No, sentencing should be for protecting the non-dangerous public from the dangerous. It's not about punishment, or for a lot of heinous crimes we'd be taking red-hot pokers to people. It's not about rehabilitation either, because get real, do you think putting people in unpleasant conditions with unpleasant people makes them BETTER around the rest of us?
So this needs to stay. You want to stay out in the big blue room with the rest of us? Don't do things like this that put lives in jeopardy. I'd throw repeat DUI offenders in the same boat. I'd be happy to wall off a state for people like that and let them live however they want, just away from people who don't want to live with the permanent consequences of selfish SOB's like that guy.
Well, yeah, because you can't catch everyone. If the punishment is a week in jail and you're very unlikely to get caught, plenty of people are going to do this. If you have a small chance of spending years in jail, non-idiots will think twice and not do it. I hope he spends every day of it in jail and a bunch of similar morons decide to find their fun in other ways.
As one commenter posted already, it's about freedom. Not having your right to do something trivial taken away without good cause.
It's also a security issue. If your device can bring the plane down, you shouldn't be allowed to have the device on the plane at all. It's a nonsensical world we live in where the powers that be believe that can happen, but have to know planes take off and land every day with these devices on. If planes CAN be affected by these devices, we don't need to ban the devices, we need to fix the planes.
No, he agreed to make sure he didn't disappear. In that situation, I'd have words for the flight attendant and the news media when we land. When you put your child on a flight as an unaccompanied minor, do you think that means the airline is going to turn them over to the custody of some other random flier? I sure don't.
Do your job, flight attendant. This kid is officially solely YOUR responsibility now. I'm having nothing to do with him.
I've tried them. They suck for voices. If headphones are practical, I find in ear ones like the Shure 530s block out absolutely everything even with quiet music. You don't really need the 530s, though, probably the 110s or equivalent will work fine, but IMO the 3 plane earpiece cuts out a lot of sound. If headphones aren't practical, add non-distracting background noise. I have an app on my phone, plug it into the iHome, and go to sleep to rain/wind noise if there's noise in the house I don't want to hear.
To borrow a phrase I just read in Plait's rebuttal, I'm not sure life began here, but I think it's the way to bet.
Why? Because it's been demonstrated to be chemically possible given the environment here billions of years ago. Because the panspermia theory strikes me as people trying to answer the question "how did life arise?" merely by postulating that it came from somewhere else, which doesn't answer the question how it arose there.
Right now, we don't have any evidence life exists anywhere else in the universe. Personally, I think it probably does. If/when we find it, we can start looking at ways it might be transported from its home to ours. Wickramasinghe's basic idea isn't even a bad one. If you can find evidence of life in something demonstrably not from earth and rule out contamination, that's really compelling. Someday, perhaps, that will happen and qualified scientists will look at the tests and data and say "I can't see where they did anything wrong. I accept this result." That is just not what happened here.
Flying cars are DOA until we have self driving cars. On the way home last week, I saw a 5 car pile up. Nose to tail, every one. How did that happen? Either some moron managed to plow into the last car in a row hard enough to drive them all together (been there, done that as one of the hit cars, not the moron) or a chain of morons was all following so closely they couldn't stop as the first moron plowed into stopped cars.
These are the people the "flying car" crowd want flying. I don't even want these people driving, let alone driving over my head at 150 mph or more. These people can have flying cars when we have self-driving flying cars, and never before or the carnage will be obscene.
You're not really wrong here, but there's something awful about being watched all the time and being busted for every minor and often harmless infraction. There's also something awful about being fined and then told you have to pay to contest the fine.
The mere fact that they issued 3 times as many tickets as there are people in the town is an indication that something is wrong here. That the company gets 40% of every ticket they issue is a massive conflict of interest. It's been proven before that some municipalities do fun things like shorten yellow lights so they can ticket more people. If these cameras are to be used at all, it should be for public safety, not making the roads less safe (yellows lasting 0.9 seconds in some cases I recall) so some company can rake in more money.
