Drive through fast food and even liquor stores. Convenience stores where you can get a common grocery item quicker, but at an increased markup.
Sometimes it is the selection, occasionally it is the price, but ordering from the comfort of one's home is generally the ultimate in expedient convenience. Ordering household goods in your jammy pants with an adult beverage is almost worth missing the freak show at the block and mortar retailer.
Besides, if this problem is valid the FAA and other regulators will be involved to force the manufacturer to address the issue.
You'd think that's how it would work, right? Especially, with this now being made public, though the chances are, the FAA has their hands full with the twin perils of autonomous aerial vehicles and laser lights being shined into the cockpit.
Look for their interest to be piqued after the first passenger plane lands outside of an airport because of this vulnerability.
Google has removed and returned apps from the play store in the past with no explanation. We would like to think they did this for the safety of their user community, but there could be many other reasons.
It was probably Google looking out the user community, but it'd be prudent not to rule out the minuscule chance it is a leverage maneuver to get its own browser back into mainland China.
You're not wrong. Even within the framework of accepted definitions of intelligence, there have been social attempts to marginalize traditional intelligence to make everyone feel better about themselves. It's the participation trophy of life.
Still, even within the confines of intelligence as the ability to acquire, store, recall, and apply knowledge and skills, there are different subsets of intellect that vary greatly amongst even most mentally acute. There are observable differences in individual abilities for information storage and practical application, for instance; or when they are roughly equivalent in two people, leaps of imagination necessary to apply knowledge to new ideas and problem solving often vary significantly.
It seems likely there are multiple factors at play that make you more or less intelligent, and thus there must be different ways to be intelligent.
Living on the Space Station, for example, recycling water and testing how our bodies respond to the lack of gravity are much better tests for humans considering off-planet settlements.
Yet, learning to live within the confines of what the environment is able to provide is not without value. Xeriscaping, rainwater collection, grey water reuse, and Municipally-mandated water restrictions are all the offspring of scarcity. It's not inconceivable that scarcity could lead to more innovative approaches to the fresh water shortage we're destined to endure if the population growth continues unchecked.
And people are saying the people already living there are in trouble. Not enough water, requires a lot of energy just to stay livable by our modern standards, and on top of that it's going to be far from work so that means even more energy to move people back and forth between home and work twice a day.
Sure, but of the 200K years mankind's footprint has been expanding on the planet, most of it has been spent exploiting the rich natural reserves of the planet.
The conservation of (and stretching of) resources has arguably only advanced in times of extreme shortage. The exponential growth (intended) of crop yields to keep feeding a booming population is but one example. People are resourceful, intelligent creatures for the most part, yet often complacent unless propelled by hardship.
It's not Arrakis, but living in desert cities has already prompted water conservation and recycling unheard of a few generations ago.
As the population of humans on the planet continues to grow, it will becomes increasingly necessary to move into and settle regions previously considered inhospitable.
Learning to live in new environs is what resourceful life does when it refuses to die and depopulate at the edge of the Petri dish.
If we cannot figure out how to live (and eventually thrive) in the earthly atmosphere of the Arizona desert with its excessive heat and limited water, off-planet settlements are the dreams that come from pipes.
If only there was some sort of Police Work that could be done to solve these crimes without taking away everyone rights of privacy...
For instance, a detailed record of all the calls & text messages you've made and received is available from the cellphone company with your righteous subpoena.
Well, if you take a look at the Constitution of the United States of America, you won't find anything that explicitly forbids a private company from collecting data about you, which can be sold and used by the buyer for whatever purposes they decide.
Now, if a while back in Philadelphia, you would have floated this business model while quaffing some musty ales with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington . . . they would have all been thoroughly disgusted by this concept.
But then again, the Constitution isn't worth the paper that it is printed on these days, so if even if there was something in there against this practice . . . it would be simply ignored.
Quaffing musty ales, in whose esteemed company, "I'll have a Samuel Adams" would've been utterly misunderstood.
Whether or not you believe the Chinese, this apparent caving to a key tenet in trade negotiations is a win for the American President, its release timed just as he was scheduled to leave the country.
Interestingly, this places Wang Yang in the unenviable position of meteoric rise or cataclysmic fall within the Communist Party.
More interestingly, does this mean the Chinese were won over by Trump, or do they think this concession is a way to play him?
Until 1972, the bottom of the card said: "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION."
I'm not sure a national identification number, that could also be subverted, is the answer... perhaps the answer lies in biometric verification or elsewhere, but the present system is broken by the continued carelessness of virtually everyone.
Consider the case of Frederick II, an 18th-century king of Prussia. Frederick fancied himself an enlightened monarch, and
in some respects he was. On one occasion, he is supposed to have interested himself in the conditions of a Berlin prison. He was escorted through it so that he might speak to the prisoners.
One after the other, the prisoners fell to their knees before him, bewailing their lot and, predictably, protesting their utter innocence of all charges that had been brought against them.
