Any job that involved email, off as soon as I walked out the door. My time is my time. Some have complained that I didn't reply at 10pm at night, I don't get on-call pay so I don't answer.
All things considered, modernizing the laws for on-call pay probably would fix this problem very quickly--especially if the laws explicitly state that, unless agreed upon by both parties, if the employer expects you to answer the phone/email/texts and do work at all hours, then you are to be paid as if you are always on-call.
Except producing one of the best and most wide spread global awareness campaigns to energy wasting in history.
By wasting more energy in various more-harmful manners, don't forget that.
There's also the research that shows that people tend to feel that their part has been done by participating in an awareness campaign--which means that once people are generally aware of the problem, they do more harm than good, especially if done with no particular goal than to raise awareness, the equivalent of a fire department that doesn't do a thing more than let everybody know that a place is on fire. (I've had at least one run-in with an awareness campaign that seemed to run on the magical belief that if they got everybody aware of the problem, it'd somehow go away, given that they didn't even try to direct you towards things you could do to help other than raise awareness. Unsurprisingly, magical thinking continues to not work.)
don't confuse wisdom with knowledge, I've met some highly competent from knowledge pov folks in my time but wouldn't trust them not to do borderline retarded things like this. FWIW everyone I know with strong enough chemistry background (much higher than avergae in my circlke of friends and family) simply wouldn't even consider it with compounds with risk factor present; it is predictable or go home kind of thing for those with sense. That is coming from someone who has made stuff with their kids, knows friends who've done similar, and has a father who did the same when I was a young child. There are only two reasons I can see where someone without malice would make this mistake, either ignorance in the field so they didn't know enough to understand risks, or high competence but suffer from severe stupidity being the second.
Yeah, and the thing is that if he's got a pre-pharma degree with a minor in chemistry, it better be the second option there--except it's still rather baffling. I have one of the variants of pre-pharma--I got basically the major you get instead for that and premed if your school doesn't do the pre-professional major--so I've got a decent idea what sort of training he ought to have had. If he was doing it in a backyard shed, it'd actually be a lot less confusing; you learn a rather lot about why you don't want to risk your food prep or consumption areas getting contaminated, though it doesn't look like he went on to pharmacy school (which is admittedly harder to get into than med school) so maybe he was a Cs Get Degrees type of student. (Basically, the rule of thumb is that you don't necessarily know what got where and if it's safe to consume, and you probably want to know at least what it is if you're going to try finding out if it's safe for human consumption the direct way--if nothing else, so you can get credit on the paper saying that nope, pretty fatal.)
Even with that, however, he's apparently worked several chem lab jobs so he's put in a significant number of hours in labs and should have good safety training. I have questions about his school and his employers, and there's not nice ones.
Okay two issues. First, I'm talking about the components, the ingredients, used to make the explosive. Any actual explosives likely detonated in the explosion that killed him.
Secondly, the name of the explosive may very well be "acetone peroxide". Think nobody can guess which two ingredients you mix to make "acetone peroxide"? (For those unsure, it's acetone and peroxide.).
> Barring something in the way of highly exotic medical problems, your excrement is not likely to blow up.
> And yes, yes you are randomly mixing the elemental ingredients when you use the toilet.
Try randomly mixing acetone and peroxide some time and see what happens. Mix no more than 1 gram, and make sure nobody is within 300 meters for the next several days.
Many, if not all, of the high explosives are, in point of fact, made up of just four elements: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. The only thing the name of an organic substance tells you are the elements and a bit about its structure. Yes, this includes your favorite acetone peroxide. The name does not provide sufficient information to let you know if it is something you might randomly get it in your waste bucket (a known phenomenon with acetone peroxide) or if it requires a long chain of reactions all going right to synthesize. A rather significant part of OChem is devoted pretty much to learning how to successfully synthesize organic substances without accidentally blowing yourself up or setting yourself on fire, with a section on the first day of lab typically devoted to what to do when that does happen anyway.
Honestly? I would actually not be particularly surprised if he was trying to make something that wasn't supposed to go KABOOM, and it's just that the FBI is so used to it being bomb makers that they start with that assumption.
> mention the chemical names because that might (somehow) enable people to whip them up in their kitchen...never mind that by that same theory, merely knowing the word 'cake' would grant one the necessary knowledge to produce one from scratch.
Although I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, that's really not a good analogy. We're talking about listing the ingredients used. If major newspapers published the ingredients for Coca-Cola, some people might TRY to make it. Not knowing anything more than the ingredient list, they'd probably fail to make it right. When making high explosives, failing to do things right can result in KABOOM, as it did in this case.
