as harvest day!
There was an article on this site several years ago about a robot that hunted for and "ate" slugs. It had a bio-reactor that produced energy from the fermenting the slug bodies. Ok, found it - by "several years ago" I guess I mean 2 decades, when did I get so old?
Great username. You didn't even read the summary.
The report notes that "all calls" will still receive standard police response, whether or not any swatting concerns are filed. "Nothing about this solution is designed to minimize or slow emergency services," the site reads. "At the same time, if information is available, it is more useful for responding officers to have it than to not."
How about the police just consider being more measured in their response everywhere instead of sending a paramilitary force into citizens' homes with guns drawn. We shouldn't have to opt out of getting shot in our own home by a guy with a shield and a ski mask.