As a middle-class desk jockey who lives in San Francisco and works on the peninsula, let me just say this: fuck you.
I've lived out of my car and worked minimum wage jobs. I've also pulled 120 hour weeks in the tech sector. Given the value (in dollars) of the work people in tech do, and the shortage of competent workers, it makes sense to take away the hassle of driving and have people spend those commuting hours working.
On the flip side of things, it's a free fucking market, and San Francisco hasn't done lower income residents any favors. Rent control that severely limits rental income on older properties but leaves a gaping legal hole for eviction? Stupid. Idiotic zoning and permitting practices that leave residential developments in limbo for years and see them stifled by an *anonymous* violation reporting process that stops work for days at a time *at the moment of report*? Batshit. Public transit that shuts down at midnight and renders local suburbs impractical for really taking part in San Francisco's night life? Pathetic. A miniature slice of a peninsula with desirable weather, great sprawling vistas, and wonderful access to water? Okay, that one is nature.
The reality is that the local and state governments have basically set eye-popping real estate prices up as the inevitable outcome of some pretty short sighted choices. You want to protest people who earn money in another city and then pump it into the service economy in San Francisco? You want to protest the people who fund universal healthcare in San Francisco? You're going to give a pass to the elected officials who actually caused these problems? You're going to dismiss the ballot measures passed by residents? You're going to go after people who are the next rung up on the ladder instead of the top?
I rent my place in SF. I'm not happy about skyrocketing rates, either, but I'm not going to just abandon the city because other people want me to make it magically cheaper for them. Someone else will just come fill the void. It is *nice* here.
If half of these protesters had a fucking clue about the basics of supply and demand, maybe they'd figure out a way to make real estate approachable instead of going after mass transit that does the whole city a traffic reduction favor.
I have a 40Ah battery in my car (at 12V, that's 480 Wh). If it were drawing like a Model S, it would be dead in under half a day... I often go *weeks* without driving.
45W is huge. Your phone in active standby (screen off) is probably around 45mW... A Macbook Air under load is 45W. That is an *astronomical* amount of energy in standby. Even the cellular connection can only account for, maybe, 1W. Is this for the auto door pulls? Battery heaters?
Isn't the model number the kWh of the battery pack? The 85 is an 85kWh car, right?
So, you know, when you go on vacation, make sure to leave your car plugged in...
One important reason to not have stability control is that stability control is typically configured to specifically avoid significant slip angles. It is *not* designed to avoid hitting that tree, curb, small child, or boat in front of you. The car doesn't know what its surroundings are. A significant slip angle may be the fastest, safest, or otherwise most appropriate approach to the circumstances.
i.e. Sometimes it makes sense to slide a car.
Each of these things about this car could be thought of as bad or good: - Why would you want a center of gravity so low as to make it hard to feel how laterally loaded the car is? This might make it more likely to snap at the limit, making it less safe. It might also make it handle better overall, making it safer. - Why would you want a low polar moment of inertia? This might make it more likely to spin. It might also make it easier to change direction, raising its performance limits. Raising the limits of a car could be thought of as making it more or less safe... - Why would you want a more responsive engine with very little flywheel inertia? This could cause you to lose control, or it could allow you to keep it.
That said, the GT is an absolutely ridiculous car to drive, and it can easily catch someone out if they aren't paying attention, especially while goofing off.
There is no cognitive fault, but instead, a conditioned, and, frankly, dangerous, view of software as protected by legal remedy. This idea has left us with shit software supported by careless organizations propagating paper-thin security already compromised by rafts of governments. A network is a dangerous place, and software and hardware should treat networks like the wild west when it comes to privacy/security.
On your other point, regarding "protection money," the reasoning is rather simple. People respond to incentives. If hackers have little to no financial reason to disclose a vulnerability to Yahoo, some may be motivated to find other ways to monetize their efforts. Forget legality/morality for a second and just think about incentives. What Yahoo is doing is removing their incentive for responsible disclosure. By providing a T-Shirt voucher, they're probably incentivizing attack by otherwise disinterested parties, just for the middle-finger of it all.
I've made my own, but you can buy them inexpensively. They're really convenient if you're, say, trying to keep devices from popping the VMWare Fusion Mac/Linux selection dialog or complaining about ejection.
So, yeah, this guy made a board, but a cut-line extension cable has been the answer to this problem for a while. Some devices may fuss or trickle charge, but it generally works.