I wouldn't call that laziness, though. No one should WANT to do work that doesn't need to be done. To me, lazy is unwillingness to do work that actually needs to be done.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with giving a patient their complete medical history, even though it may be riddled with words they don't understand and concepts they've not been trained in. It is not incumbent upon the medical institution to train patients in medicine. If they don't understand the record, they can go pay someone to interpret it for them. Or, medical professionals could stop using needlessly complex terms. Don't say the patient has idiopathic knee pain, say they have knee pain and we can't figure out why, but here's what we've tried...
It's reasonable for their provider to spend some smallish amount of time explaining things, just like if the patient came in for a physical and said "Oh, by the way doc, when I move my arm like this it hurts. What could that be?" It's also reasonable if the patient's questioning is UNreasonable, for the doctor to politely say "I'm sorry, Mrs. Smith, I understand and appreciate your interest, but the questions you're asking are really going beyond medical care and into medical education like you'd receive in pre-med undergrad and medical school, and regrettably that's not a service we're able to provide here." ObCarAnalogy: I pay my mechanic to fix my car. If I ask him to also teach me how to fix my car, he's usually going to say no, and that's fine.
This is no different from your HR file at your job, which you have limited access to.
I'm sorry, but it's MASSIVELY different. In your job, you are genuinely subordinate to the higher ups. They tell you to do stuff and you have to do it (or find a different job). There are things about the health and wellness of your company that are quite rightly none of your business. For example, selling off your division and laying you off might be the right thing to do. Telling you that they're contemplating that is harmful to the company (you and others may leave), especially if they decide not to.
Doctors, for all their arrogance, are the hired help. I'm sure I've angered every doctor who reads this, but it's true. I hire a guy to cut my lawn. I hire you to practice medicine upon my body. Yes, there's a vast leap in skill and knowledge required to do those jobs, but *I* am paying *you* to do something *for* me. Period. The simple solution to your claims is honesty and impartiality. Don't write that the patient is an obstinate jerk. Write that the patient failed to comply with your recommendations (not orders!) and cite examples. If the patient reads your notes and doesn't like it, the patient can find another doctor.
Sometimes the notes are important. If you're genuinely suffering from pain and the doctor thinks you're simply narcotic seeking, that's important. Even doctors have biases, and if you're a victim of one of your doctor's biases, you need to know that (and find another doctor).
IMO, it's better to deal with the slackers where they are. If you're telecommuting and not getting work done, or not getting a reasonable amount of work done, you need to come in to the office or get another job. Coming into the office isn't a punishment, it's giving you a chance to improve before we can you. It sounds like the problem Yahoo has is not telecommuters, it's that management doesn't actually manage. Sometimes that means doing hard things, like figuring out who isn't working and firing them.
Sure, it's a practical car. Perhaps not for you, though. For my typical usage, it would work fine with the exception of rare days when I drive 200+ miles. The vast majority of days I'm comfortably under 100 and plugging it in at home every night or two would work fine. If you happen to be a 2 or more car family, one could easily be a Tesla. Long trip? Take the other one. This, too, would work fine for me.
The only catch is that it's expensive. I wouldn't mind having one. I also wouldn't mind having a Rolex or shopping for the wifey at Tiffany, but I don't, and both for the same reason. Just because something is a luxury good doesn't mean it's not worth the money. It's not worth the money to *me*, but that's a purely personal decision.
That makes it a no-go for track enthusiasts, precisely the crowd it could appeal to.
I don't get this at all. An electric car makes no sense to me for track enthusiasts. I'm not one, but if I were, I think I'd want something that goes really fast, sticks to the ground through the turns like it's on rails, and yes, refuels quickly if I want to play for a long time. I can't think why I'd want an electric for this purpose.
It's like reviewing the world's best dump truck. Tesla's not building a track car any more than they're building a dump truck. Expecting it to be good at something it wasn't designed to be good at isn't journalism, even at the automotive gearhead level, it's just stupid.
Every week I turn about 100 pounds of gasoline into vapor, including about 200 pounds of CO2. I'm quite confident that if I turned all my driving into cycling, I wouldn't require 100 pounds of fuel to do it, and I'd generate nowhere near that much CO2. Wikipedia says about 1kg/day.