Only one prisoner remained silent, and finally Frederick's curiosity was aroused.
"You," he called. "You, there!"
The prisoner looked up. "Yes, your majesty?"
"Why are you here?"
"Armed robbery, your majesty."
"And are you guilty?"
"Entirely guilty, your majesty. I richly deserve my punishment."
At this Frederick rapped his cane sharply on the ground and said, "Warden, release this guilty wretch at once. I will not have him here in jail where by example he will corrupt all the splendid innocent people who occupy it."
In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption." "I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained.
Let's just punch in random players here for the purpose of examining random outcomes: What if the governments are/become the criminals? It's not exactly unheard of.
Except for being average sized and male, I am otherwise an Amazonian. I have the Prime membership, the Fire TV, and though I never plugged in the Echo, I will often purchase an item under the protection of the Amazon umbrella even if it's available somewhere else a bit cheaper.
Last Christmas though, I made a couple of purchases on other web sites that I could've made on Jeff's.
Why? I just don't think one retail outlet should have an utter stranglehold on the marketplace. Competition is still the best regulatory agent available.
Any business that expects to survive, let alone thrive, in a competitive marketplace has to charge enough for whay they sell to cover a plethora of costs from vehicles to employee compensation to insurance... costs that aren't always obvious to folks who think a hundred dollar service call is highway robbery.
These cost to make it versus sale price comparisons are useless.
The pathetic part is realizing that this bullshit no-reservation policy works. If we want to change this, then we have to get rid of the fucking stupid mentality that queues are somehow hip and cool.
Hear! Hear! Instead of using the time to wait in line, I'd rather barbequeue.
You raise an important point, but as soon as autonomous land vehicles exceed the miles driven per accident that humans are capable of, insurance companies will line up in favor of paying for fewer wrecks.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the average driver already pays for this under the mandatory auto insurance laws.
Autonomous cars need to be 99.999999999999999% reliable before they should be considered ready for public consumption.
Since that's essentially an impossible standard, what you're saying is that we should never use autonomous land vehicles, even though human drivers fall massively short of that same safety threshold.
Slashdot Mirror
If you miss the freak show there won't be one, because you are the freak.
Or, you just live in a really shitty area.
I'm not certain why you believe those two things are mutually exclusive.
Drive through fast food and even liquor stores. Convenience stores where you can get a common grocery item quicker, but at an increased markup.
Sometimes it is the selection, occasionally it is the price, but ordering from the comfort of one's home is generally the ultimate in expedient convenience. Ordering household goods in your jammy pants with an adult beverage is almost worth missing the freak show at the block and mortar retailer.
Besides, if this problem is valid the FAA and other regulators will be involved to force the manufacturer to address the issue.
You'd think that's how it would work, right? Especially, with this now being made public, though the chances are, the FAA has their hands full with the twin perils of autonomous aerial vehicles and laser lights being shined into the cockpit.
Look for their interest to be piqued after the first passenger plane lands outside of an airport because of this vulnerability.
Google has removed and returned apps from the play store in the past with no explanation. We would like to think they did this for the safety of their user community, but there could be many other reasons.
It was probably Google looking out the user community, but it'd be prudent not to rule out the minuscule chance it is a leverage maneuver to get its own browser back into mainland China.
You're not wrong. Even within the framework of accepted definitions of intelligence, there have been social attempts to marginalize traditional intelligence to make everyone feel better about themselves. It's the participation trophy of life.
Still, even within the confines of intelligence as the ability to acquire, store, recall, and apply knowledge and skills, there are different subsets of intellect that vary greatly amongst even most mentally acute. There are observable differences in individual abilities for information storage and practical application, for instance; or when they are roughly equivalent in two people, leaps of imagination necessary to apply knowledge to new ideas and problem solving often vary significantly.
It seems likely there are multiple factors at play that make you more or less intelligent, and thus there must be different ways to be intelligent.
Living on the Space Station, for example, recycling water and testing how our bodies respond to the lack of gravity are much better tests for humans considering off-planet settlements.
Yet, learning to live within the confines of what the environment is able to provide is not without value. Xeriscaping, rainwater collection, grey water reuse, and Municipally-mandated water restrictions are all the offspring of scarcity. It's not inconceivable that scarcity could lead to more innovative approaches to the fresh water shortage we're destined to endure if the population growth continues unchecked.
The most important thing to remember is that IQ tests are neither meaningless nor harbingers of all types of intelligence.
There are several 'recognized' intelligences, and arguably many more.
words (linguistic intelligence), numbers or logic (logical-mathematical intelligence), pictures (spatial intelligence), music (musical intelligence), self-reflection (intrapersonal intelligence), physical experience (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence), and social experience (interpersonal intelligence).
And people are saying the people already living there are in trouble. Not enough water, requires a lot of energy just to stay livable by our modern standards, and on top of that it's going to be far from work so that means even more energy to move people back and forth between home and work twice a day.
