I don't think having tons of vulnerable machines out there is good, even from a justice or karma perspective.
Unlike IoT gadgets, which are exclusively bought by people with far too much money in their pockets, a regular computer is a necessity in the modern world, and not having one closes the door on many good careers.
Now consider that some people are very poor and uneducated. The machine might have already cost them a year's salary, and a license would've been another year's. They probably don't have know anyone who knows Linux. They might not know what an OS is, or even what pirating is. And many of the cheaper computers are simply sold with a pirated version.
Besides, the attacker could've just as easily made them a part of a botnet rather than asking for ransom.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. There are lots of devices out there that are made specifically for MP3 playback. They might not even support a second audio format.
Since when is this a rule? What the heck is "hardships" anyways?
If you want to know more, read some basic economics.
I have, and I've not seen this rule.
Often it's a bad idea to trade consumption for investment.
Well, and whether it is or is not is something best decided by each individual; redistributing money via government, on the other hand, massively reduces investments and massively subsidizes consumption.
So government funding of basic research is also subsidizing consumption? How about funding of education? Roads are just money pits as well?
Here's reality for you: no business is going to seriously invest in anything that has a longer time horizon than 50 years, because guess what? The investors are all going to be dead by then. Who cares if it makes a trillion dollars in 2100?
Pretty much the most fundamental rule of economics and life is that if you want success in the long term, you need to endure hardships in the short term.
Since when is this a rule? What the heck is "hardships" anyways?
If a farmer has the option of sowing or eating his wheat, and he chooses to sow everything, then he will be dead long before he gets to be "successful". If the farmer sows some, but still too much wheat for him to take care of properly, then he'd have wasted them, and his half-assed attempt to farm everything might have actually hurt his total output.
Often it's a bad idea to trade consumption for investment. There are times when there is too much investment and you end up with waste. Maybe if you waited instead for a more opportune moment to use those natural resources, you could've put them to better use.
Sometimes what seems to be consumption could turn out to be investment, such as nutritious meals for kids, which promotes learning and lowers healthcare costs later.
And sometimes the consumption is not optional, such as when you tell unemployable people to go die in a ditch, and they send you and the rest of your government to the guillotines.
Your "scientific source" is more like an environmental alarmist piece. 140,000 to 328,000 birds is over the lifetime of the installation, which "is one of the oldest wind farms in the country and one of the largest in the world". It's been around for 36 years.
1300 raptors are killed annually, among them 70 golden eagles
Not tiny numbers, but nothing like what you're suggesting.
The small turbines used at Altamont are dangerous to various raptors... As of 2010, a settlement has been reached... Nearly half of the smaller turbines will be replaced by newer, more bird-friendly models.
And the problem doesn't even apply to new turbines we're building now.
I don't hate birds (with the exception of the one that shat on my lunch that time), but your level of misinformation is astounding. Why don't we break down this bullshit.
Only about 70% of migratory birds are surviving one annual migration at the moment.
The mass extinction of birds is currently on the way.
Due to habitat loss. Wind turbines don't even register on the scale.
Loosing large birds gliding magnificently above a town is the same loss as loosing the trees, bees, rivers, etc.
That's "Losing". To your point: trees are necessary for temperature control and erosion resistance. Bees are necessary to pollinate fruit trees. Rivers power dams and harbors fish. Large birds... they eat small animals, just like foxes, cats, snakes, wolves and bears. They're not necessary.
Of all the things to worry about, this is the least worrisome. Birds that learn to avoid the deadly white spinning things will survive. The rest will die. In the future, all birds will know to avoid the deadly white spinning things.
Oh and power lines do the exact same thing. They've been frying critters since the 1880's.
I don't think we're that off-topic. Austria thinks their censorship should be enforced worldwide, just like how ISIS thinks their treatment of women should be enforced worldwide. The difference is that Austria isn't going to kill anyone over it, and this the difference that really matters. If Facebook ignores their ruling outside of Austria (and it should), then my life isn't affected by them. They can ban whatever the hell they like in their own country, and whether I think it's wrong doesn't need enter into the discussion.