Any way you slice it, the second point is stupidity on a grand scale.
Eh, I don't know that I blame Cisco too much, honestly. ObCarAnalogy: If you went to one car dealer, told them they were the ONLY dealer you were going to and showed them a great big sack of money, are you really going to be surprised if they show you the Ferrari first?
It's really your (or WV's) job to know something about cars and that the Ferrari is massive overkill compared to your actual requirements. It's also your job to shop around.
I do think Cisco acted unethically. I just think the burden of not acting with unconscionable ignorance falls on the buyer. If you're spending $24 million, it's very reasonable to expect you to have some idea what you're doing.
I get that you're being sarcastic, but the answer is no. Stimulus is effectively forcing us to borrow money to spend now in the name of fixing the economy and the spending is supposed to be on things of actual value. The classic example is if stimulus is simply about getting money into hands, just hire people to dig trenches with spoons. We don't need trenches and that's a stupid way to get them but it's "creating jobs".
That really doesn't matter when you're slicing brains to map out pathways, however it is telling us something more important. Social animals that socialize don't take drugs.
That's called extrapolating beyond the data. If you go to a bar, you'll find that some social animals take drugs while socializing with great consistency.
You seem to hold the common misperception that there is perfect security. There isn't. At any price. When you're building a system, you want it to be perfectly reliable, perfectly secure, perfectly easy to use, etc. You can't have that. You also want it to cost as close to zero as possible. You nearly always can't have that. LIke it or not, you settle on a system that costs more than you want, is reliable enough, secure enough, easy enough to use, etc, where "enough" is sometimes not as good as you really want, but as good as you can get with the resources you have.
So no, the fact that an attacker compromised a system doesn't always mean someone dropped the ball. Sometimes it does, but not always and not necessarily.
Interestingly, there was the case of the homeless guy in NY, I think, where a police officer bought him boots because he was living on the street with no shoes. Turned out he had an apartment and hid the shoes rather than wear them. So yeah, some people prefer to live in a freezing park. Granted, that may often be because they're mentally ill.
Slashdot Mirror
No, sentencing should be for protecting the non-dangerous public from the dangerous. It's not about punishment, or for a lot of heinous crimes we'd be taking red-hot pokers to people. It's not about rehabilitation either, because get real, do you think putting people in unpleasant conditions with unpleasant people makes them BETTER around the rest of us?
So this needs to stay. You want to stay out in the big blue room with the rest of us? Don't do things like this that put lives in jeopardy. I'd throw repeat DUI offenders in the same boat. I'd be happy to wall off a state for people like that and let them live however they want, just away from people who don't want to live with the permanent consequences of selfish SOB's like that guy.
Well, yeah, because you can't catch everyone. If the punishment is a week in jail and you're very unlikely to get caught, plenty of people are going to do this. If you have a small chance of spending years in jail, non-idiots will think twice and not do it. I hope he spends every day of it in jail and a bunch of similar morons decide to find their fun in other ways.
As one commenter posted already, it's about freedom. Not having your right to do something trivial taken away without good cause.
It's also a security issue. If your device can bring the plane down, you shouldn't be allowed to have the device on the plane at all. It's a nonsensical world we live in where the powers that be believe that can happen, but have to know planes take off and land every day with these devices on. If planes CAN be affected by these devices, we don't need to ban the devices, we need to fix the planes.
No, he agreed to make sure he didn't disappear. In that situation, I'd have words for the flight attendant and the news media when we land. When you put your child on a flight as an unaccompanied minor, do you think that means the airline is going to turn them over to the custody of some other random flier? I sure don't.
Do your job, flight attendant. This kid is officially solely YOUR responsibility now. I'm having nothing to do with him.
I've tried them. They suck for voices. If headphones are practical, I find in ear ones like the Shure 530s block out absolutely everything even with quiet music. You don't really need the 530s, though, probably the 110s or equivalent will work fine, but IMO the 3 plane earpiece cuts out a lot of sound. If headphones aren't practical, add non-distracting background noise. I have an app on my phone, plug it into the iHome, and go to sleep to rain/wind noise if there's noise in the house I don't want to hear.