So the theory is given the list of ingredients, some idiot might TRY to make it, perhaps by just mixing together random amounts. In the case of acetone peroxide, just mixing the two ingredients will cause an explosion. It'll go off without being purposely detonated, if you don't take active steps to prevent spontaneous detonation.
No, it's very much the proper analogy because most high explosives are organics--to put it bluntly, the chemical name only gives you the list of elemental ingredients and possibly some idea of the structure, but you will often find a great overlap between the chemical ingredients in HEs and the material you routinely deposit into the toilet. Barring something in the way of highly exotic medical problems, your excrement is not likely to blow up.
And yes, yes you are randomly mixing the elemental ingredients when you use the toilet. Most organics require rather more than 'mix ingredients' to synthesize, and I am quite happy with the process being generally not my particular field of chemistry.
How unstable can the remaining stuff be? I mean it obviously did not detonate when the fist blast went off.,
Only if you didn't bother to read the article or know anything about chemistry.
"The presence of dangerous chemicals on site make it unsafe to try to salvage the building, officials said, citing the risk of another explosion or chemical exposure to workers."
Depending on what he was trying to make, the intermediates and the by-products could be very toxic. This was compounded by the fact that the chemicals were spread by an explosion. Have you ever seen how law enforcement clean up a meth cook site. It's full Hazmat suits. Would you say the FBI is "covering something up" when they have to condemn a meth site?
They also usually don't try to burn meth sites.
Part of the problem is that the article and summary are not particularly good--it does not really make sense that they'd opt for a controlled burn unless they were doubtful that the place wasn't going to continue to explode anyway, but I'd generally expect that to be something that would be mentioned explicitly in the article. As it is, the summary seems to not list all of its sources, as it says nothing is getting removed due to contamination while the article linked to says pets and some limited personal items...but, well, I'd also be wanting to evacuate the area and keep it clear well ahead of the burn and therefore be pretty explicit if there's a risk of further explosions on the off chance that the volatile chemicals end up going before the planned burn.
Yeah, I don't get the "we have to burn down the entire building". Won't that send dangerous chemicals into the air?
If the burn is done right, it destroys the chemicals. That's "if" though.
This is why all barrels of hazardous chemicals are disposed of by incineration, and we don't have to actually have any landfills for hazardous chemicals.
Wouldn't it make more sense to tear down the building and send all the materials to a landfill for hazardous chemicals?
Who would tear down the building? If it is as dangerous are reported, that would require people in Hazmat suits for weeks, months to tear down the building. Then the second half of your plan is to send hazardous material to a landfill. Most of these repositories take in solids and liquids and encase them in domes. They don't take in drywall, wood, plastic, etc. The dome would be considerably large if they had to take in ruble of a building.
Funny, I've looked into buying a house where, if it burned down or I decided to have significant work done on it, I would have to send the rubble produced to a hazardous waste landfill, because asbestos. (This is also why I decided I wanted nothing to do with it.) You have to look around a bit, but given I was able to find several sites local to me that appear to accept precisely what you're talking about...though YMMV, as I'm also in an area where the city has multiple hazmat teams on the payroll.
Something seems fishy here.
Here are the things that are fact: There was an explosion. People were evacuated. Now you're claiming that it's "fishy" that they want to demolish the whole building. And how does that serve any conspiracy theory? The authorities want to put many people out of their homes because they want to cover up an explosion that everyone agrees has happened? They just hate people in those building that much?
The fishy part is the method, if the summary is accurate. There was an explosion, the most likely contaminants to be sufficiently dangerous as to forbid the other residents from retrieving anything from the building are ones that either won't be destroyed by burning the building, or will blow up more. My guess is that it's not conspiracy, but more an issue of figuring that the landlord and residents are not going to be able to take them to court & not wanting to spend the money on getting experts in.
However...
If you actually RTFA, it mentions that they've already had a couple controlled detonations and are allowing residents to retrieve pets and some personal possessions. I'm not, however, going to accuse the reporter of being so incompetent as to neglect to say so if the problem is really just that the building itself is going to blow up more no matter what and they're planning things so as to hopefully have it do so while they've got a reasonably good chance of minimizing the damage. (This isn't going to actually prevent contamination of the surrounding area or destroy any hazardous materials other than the volatile ones, but burning on site is about your only choice if they're likely to explode if you attempt removal...and in this case it might well be impossible to do so without the building going as well.)
You assume there is actually a need to burn the building to the ground and destroy the possessions of everyone who lives there. There is another theory: Massive government overreaction in the name of safety. The CYA school of law: Better to render a few dozen people destitute and homeless than call in a team of real experts for a risk assessment.
Honestly, since they are opting for a controlled burn, this seems the most likely situation--most of the things I know of that would render it unsafe due to contamination to even retrieve some personal possessions while not having taken the entire building out already would also render it distinctly unsafe to burn the place down. Either it's going to explode some more, or spread these mysterious toxins even more...