Oh please, is there even a civilization that could agree with itself? We still have people who think letting poor people freeze in the cold is necessary for "progress", and less than 100 years ago they were slaughtering their own countrymen for being too successful while having the wrong skin color (US) or culture (Europe).
And by the way, the entire Middle East thinks we're the barbaric ones. We fully embraced our greed and blew up people halfway across the world for cheap oil (or "to spread democracy" as people like you would put it). Our invasion killed between 400,000 to 900,000 muslims, 130,000 of which were direct casualties (think bombs, missiles and bullets). How many has ISIS killed? 1 million? 5 million? No... 15,000.
I don't condone the abuse of women (or anyone else for that matter), but good and evil has always been, and always will be subjective.
Other people can live the way they want as long as they don't affect me. If you want to impose your way of life onto them, especially with force, then you're no better than ISIS. They have every reason to believe they're right, the same way you have every reason to believe you're right. Who can say you're more right than them?
The mighty Godwin's Law rules over discussion forums, social media posts, comment sections, group chats and image boards. It spawns shit posts, derails discussions and brings hatred to the threads. Cursed are those who follow it, but follow it they must. There is no other choice.
I was tempted to say fuck off and do your own research, but since you said "please", I looked into this a bit more.
The military does require a High School diploma or GED to enlist now, so I was wrong about there being high school dropouts (only having a GED does technically make one a dropout but it sort of makes up for it). However, I couldn't find any number on whether they scored well on SAT or ACT tests, or whether they are college-bound.
Relatively few enlisted men and women are college graduates (4.1%) or have an advanced degree (0.5%). More than nine-in-ten (94.0%) are high school graduates and some of them have attended some college.
Obviously some of this is due to how young they are, having not had the chance to go yet.
There's also some information about post-discharge education attainment here.
Overall, the percentage of Veterans with a Bachelor’s degree was lower than that of non-Veterans throughout the
decade.
The difference is not that big, but keep in mind that college is free for veterans and all they need to do is put in the time. One might imagine what it would be like if they were on equal footings with everyone else.
Why the hell would anyone mount a machine gun on a satellite? The bullets will be moving 1.5 km/s, and the thing it's shooting at is moving at 7.8 km/s. If the 2 satellites weren't on a collision course already, the bullet has no chance of hitting anything. Not to mention the recoil will put your satellite out of alignment instantly.
Oh and changing orbits takes a ridiculous amount of fuel. You're better off using a normal satellite, one without all of the added weight of thermal protection necessary for reentry.
A lot of the enlisted are enlisted because they couldn't go to college. Some are high school dropouts. Of course they're going to have trouble getting a regular job and living a regular life. They'd have the same problem whether they enlisted or not!
The school should get fully paid only after the student completes the course, gets a job, and is employed for six months... It will decrease their incentive to enroll people that clearly can't do the work.
Some of the programs do exactly that. Then they basically end up enrolling people who could already program. They force you to go through a few dozen "exercises" which are basically programming interview questions, plus several small projects. So by the time you're enrolled, you don't really need the course anymore.
tax brackets and AMT and benefit qualifications do not take cost of living in to account.
No matter how much you earn, if you only work for 3 months out of the year, that puts you below the poverty level. At most you'll be paying maybe $100 in taxes.
The end result was that is was possible for a student to learn more than their family's farming trade, and eventually afford to actually leave the town.
That's great for the students, but from the town's perspective, they just lost all of their best and brightest to the global economy. Most of those kids won't be coming back as working adults. It's happened all across the US: these towns get smaller and smaller until they're left with a ghost town.
They might be wrong, but I don't think you can really fault them for protecting their own best interests.
Exactly. 90% of the changes I review gets some comments on them. I actually use that as a metric - if I can't find anything wrong with the code to comment on, I probably haven't looked at it thoroughly enough and should go through it again.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus Christ... just how many trans haters are there on this site?
I don't think having tons of vulnerable machines out there is good, even from a justice or karma perspective.
Unlike IoT gadgets, which are exclusively bought by people with far too much money in their pockets, a regular computer is a necessity in the modern world, and not having one closes the door on many good careers.