To borrow a phrase I just read in Plait's rebuttal, I'm not sure life began here, but I think it's the way to bet.
Why? Because it's been demonstrated to be chemically possible given the environment here billions of years ago. Because the panspermia theory strikes me as people trying to answer the question "how did life arise?" merely by postulating that it came from somewhere else, which doesn't answer the question how it arose there.
Right now, we don't have any evidence life exists anywhere else in the universe. Personally, I think it probably does. If/when we find it, we can start looking at ways it might be transported from its home to ours. Wickramasinghe's basic idea isn't even a bad one. If you can find evidence of life in something demonstrably not from earth and rule out contamination, that's really compelling. Someday, perhaps, that will happen and qualified scientists will look at the tests and data and say "I can't see where they did anything wrong. I accept this result." That is just not what happened here.
This needs to be +5, Awesome. It's exactly right.
Flying cars are DOA until we have self driving cars. On the way home last week, I saw a 5 car pile up. Nose to tail, every one. How did that happen? Either some moron managed to plow into the last car in a row hard enough to drive them all together (been there, done that as one of the hit cars, not the moron) or a chain of morons was all following so closely they couldn't stop as the first moron plowed into stopped cars.
These are the people the "flying car" crowd want flying. I don't even want these people driving, let alone driving over my head at 150 mph or more. These people can have flying cars when we have self-driving flying cars, and never before or the carnage will be obscene.
You're not really wrong here, but there's something awful about being watched all the time and being busted for every minor and often harmless infraction. There's also something awful about being fined and then told you have to pay to contest the fine.
The mere fact that they issued 3 times as many tickets as there are people in the town is an indication that something is wrong here. That the company gets 40% of every ticket they issue is a massive conflict of interest. It's been proven before that some municipalities do fun things like shorten yellow lights so they can ticket more people. If these cameras are to be used at all, it should be for public safety, not making the roads less safe (yellows lasting 0.9 seconds in some cases I recall) so some company can rake in more money.
I wouldn't call that laziness, though. No one should WANT to do work that doesn't need to be done. To me, lazy is unwillingness to do work that actually needs to be done.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with giving a patient their complete medical history, even though it may be riddled with words they don't understand and concepts they've not been trained in. It is not incumbent upon the medical institution to train patients in medicine. If they don't understand the record, they can go pay someone to interpret it for them. Or, medical professionals could stop using needlessly complex terms. Don't say the patient has idiopathic knee pain, say they have knee pain and we can't figure out why, but here's what we've tried...
It's reasonable for their provider to spend some smallish amount of time explaining things, just like if the patient came in for a physical and said "Oh, by the way doc, when I move my arm like this it hurts. What could that be?" It's also reasonable if the patient's questioning is UNreasonable, for the doctor to politely say "I'm sorry, Mrs. Smith, I understand and appreciate your interest, but the questions you're asking are really going beyond medical care and into medical education like you'd receive in pre-med undergrad and medical school, and regrettably that's not a service we're able to provide here." ObCarAnalogy: I pay my mechanic to fix my car. If I ask him to also teach me how to fix my car, he's usually going to say no, and that's fine.
I'm sorry, but it's MASSIVELY different. In your job, you are genuinely subordinate to the higher ups. They tell you to do stuff and you have to do it (or find a different job). There are things about the health and wellness of your company that are quite rightly none of your business. For example, selling off your division and laying you off might be the right thing to do. Telling you that they're contemplating that is harmful to the company (you and others may leave), especially if they decide not to.
Doctors, for all their arrogance, are the hired help. I'm sure I've angered every doctor who reads this, but it's true. I hire a guy to cut my lawn. I hire you to practice medicine upon my body. Yes, there's a vast leap in skill and knowledge required to do those jobs, but *I* am paying *you* to do something *for* me. Period. The simple solution to your claims is honesty and impartiality. Don't write that the patient is an obstinate jerk. Write that the patient failed to comply with your recommendations (not orders!) and cite examples. If the patient reads your notes and doesn't like it, the patient can find another doctor.