I wonder what would happen if somebody near the building took them to court, insisting on a proper environmental impact statement before the controlled burn is done?
And now we may never know, because the chances of the authorities ever telling the public what these mysterious super-toxins may be is pretty slim.
There's going to be lawsuits, since the other residents of the building aren't being allowed to remove personal belongings and the whole building is being burned. The authorities will almost certainly have to divulge what these mysterious super-toxins are in the process. However, odds are that you will have to be directly tracking the cases and court documents to learn, because I doubt those who'd be reporting on the cases would opt to mention the chemical names because that might (somehow) enable people to whip them up in their kitchen...never mind that by that same theory, merely knowing the word 'cake' would grant one the necessary knowledge to produce one from scratch.
The authorities might actually have given the name(s) already, and those just didn't get reported.
It is entirely possible to produce explosive compounds recreationally, without making them into anything that could be considered a bomb.
A lot of people make fireworks, not always professionally, and fireworks both require explosives and a reasonable level of competence in chemistry. They are also typically not considered bombs, and the same goes for any chemically-powered model rockets even though the chemicals involved are most definitely explosives.
The part that should be questioned is how anybody with a college degree in chemistry did not get taught better than to experiment with explosive chemicals in their own living space. This falls pretty firmly under the heading of things you do in a purpose-built building.
It'd also be important to keep in mind that the it protects privacy outside of the scope of the search--which means you might want to have it so either the consent to the search or the warrant must contain a complete list of what strings will be checked for, which won't prevent additional strings from being checked for but will keep it out of court.
But the same tools that let Agent Victor catch very bad bad guys would enable Peggy to clear herself with a minimum amount of compromising of her privacy. It should not be necessary for Peggy decrypt her phone and trust Victor to only notice Carol's number, and I would think that the more against the state having the crypto keys you are, the less you would want to potentially be stuck in a situation where you would have to decrypt things or provide the keys yourself.
The problem might be easier for people to mentally deal with if you shuffled things around. I would suggest looking at it from the position of "Peggy wishes to prove to Victor that her cell phone has not been used to call Carol, but without risking revealing anything else." Presume that somebody may be wanting to clear themselves without giving away any more of their privacy than absolutely necessary.
And what would that start look like? obviously making apps for linux and making linux apps work on windows is not it.
People complain if they close up, people complain if they open up. Is objectivity completely out the window (pun intended) here?
I suspect that it would look like quitting their bad behavior, which they've not done yet, and having the reports like the Cortana security hole routinely include the note that either the patch is out or due out in a couple days.
Opening or closing up has nothing much to do with anything here. That's like thinking that giving kids candy makes up for your ongoing habit of setting homeless people on fire.
No one is still there from those days. At some point, you need to move on.
You do realize that the important question isn't if there is anybody still there from those days, but if the corporate policies and culture behind the Halloween emails are also gone, right? That's the point at which you move on, when it's certain that it's not just new faces, same fecal matter.
There are ways to get the best of both worlds with Linux and Virtualization windows, or Wine. It really depends on which system you do your pirmary work, and which system, you are good with running in a slower mode.
And if you can confirm that the software necessary for work will, in fact, run correctly in Wine. Unfortunately, the only way I could do that for all of the pieces of software my job requires is to try running it in Wine myself, because some of it's in-house niche software.
Just another reason to not use Cortana or any of the other voice-activated appliances from Amazon, Apple, Google, etc.
Or have it not respond to vocal commands without a password, preferably one locked to a voice print and not just specific words, when locked down. However, given that I doubt anybody making these products will institute such a basic level of security until it's established that they cannot shift responsibility for security to a user when they either did not have the ability to secure it available, or what ought to be a basic security option only offered via a series of hidden super-sekret commands with few people even aware that they exist, no less how to access them.
So you only made $2/hour, net? How many hours did you work for Uber last year?
Offhand, I'd say 'too many.' I'm a bit curious as to how expenses are being calculated here, too--has the whole problem of it costing more to license and insure a for-hire vehicle somehow vanished without anybody mentioning it in the news? Or is the cost of getting all the legal paperwork perfect (proper tags, proper insurance) included in the math here?
Don’t think of it as a notch in your screen, but 2 extensions to your screen. With out the notch there will just be blank space not utilized for anything. I would think a geek site would like more uses in available space.
I've generally considered that blank space as there to serve as a place to put fingers safely when doing things like using the phone as a camera. A bit of texture or the like to help with grip would be nice, but I think all the phone manufacturers have some strange fetish for making phones as difficult to grip without a case as they can.