Now consider that some people are very poor and uneducated. The machine might have already cost them a year's salary, and a license would've been another year's. They probably don't have know anyone who knows Linux. They might not know what an OS is, or even what pirating is. And many of the cheaper computers are simply sold with a pirated version.
Besides, the attacker could've just as easily made them a part of a botnet rather than asking for ransom.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. There are lots of devices out there that are made specifically for MP3 playback. They might not even support a second audio format.
And excluding workers from important meetings who didn't participate in the drugs is not merely laughing at them.
Heh... I wouldn't be surprised if those "important" meetings turns out to be pot parties or orgies.
If you want to know more, read some basic economics.
I have, and I've not seen this rule.
Well, and whether it is or is not is something best decided by each individual; redistributing money via government, on the other hand, massively reduces investments and massively subsidizes consumption.
So government funding of basic research is also subsidizing consumption? How about funding of education? Roads are just money pits as well?
Here's reality for you: no business is going to seriously invest in anything that has a longer time horizon than 50 years, because guess what? The investors are all going to be dead by then. Who cares if it makes a trillion dollars in 2100?
There is not a shred of evidence that automation causes unemployment.
In the long run, this is true.
No it's not. In the long run, we have AI that can do the work better, faster and more accurately than a human. Why would anyone pay the human?
Pretty much the most fundamental rule of economics and life is that if you want success in the long term, you need to endure hardships in the short term.
Since when is this a rule? What the heck is "hardships" anyways?
If a farmer has the option of sowing or eating his wheat, and he chooses to sow everything, then he will be dead long before he gets to be "successful". If the farmer sows some, but still too much wheat for him to take care of properly, then he'd have wasted them, and his half-assed attempt to farm everything might have actually hurt his total output.
Often it's a bad idea to trade consumption for investment. There are times when there is too much investment and you end up with waste. Maybe if you waited instead for a more opportune moment to use those natural resources, you could've put them to better use.
Sometimes what seems to be consumption could turn out to be investment, such as nutritious meals for kids, which promotes learning and lowers healthcare costs later.
And sometimes the consumption is not optional, such as when you tell unemployable people to go die in a ditch, and they send you and the rest of your government to the guillotines.
More realistic numbers from Wikipedia:
1300 raptors are killed annually, among them 70 golden eagles
Not tiny numbers, but nothing like what you're suggesting.
The small turbines used at Altamont are dangerous to various raptors... As of 2010, a settlement has been reached... Nearly half of the smaller turbines will be replaced by newer, more bird-friendly models.
And the problem doesn't even apply to new turbines we're building now.
Only about 70% of migratory birds are surviving one annual migration at the moment.
In 2003, wind turbines killed 33,000 birds a year. Glass windows killed 97 million.
The mass extinction of birds is currently on the way.
Due to habitat loss. Wind turbines don't even register on the scale.
Loosing large birds gliding magnificently above a town is the same loss as loosing the trees, bees, rivers, etc.
That's "Losing". To your point: trees are necessary for temperature control and erosion resistance. Bees are necessary to pollinate fruit trees. Rivers power dams and harbors fish. Large birds... they eat small animals, just like foxes, cats, snakes, wolves and bears. They're not necessary.
Limiting power consumption via LED lamps,
CFL's, which people already use, are almost as efficient (8-12% vs. 8-15%). Lighting is only 7% of electric usage anyways.
lighter vehicles,
99.85% of cars don't even use electricity.
smaller heated (air-conditioned) areas in houses
Heating is usually natural gas. But even if you include it, residential heating plus air conditioning only accounts for 6% of all energy use.
...could produce more than enough electricity for decades
Yeah no. Not when the world population is set to reach 8 billion by 2025 (a 14% growth).
Of all the things to worry about, this is the least worrisome. Birds that learn to avoid the deadly white spinning things will survive. The rest will die. In the future, all birds will know to avoid the deadly white spinning things.
Oh and power lines do the exact same thing. They've been frying critters since the 1880's.
Please don't think so hard about a joke.
Human colonization of space is meaningful because it's redundancy. If earth ever gets wiped out somehow, we have backups.