Sometimes the notes are important. If you're genuinely suffering from pain and the doctor thinks you're simply narcotic seeking, that's important. Even doctors have biases, and if you're a victim of one of your doctor's biases, you need to know that (and find another doctor).
Managers don't make people lazy. Lazy people do make managers necessary, though.
IMO, it's better to deal with the slackers where they are. If you're telecommuting and not getting work done, or not getting a reasonable amount of work done, you need to come in to the office or get another job. Coming into the office isn't a punishment, it's giving you a chance to improve before we can you. It sounds like the problem Yahoo has is not telecommuters, it's that management doesn't actually manage. Sometimes that means doing hard things, like figuring out who isn't working and firing them.
This means someone is tracking the wrong metrics.
Sure, it's a practical car. Perhaps not for you, though. For my typical usage, it would work fine with the exception of rare days when I drive 200+ miles. The vast majority of days I'm comfortably under 100 and plugging it in at home every night or two would work fine. If you happen to be a 2 or more car family, one could easily be a Tesla. Long trip? Take the other one. This, too, would work fine for me.
The only catch is that it's expensive. I wouldn't mind having one. I also wouldn't mind having a Rolex or shopping for the wifey at Tiffany, but I don't, and both for the same reason. Just because something is a luxury good doesn't mean it's not worth the money. It's not worth the money to *me*, but that's a purely personal decision.
I don't get this at all. An electric car makes no sense to me for track enthusiasts. I'm not one, but if I were, I think I'd want something that goes really fast, sticks to the ground through the turns like it's on rails, and yes, refuels quickly if I want to play for a long time. I can't think why I'd want an electric for this purpose.
It's like reviewing the world's best dump truck. Tesla's not building a track car any more than they're building a dump truck. Expecting it to be good at something it wasn't designed to be good at isn't journalism, even at the automotive gearhead level, it's just stupid.
Oh, I dunno...honesty?
Every week I turn about 100 pounds of gasoline into vapor, including about 200 pounds of CO2. I'm quite confident that if I turned all my driving into cycling, I wouldn't require 100 pounds of fuel to do it, and I'd generate nowhere near that much CO2. Wikipedia says about 1kg/day.
Any way you slice it, the second point is stupidity on a grand scale.
Eh, I don't know that I blame Cisco too much, honestly. ObCarAnalogy: If you went to one car dealer, told them they were the ONLY dealer you were going to and showed them a great big sack of money, are you really going to be surprised if they show you the Ferrari first?
It's really your (or WV's) job to know something about cars and that the Ferrari is massive overkill compared to your actual requirements. It's also your job to shop around.
I do think Cisco acted unethically. I just think the burden of not acting with unconscionable ignorance falls on the buyer. If you're spending $24 million, it's very reasonable to expect you to have some idea what you're doing.
I get that you're being sarcastic, but the answer is no. Stimulus is effectively forcing us to borrow money to spend now in the name of fixing the economy and the spending is supposed to be on things of actual value. The classic example is if stimulus is simply about getting money into hands, just hire people to dig trenches with spoons. We don't need trenches and that's a stupid way to get them but it's "creating jobs".
So invite him over for a beer, first. :-)
Any sympathy for the innocent one? I'd sure hate to be tortured because my sibling committed a crime.
That's called extrapolating beyond the data. If you go to a bar, you'll find that some social animals take drugs while socializing with great consistency.
You seem to hold the common misperception that there is perfect security. There isn't. At any price. When you're building a system, you want it to be perfectly reliable, perfectly secure, perfectly easy to use, etc. You can't have that. You also want it to cost as close to zero as possible. You nearly always can't have that. LIke it or not, you settle on a system that costs more than you want, is reliable enough, secure enough, easy enough to use, etc, where "enough" is sometimes not as good as you really want, but as good as you can get with the resources you have.
So no, the fact that an attacker compromised a system doesn't always mean someone dropped the ball. Sometimes it does, but not always and not necessarily.
Interestingly, there was the case of the homeless guy in NY, I think, where a police officer bought him boots because he was living on the street with no shoes. Turned out he had an apartment and hid the shoes rather than wear them. So yeah, some people prefer to live in a freezing park. Granted, that may often be because they're mentally ill.