[...] So I'm going to say it like it is: Android manufacturers knows that iPhone is the more sought after phone. They know it makes so much more money than their thing. [...]
That's because the iPhone is a status symbol and priced accordingly. I buy Android phones because I want a good phone for the price I'm paying. I do not want the hardware version of the I Am Rich app, regardless of if it is an iPhone or just an overpriced technically-not-a-counterfeit of their stuff.
I hear that iPhones are actually doing pretty damn poorly on the market right now because most people are quite happy with their old phone or a refurb, and are overall considering at least the newest models to be overpriced. I'm not sure it's a good time to be copycatting iPhones, or at least the newest one--it might be a good time to offer a nice cellphone with an appearance inspired by the more classic models of iPhone, built to go after the people who don't like the current models' price but don't want the older tech of a refurb,
I don't know exactly what happened, and even the boss may not know because techs may be trying to cover their ass. (In fact trying to cover your ass during an incident is a VERY common mistake.). That's why I suggested he may want to have a third party look into what happened and how robust the set up is now. Because evidence suggests there is little reason to be confident.
I'd certainly not rule out that the mistakes predate the current owners, too--or issues outside of their control, which may overlap if it's something along the lines of "Previous data center has alleged backups" or "Somebody failed to make sure code was properly documented, and also failed to notice that among the badly-documented parts of code there was a 'clever' trick that depended on the old server's hardware configuration and would break if run on different hardware." (I leave how much fault you attribute where in such situations, but I suspect some of this might reasonably not be noticed until you're in the process of the move, though I would note that it would have been polite to stick a notice on the front page itself.)
What makes AI scarier than the software controlling nuclear facilities or nuclear weapons? Humans can wipe each other out and persecute each other without the help of AI. This scare-mongering is stupid, and makes you look like a retarded dipshit.
The software controlling nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons, offhand, are written by people who do not assume they're somehow immune from hacking, failing, and getting fucked with in general? The thing I'm saying is concerning here, which I will try to use shorter words for, is the utter fucking morons making the AIs.
I'm not scared of AI. In it's current state, it's a tool. It's a tool which has been vastly oversold with sucky quality, made by people who do not seem think that security and failsafes could possibly be necessary. It is not fearmongering to want something built well, with the ability to deal with it going into a failure mode in a safe and swift manner, and without having security meant for some fantasy world where people won't even dream of trying anything despite the fact that people have done it already and even by sheer accident with virtual assistants.
It'll still be necessary even then--by the time they can think in the sense you're probably meaning with 'think,' they're going to be self-aware and sapient. This will not necessarily hit after the point at which they have the levels of capability where you don't need to have the ability to transfer control back to a human; if you noticed, I did say it was not even necessarily because of the AI's level of capability.
Also, are you wrapping into the AI's basic capabilities 'cannot be hacked'? I'm not. I'm expecting security on AIs to be shit, right up until the AIs take control of design (and priorities) there for themselves. The attitude of many of the current creators of AIs seems to be "Meh, not our problem," and there doesn't seem to be much hope right now that this will change. Maybe if they're legally responsible for any and all problems caused by insecure AIs and for overselling their capabilities, but...
It sounds like at least some of these problems are pretty much only a problem if we give too much power to AIs--and not even necessarily going to happen because of the AI's behavior. Intentionally designing the systems to be incapable of causing certain types of havoc--or very quickly deactivated and control transferred to humans--is basic caution here, and not really needing a 100-page report by 26 high-octane scientists to tell us as much.
Or, you know, you could admit that it costs you, what with being Microsoft and the owners of Win7, a grand total of $0 on the materials end (and a negligible amount of manhours) to provide him with the installation image and a working activation key and just give him that. Read the summary, that's his alternate request--just a copy of Win7 that he can activate on already-owned hardware.
Plus, you're assuming his laptop is still recent enough to be available on the used and referb market. My experience with ASUS makes me suspect it's not.
It actually doesn't delete the previous OS at all by default. You usually have to tell it to delete it or wait till the next feature upgrade where that previous backup gets replaced. I have done a lot of those upgrades and it is friggen annoying as I constantly have to go to disk cleanup to get it to delete the old version.
I've added emphasis to what you said that covers the reason why this problem is actually default--in the case being described, the 'next feature upgrade(s)' getting installed happening immediately on booting into Win10. It would have been sensible to have it set up so it doesn't count for purposes of triggering a new backup if the previous feature upgrade hasn't been running on the system for a certain minimum amount of time--maybe a week. That would mean that it would treat Win7->Win10 (install)->Win10 (current) being done in short order as having been Win7-->Win10(current) for purposes of being able to roll the system back.