I don't think we're that off-topic. Austria thinks their censorship should be enforced worldwide, just like how ISIS thinks their treatment of women should be enforced worldwide. The difference is that Austria isn't going to kill anyone over it, and this the difference that really matters. If Facebook ignores their ruling outside of Austria (and it should), then my life isn't affected by them. They can ban whatever the hell they like in their own country, and whether I think it's wrong doesn't need enter into the discussion.
Oh please, is there even a civilization that could agree with itself? We still have people who think letting poor people freeze in the cold is necessary for "progress", and less than 100 years ago they were slaughtering their own countrymen for being too successful while having the wrong skin color (US) or culture (Europe).
And by the way, the entire Middle East thinks we're the barbaric ones. We fully embraced our greed and blew up people halfway across the world for cheap oil (or "to spread democracy" as people like you would put it). Our invasion killed between 400,000 to 900,000 muslims, 130,000 of which were direct casualties (think bombs, missiles and bullets). How many has ISIS killed? 1 million? 5 million? No... 15,000.
I don't condone the abuse of women (or anyone else for that matter), but good and evil has always been, and always will be subjective.
Other people can live the way they want as long as they don't affect me. If you want to impose your way of life onto them, especially with force, then you're no better than ISIS. They have every reason to believe they're right, the same way you have every reason to believe you're right. Who can say you're more right than them?
The mighty Godwin's Law rules over discussion forums, social media posts, comment sections, group chats and image boards. It spawns shit posts, derails discussions and brings hatred to the threads. Cursed are those who follow it, but follow it they must. There is no other choice.
I'll bet it's some service that's running by default and listening on a port. Probably SMB or some crap they've created in the name of convenience.
Nah, we need COMEFROM.
The military does require a High School diploma or GED to enlist now, so I was wrong about there being high school dropouts (only having a GED does technically make one a dropout but it sort of makes up for it). However, I couldn't find any number on whether they scored well on SAT or ACT tests, or whether they are college-bound.
There are some demographics here.
Relatively few enlisted men and women are college graduates (4.1%) or have an advanced degree (0.5%). More than nine-in-ten (94.0%) are high school graduates and some of them have attended some college.
Obviously some of this is due to how young they are, having not had the chance to go yet.
There's also some information about post-discharge education attainment here.
Overall, the percentage of Veterans with a Bachelor’s degree was lower than that of non-Veterans throughout the decade.
The difference is not that big, but keep in mind that college is free for veterans and all they need to do is put in the time. One might imagine what it would be like if they were on equal footings with everyone else.
Why the hell would anyone mount a machine gun on a satellite? The bullets will be moving 1.5 km/s, and the thing it's shooting at is moving at 7.8 km/s. If the 2 satellites weren't on a collision course already, the bullet has no chance of hitting anything. Not to mention the recoil will put your satellite out of alignment instantly.
Oh and changing orbits takes a ridiculous amount of fuel. You're better off using a normal satellite, one without all of the added weight of thermal protection necessary for reentry.
A lot of the enlisted are enlisted because they couldn't go to college. Some are high school dropouts. Of course they're going to have trouble getting a regular job and living a regular life. They'd have the same problem whether they enlisted or not!
The school should get fully paid only after the student completes the course, gets a job, and is employed for six months... It will decrease their incentive to enroll people that clearly can't do the work.
Some of the programs do exactly that. Then they basically end up enrolling people who could already program. They force you to go through a few dozen "exercises" which are basically programming interview questions, plus several small projects. So by the time you're enrolled, you don't really need the course anymore.
tax brackets and AMT and benefit qualifications do not take cost of living in to account.
No matter how much you earn, if you only work for 3 months out of the year, that puts you below the poverty level. At most you'll be paying maybe $100 in taxes.
The end result was that is was possible for a student to learn more than their family's farming trade, and eventually afford to actually leave the town.
That's great for the students, but from the town's perspective, they just lost all of their best and brightest to the global economy. Most of those kids won't be coming back as working adults. It's happened all across the US: these towns get smaller and smaller until they're left with a ghost town.
They might be wrong, but I don't think you can really fault them for protecting their own best interests.
Exactly. 90% of the changes I review gets some comments on them. I actually use that as a metric - if I can't find anything wrong with the code to comment on, I probably haven't looked at it thoroughly enough and should go through it again.