Sure, but of the 200K years mankind's footprint has been expanding on the planet, most of it has been spent exploiting the rich natural reserves of the planet.
The conservation of (and stretching of) resources has arguably only advanced in times of extreme shortage. The exponential growth (intended) of crop yields to keep feeding a booming population is but one example. People are resourceful, intelligent creatures for the most part, yet often complacent unless propelled by hardship.
It's not Arrakis, but living in desert cities has already prompted water conservation and recycling unheard of a few generations ago.
Learning to live in new environs is what resourceful life does when it refuses to die and depopulate at the edge of the Petri dish.
If we cannot figure out how to live (and eventually thrive) in the earthly atmosphere of the Arizona desert with its excessive heat and limited water, off-planet settlements are the dreams that come from pipes.
If only there was some sort of Police Work that could be done to solve these crimes without taking away everyone rights of privacy...
For instance, a detailed record of all the calls & text messages you've made and received is available from the cellphone company with your righteous subpoena.
Why do you need into the phone again?
Like when I play a song on Youtube or Amazon, and they recommend a "session" with a similar predilection.
Ah.
So, you're going with "play."
Green line of death, but only because the Slashdot effect was already taken.
Well, if you take a look at the Constitution of the United States of America, you won't find anything that explicitly forbids a private company from collecting data about you, which can be sold and used by the buyer for whatever purposes they decide.
Now, if a while back in Philadelphia, you would have floated this business model while quaffing some musty ales with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington . . . they would have all been thoroughly disgusted by this concept.
But then again, the Constitution isn't worth the paper that it is printed on these days, so if even if there was something in there against this practice . . . it would be simply ignored.
Quaffing musty ales, in whose esteemed company, "I'll have a Samuel Adams" would've been utterly misunderstood.
Yes, I recommend a chip that will contain the information instead and which will be implanted in the head or in the hand.
I sure hope it's at birth, so, like circumcision, we have no memory of it.
Interestingly, this places Wang Yang in the unenviable position of meteoric rise or cataclysmic fall within the Communist Party.
More interestingly, does this mean the Chinese were won over by Trump, or do they think this concession is a way to play him?
I'm not sure a national identification number, that could also be subverted, is the answer... perhaps the answer lies in biometric verification or elsewhere, but the present system is broken by the continued carelessness of virtually everyone.
Consider the case of Frederick II, an 18th-century king of Prussia. Frederick fancied himself an enlightened monarch, and in some respects he was. On one occasion, he is supposed to have interested himself in the conditions of a Berlin prison. He was escorted through it so that he might speak to the prisoners.
One after the other, the prisoners fell to their knees before him, bewailing their lot and, predictably, protesting their utter innocence of all charges that had been brought against them.
Only one prisoner remained silent, and finally Frederick's curiosity was aroused.
"You," he called. "You, there!"
The prisoner looked up. "Yes, your majesty?"
"Why are you here?"
"Armed robbery, your majesty."
"And are you guilty?"
"Entirely guilty, your majesty. I richly deserve my punishment."
At this Frederick rapped his cane sharply on the ground and said, "Warden, release this guilty wretch at once. I will not have him here in jail where by example he will corrupt all the splendid innocent people who occupy it."
There's crystal clear. There's clear. There's ambiguous. There's Chinese Calculus. And then there's you.
In the interview, Rosenstein also said he "favors strong encryption." "I favor strong encryption, because the stronger the encryption, the more secure data is against criminals who are trying to commit fraud," he explained.
Let's just punch in random players here for the purpose of examining random outcomes: What if the governments are/become the criminals? It's not exactly unheard of.
Except for being average sized and male, I am otherwise an Amazonian. I have the Prime membership, the Fire TV, and though I never plugged in the Echo, I will often purchase an item under the protection of the Amazon umbrella even if it's available somewhere else a bit cheaper.
Last Christmas though, I made a couple of purchases on other web sites that I could've made on Jeff's.
Why? I just don't think one retail outlet should have an utter stranglehold on the marketplace. Competition is still the best regulatory agent available.
These cost to make it versus sale price comparisons are useless.
The pathetic part is realizing that this bullshit no-reservation policy works. If we want to change this, then we have to get rid of the fucking stupid mentality that queues are somehow hip and cool.
Hear! Hear! Instead of using the time to wait in line, I'd rather barbequeue.
You raise an important point, but as soon as autonomous land vehicles exceed the miles driven per accident that humans are capable of, insurance companies will line up in favor of paying for fewer wrecks.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the average driver already pays for this under the mandatory auto insurance laws.
Autonomous cars need to be 99.999999999999999% reliable before they should be considered ready for public consumption.
Since that's essentially an impossible standard, what you're saying is that we should never use autonomous land vehicles, even though human drivers fall massively short of that same safety threshold.