Slashdot Mirror
Any job that involved email, off as soon as I walked out the door. My time is my time. Some have complained that I didn't reply at 10pm at night, I don't get on-call pay so I don't answer.
All things considered, modernizing the laws for on-call pay probably would fix this problem very quickly--especially if the laws explicitly state that, unless agreed upon by both parties, if the employer expects you to answer the phone/email/texts and do work at all hours, then you are to be paid as if you are always on-call.
Instead of making it illegal, make it expensive.
Accomplishes NOTHING.
Except producing one of the best and most wide spread global awareness campaigns to energy wasting in history.
By wasting more energy in various more-harmful manners, don't forget that.
There's also the research that shows that people tend to feel that their part has been done by participating in an awareness campaign--which means that once people are generally aware of the problem, they do more harm than good, especially if done with no particular goal than to raise awareness, the equivalent of a fire department that doesn't do a thing more than let everybody know that a place is on fire. (I've had at least one run-in with an awareness campaign that seemed to run on the magical belief that if they got everybody aware of the problem, it'd somehow go away, given that they didn't even try to direct you towards things you could do to help other than raise awareness. Unsurprisingly, magical thinking continues to not work.)
don't confuse wisdom with knowledge, I've met some highly competent from knowledge pov folks in my time but wouldn't trust them not to do borderline retarded things like this. FWIW everyone I know with strong enough chemistry background (much higher than avergae in my circlke of friends and family) simply wouldn't even consider it with compounds with risk factor present; it is predictable or go home kind of thing for those with sense. That is coming from someone who has made stuff with their kids, knows friends who've done similar, and has a father who did the same when I was a young child. There are only two reasons I can see where someone without malice would make this mistake, either ignorance in the field so they didn't know enough to understand risks, or high competence but suffer from severe stupidity being the second.
Yeah, and the thing is that if he's got a pre-pharma degree with a minor in chemistry, it better be the second option there--except it's still rather baffling. I have one of the variants of pre-pharma--I got basically the major you get instead for that and premed if your school doesn't do the pre-professional major--so I've got a decent idea what sort of training he ought to have had. If he was doing it in a backyard shed, it'd actually be a lot less confusing; you learn a rather lot about why you don't want to risk your food prep or consumption areas getting contaminated, though it doesn't look like he went on to pharmacy school (which is admittedly harder to get into than med school) so maybe he was a Cs Get Degrees type of student. (Basically, the rule of thumb is that you don't necessarily know what got where and if it's safe to consume, and you probably want to know at least what it is if you're going to try finding out if it's safe for human consumption the direct way--if nothing else, so you can get credit on the paper saying that nope, pretty fatal.)
Even with that, however, he's apparently worked several chem lab jobs so he's put in a significant number of hours in labs and should have good safety training. I have questions about his school and his employers, and there's not nice ones.
Okay two issues. First, I'm talking about the components, the ingredients, used to make the explosive. Any actual explosives likely detonated in the explosion that killed him.
Secondly, the name of the explosive may very well be "acetone peroxide". Think nobody can guess which two ingredients you mix to make "acetone peroxide"? (For those unsure, it's acetone and peroxide.).
> Barring something in the way of highly exotic medical problems, your excrement is not likely to blow up. > And yes, yes you are randomly mixing the elemental ingredients when you use the toilet.
Try randomly mixing acetone and peroxide some time and see what happens. Mix no more than 1 gram, and make sure nobody is within 300 meters for the next several days.
Many, if not all, of the high explosives are, in point of fact, made up of just four elements: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. The only thing the name of an organic substance tells you are the elements and a bit about its structure. Yes, this includes your favorite acetone peroxide. The name does not provide sufficient information to let you know if it is something you might randomly get it in your waste bucket (a known phenomenon with acetone peroxide) or if it requires a long chain of reactions all going right to synthesize. A rather significant part of OChem is devoted pretty much to learning how to successfully synthesize organic substances without accidentally blowing yourself up or setting yourself on fire, with a section on the first day of lab typically devoted to what to do when that does happen anyway.
Honestly? I would actually not be particularly surprised if he was trying to make something that wasn't supposed to go KABOOM, and it's just that the FBI is so used to it being bomb makers that they start with that assumption.
> mention the chemical names because that might (somehow) enable people to whip them up in their kitchen...never mind that by that same theory, merely knowing the word 'cake' would grant one the necessary knowledge to produce one from scratch.
Although I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, that's really not a good analogy. We're talking about listing the ingredients used. If major newspapers published the ingredients for Coca-Cola, some people might TRY to make it. Not knowing anything more than the ingredient list, they'd probably fail to make it right. When making high explosives, failing to do things right can result in KABOOM, as it did in this case.
So the theory is given the list of ingredients, some idiot might TRY to make it, perhaps by just mixing together random amounts. In the case of acetone peroxide, just mixing the two ingredients will cause an explosion. It'll go off without being purposely detonated, if you don't take active steps to prevent spontaneous detonation.
No, it's very much the proper analogy because most high explosives are organics--to put it bluntly, the chemical name only gives you the list of elemental ingredients and possibly some idea of the structure, but you will often find a great overlap between the chemical ingredients in HEs and the material you routinely deposit into the toilet. Barring something in the way of highly exotic medical problems, your excrement is not likely to blow up.
And yes, yes you are randomly mixing the elemental ingredients when you use the toilet. Most organics require rather more than 'mix ingredients' to synthesize, and I am quite happy with the process being generally not my particular field of chemistry.
How unstable can the remaining stuff be? I mean it obviously did not detonate when the fist blast went off.,
Only if you didn't bother to read the article or know anything about chemistry. "The presence of dangerous chemicals on site make it unsafe to try to salvage the building, officials said, citing the risk of another explosion or chemical exposure to workers."
Depending on what he was trying to make, the intermediates and the by-products could be very toxic. This was compounded by the fact that the chemicals were spread by an explosion. Have you ever seen how law enforcement clean up a meth cook site. It's full Hazmat suits. Would you say the FBI is "covering something up" when they have to condemn a meth site?
They also usually don't try to burn meth sites.
Part of the problem is that the article and summary are not particularly good--it does not really make sense that they'd opt for a controlled burn unless they were doubtful that the place wasn't going to continue to explode anyway, but I'd generally expect that to be something that would be mentioned explicitly in the article. As it is, the summary seems to not list all of its sources, as it says nothing is getting removed due to contamination while the article linked to says pets and some limited personal items...but, well, I'd also be wanting to evacuate the area and keep it clear well ahead of the burn and therefore be pretty explicit if there's a risk of further explosions on the off chance that the volatile chemicals end up going before the planned burn.
Yeah, I don't get the "we have to burn down the entire building". Won't that send dangerous chemicals into the air?
If the burn is done right, it destroys the chemicals. That's "if" though.
This is why all barrels of hazardous chemicals are disposed of by incineration, and we don't have to actually have any landfills for hazardous chemicals.
Wouldn't it make more sense to tear down the building and send all the materials to a landfill for hazardous chemicals?
Who would tear down the building? If it is as dangerous are reported, that would require people in Hazmat suits for weeks, months to tear down the building. Then the second half of your plan is to send hazardous material to a landfill. Most of these repositories take in solids and liquids and encase them in domes. They don't take in drywall, wood, plastic, etc. The dome would be considerably large if they had to take in ruble of a building.
Funny, I've looked into buying a house where, if it burned down or I decided to have significant work done on it, I would have to send the rubble produced to a hazardous waste landfill, because asbestos. (This is also why I decided I wanted nothing to do with it.) You have to look around a bit, but given I was able to find several sites local to me that appear to accept precisely what you're talking about...though YMMV, as I'm also in an area where the city has multiple hazmat teams on the payroll.
Something seems fishy here.
Here are the things that are fact: There was an explosion. People were evacuated. Now you're claiming that it's "fishy" that they want to demolish the whole building. And how does that serve any conspiracy theory? The authorities want to put many people out of their homes because they want to cover up an explosion that everyone agrees has happened? They just hate people in those building that much?
The fishy part is the method, if the summary is accurate. There was an explosion, the most likely contaminants to be sufficiently dangerous as to forbid the other residents from retrieving anything from the building are ones that either won't be destroyed by burning the building, or will blow up more. My guess is that it's not conspiracy, but more an issue of figuring that the landlord and residents are not going to be able to take them to court & not wanting to spend the money on getting experts in.
However...
If you actually RTFA, it mentions that they've already had a couple controlled detonations and are allowing residents to retrieve pets and some personal possessions. I'm not, however, going to accuse the reporter of being so incompetent as to neglect to say so if the problem is really just that the building itself is going to blow up more no matter what and they're planning things so as to hopefully have it do so while they've got a reasonably good chance of minimizing the damage. (This isn't going to actually prevent contamination of the surrounding area or destroy any hazardous materials other than the volatile ones, but burning on site is about your only choice if they're likely to explode if you attempt removal...and in this case it might well be impossible to do so without the building going as well.)
You assume there is actually a need to burn the building to the ground and destroy the possessions of everyone who lives there. There is another theory: Massive government overreaction in the name of safety. The CYA school of law: Better to render a few dozen people destitute and homeless than call in a team of real experts for a risk assessment.
Honestly, since they are opting for a controlled burn, this seems the most likely situation--most of the things I know of that would render it unsafe due to contamination to even retrieve some personal possessions while not having taken the entire building out already would also render it distinctly unsafe to burn the place down. Either it's going to explode some more, or spread these mysterious toxins even more...
I wonder what would happen if somebody near the building took them to court, insisting on a proper environmental impact statement before the controlled burn is done?
And now we may never know, because the chances of the authorities ever telling the public what these mysterious super-toxins may be is pretty slim.
There's going to be lawsuits, since the other residents of the building aren't being allowed to remove personal belongings and the whole building is being burned. The authorities will almost certainly have to divulge what these mysterious super-toxins are in the process. However, odds are that you will have to be directly tracking the cases and court documents to learn, because I doubt those who'd be reporting on the cases would opt to mention the chemical names because that might (somehow) enable people to whip them up in their kitchen...never mind that by that same theory, merely knowing the word 'cake' would grant one the necessary knowledge to produce one from scratch.
The authorities might actually have given the name(s) already, and those just didn't get reported.
It is entirely possible to produce explosive compounds recreationally, without making them into anything that could be considered a bomb.
A lot of people make fireworks, not always professionally, and fireworks both require explosives and a reasonable level of competence in chemistry. They are also typically not considered bombs, and the same goes for any chemically-powered model rockets even though the chemicals involved are most definitely explosives.
Oh, and then there's dust. That explodes too...
The part that should be questioned is how anybody with a college degree in chemistry did not get taught better than to experiment with explosive chemicals in their own living space. This falls pretty firmly under the heading of things you do in a purpose-built building.
It'd also be important to keep in mind that the it protects privacy outside of the scope of the search--which means you might want to have it so either the consent to the search or the warrant must contain a complete list of what strings will be checked for, which won't prevent additional strings from being checked for but will keep it out of court.
But the same tools that let Agent Victor catch very bad bad guys would enable Peggy to clear herself with a minimum amount of compromising of her privacy. It should not be necessary for Peggy decrypt her phone and trust Victor to only notice Carol's number, and I would think that the more against the state having the crypto keys you are, the less you would want to potentially be stuck in a situation where you would have to decrypt things or provide the keys yourself.
The problem might be easier for people to mentally deal with if you shuffled things around. I would suggest looking at it from the position of "Peggy wishes to prove to Victor that her cell phone has not been used to call Carol, but without risking revealing anything else." Presume that somebody may be wanting to clear themselves without giving away any more of their privacy than absolutely necessary.
I haven't seen them start yet.
And what would that start look like? obviously making apps for linux and making linux apps work on windows is not it.
People complain if they close up, people complain if they open up. Is objectivity completely out the window (pun intended) here?
I suspect that it would look like quitting their bad behavior, which they've not done yet, and having the reports like the Cortana security hole routinely include the note that either the patch is out or due out in a couple days.
Opening or closing up has nothing much to do with anything here. That's like thinking that giving kids candy makes up for your ongoing habit of setting homeless people on fire.
No one is still there from those days. At some point, you need to move on.
You do realize that the important question isn't if there is anybody still there from those days, but if the corporate policies and culture behind the Halloween emails are also gone, right? That's the point at which you move on, when it's certain that it's not just new faces, same fecal matter.
There are ways to get the best of both worlds with Linux and Virtualization windows, or Wine. It really depends on which system you do your pirmary work, and which system, you are good with running in a slower mode.
And if you can confirm that the software necessary for work will, in fact, run correctly in Wine. Unfortunately, the only way I could do that for all of the pieces of software my job requires is to try running it in Wine myself, because some of it's in-house niche software.
Just another reason to not use Cortana or any of the other voice-activated appliances from Amazon, Apple, Google, etc.
Or have it not respond to vocal commands without a password, preferably one locked to a voice print and not just specific words, when locked down. However, given that I doubt anybody making these products will institute such a basic level of security until it's established that they cannot shift responsibility for security to a user when they either did not have the ability to secure it available, or what ought to be a basic security option only offered via a series of hidden super-sekret commands with few people even aware that they exist, no less how to access them.
So you only made $2/hour, net? How many hours did you work for Uber last year?
Offhand, I'd say 'too many.' I'm a bit curious as to how expenses are being calculated here, too--has the whole problem of it costing more to license and insure a for-hire vehicle somehow vanished without anybody mentioning it in the news? Or is the cost of getting all the legal paperwork perfect (proper tags, proper insurance) included in the math here?
Don’t think of it as a notch in your screen, but 2 extensions to your screen. With out the notch there will just be blank space not utilized for anything. I would think a geek site would like more uses in available space.
I've generally considered that blank space as there to serve as a place to put fingers safely when doing things like using the phone as a camera. A bit of texture or the like to help with grip would be nice, but I think all the phone manufacturers have some strange fetish for making phones as difficult to grip without a case as they can.
[...] So I'm going to say it like it is: Android manufacturers knows that iPhone is the more sought after phone. They know it makes so much more money than their thing. [...]
That's because the iPhone is a status symbol and priced accordingly. I buy Android phones because I want a good phone for the price I'm paying. I do not want the hardware version of the I Am Rich app, regardless of if it is an iPhone or just an overpriced technically-not-a-counterfeit of their stuff.
I hear that iPhones are actually doing pretty damn poorly on the market right now because most people are quite happy with their old phone or a refurb, and are overall considering at least the newest models to be overpriced. I'm not sure it's a good time to be copycatting iPhones, or at least the newest one--it might be a good time to offer a nice cellphone with an appearance inspired by the more classic models of iPhone, built to go after the people who don't like the current models' price but don't want the older tech of a refurb,
I don't know exactly what happened, and even the boss may not know because techs may be trying to cover their ass. (In fact trying to cover your ass during an incident is a VERY common mistake.). That's why I suggested he may want to have a third party look into what happened and how robust the set up is now. Because evidence suggests there is little reason to be confident.
I'd certainly not rule out that the mistakes predate the current owners, too--or issues outside of their control, which may overlap if it's something along the lines of "Previous data center has alleged backups" or "Somebody failed to make sure code was properly documented, and also failed to notice that among the badly-documented parts of code there was a 'clever' trick that depended on the old server's hardware configuration and would break if run on different hardware." (I leave how much fault you attribute where in such situations, but I suspect some of this might reasonably not be noticed until you're in the process of the move, though I would note that it would have been polite to stick a notice on the front page itself.)
What makes AI scarier than the software controlling nuclear facilities or nuclear weapons? Humans can wipe each other out and persecute each other without the help of AI. This scare-mongering is stupid, and makes you look like a retarded dipshit.
The software controlling nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons, offhand, are written by people who do not assume they're somehow immune from hacking, failing, and getting fucked with in general? The thing I'm saying is concerning here, which I will try to use shorter words for, is the utter fucking morons making the AIs.
I'm not scared of AI. In it's current state, it's a tool. It's a tool which has been vastly oversold with sucky quality, made by people who do not seem think that security and failsafes could possibly be necessary. It is not fearmongering to want something built well, with the ability to deal with it going into a failure mode in a safe and swift manner, and without having security meant for some fantasy world where people won't even dream of trying anything despite the fact that people have done it already and even by sheer accident with virtual assistants.
It'll still be necessary even then--by the time they can think in the sense you're probably meaning with 'think,' they're going to be self-aware and sapient. This will not necessarily hit after the point at which they have the levels of capability where you don't need to have the ability to transfer control back to a human; if you noticed, I did say it was not even necessarily because of the AI's level of capability.
Also, are you wrapping into the AI's basic capabilities 'cannot be hacked'? I'm not. I'm expecting security on AIs to be shit, right up until the AIs take control of design (and priorities) there for themselves. The attitude of many of the current creators of AIs seems to be "Meh, not our problem," and there doesn't seem to be much hope right now that this will change. Maybe if they're legally responsible for any and all problems caused by insecure AIs and for overselling their capabilities, but...
It sounds like at least some of these problems are pretty much only a problem if we give too much power to AIs--and not even necessarily going to happen because of the AI's behavior. Intentionally designing the systems to be incapable of causing certain types of havoc--or very quickly deactivated and control transferred to humans--is basic caution here, and not really needing a 100-page report by 26 high-octane scientists to tell us as much.
Or, you know, you could admit that it costs you, what with being Microsoft and the owners of Win7, a grand total of $0 on the materials end (and a negligible amount of manhours) to provide him with the installation image and a working activation key and just give him that. Read the summary, that's his alternate request--just a copy of Win7 that he can activate on already-owned hardware.
Plus, you're assuming his laptop is still recent enough to be available on the used and referb market. My experience with ASUS makes me suspect it's not.
It actually doesn't delete the previous OS at all by default. You usually have to tell it to delete it or wait till the next feature upgrade where that previous backup gets replaced. I have done a lot of those upgrades and it is friggen annoying as I constantly have to go to disk cleanup to get it to delete the old version.
I've added emphasis to what you said that covers the reason why this problem is actually default--in the case being described, the 'next feature upgrade(s)' getting installed happening immediately on booting into Win10. It would have been sensible to have it set up so it doesn't count for purposes of triggering a new backup if the previous feature upgrade hasn't been running on the system for a certain minimum amount of time--maybe a week. That would mean that it would treat Win7->Win10 (install)->Win10 (current) being done in short order as having been Win7-->Win10(current) for purposes of being able to roll the system back.