Do you have good ideas? Okay. If you have good ideas and good understanding, can you be more effective for the company as a whole as an individual contributor or a leader of six or seven decent implementors/learners?
- If you can push ideas, techniques, and wisdom into other team members, you can make your whole team more effective. - Formalization/recognition of this helps to grease organizational uptake (though this can admittedly break down). Still, making you a team lead is putting faith in your judgment. This is not necessarily the same as making you a manager, but there is some crossover. - If you weren't the leader because you actively declined the position, congratulations, you just demonstrated an unwillingness to be leveraged.
I'm not a manager, and I prefer when ideas trump rank, but get real. Companies want people who can help them cultivate teams and act as rudders. They're looking for people they can leverage to make their whole team better.
And, yes, "leverage" is a douchy management word these days, but anyone should get what I mean here. You may not sure that it is right, but people who lift teams up are hard to find.
That said, if you're the silent type, lead with code. Create examples of competence, and see them ask the way through, even if that means finding advocates to help you. There are ways to demonstrate value and improve your resume that don't require taking on leadership positions.
I'm totally with you, even solo, I'm going to throw a laptop or two at the guy and rush him. That said, I'm not sure that people travelling with families is the main use for air transport. For flights local to the west coast, my totally un-scientific sample-set (roughly 50 flights per year) would indicate that most of the person-miles flown are solo travelers.
I dunno. I drove the wrong way up a one way, slid to a stop, hopped out of my car, and wrestled a bike thief to the ground today, all because I saw a guy in bike clothes yelling "stop that guy!" Only later, when I was telling my wife about it, did it occur to me that there was a fair bit of risk involved.
No doubt there are at least a few dudes on that plane who watched Bourne with a magazine and want to see if it works against a knife. It won't be box-cutters that take a plane ever again.
I give an attacker about 15-30 seconds of confusion before it's game over. Taking a full 737? I'd wager 8-15 people would be required. The era of low-effort hijacking is over.
I'm pretty sure that my MacBook Air 13" will do some damage if thrown, and I've been really looking for an excuse to get a Retina...
I have a video of the person who broke into and vandalized six cars (including mine), with the perpetrator clearly looking at the camera from three feet. It's a straightforward way to identify him. When I handed this video to the police, they said. "eh. We may look at it," and took off.
So, yeah, your chances of getting your car back are pretty much the same either way. The police are far too busy between violent crimes and issuing parking tickets to deal with property crime.
Please, please, please, please, please let the portal gun exist in multi-player, except you only control one side of the portal. Holding control of one half is exclusive to holding control of the other. Comedy effin' gold.
I saw a guy file a formal grievance this weekend (early voting) because someone at the polling place was taking photos of people within 100 feet of the polling place (really, within five feet). It turns out he was just taking pictures of his kid's first time voting, but it took all of a minute for cops to come, get his info, and ask him to leave.
We have laws against activities that we know have been used to a large degree to corrupt the voting process. I actually believe in large-scale absentee voting (and I've signed up for permanent absentee voting), but I can see where people would have legitimate concerns about the risks. I just think that the benefits wildly outweigh the risks.
I think the argument is that it *could* happen. Historically, electioneering, intimidation, and watchful-eye forced voting have happened. They just haven't happened recently.
I think he's saying that it's laughably parallelizable, which is true. Heck, counting 500 ballots isn't that tough. Have two people do that, so it's 250 ballots per person. That's what, 360k people? For an hour?
This is the US, of course, so give me my reaching stick for the TV remote.
And at the rate that they rubber-stamp cases, there is no way that they do due diligence. Both juries and grand juries are effectively instructed to limit their thinking and consideration to ridiculously narrow determinations that could be done just about as effectively by trained chickens. Grand juries merely have to agree (by majority) that the one-sided evidence presented satisfies the basic constraints of the charges. It's a pretty damned-low bar. The chances that the majority of a layperson grand jury would say "hold on a second... This is ridiculous" are pretty damned slim.
And this is why, when prosecutors have clearly dog-piled unreasonable charges in an effort to force a plea, judges should reflexively dismiss cases with prejudice. At this point, there's no harm in trying.
Hell, prosecutors who bully with untenable charges should be held in contempt. This is up to judges. It is their responsibility to maintain fairness. Perhaps we should start appointing/electing judges who didn't go to the same law schools and work in the same firms as the attorneys they interact with. Perhaps we should stop appointing/electing lawyers.
You may mean "legally, it is theft," but you'd be wrong. Legally, there are gaps between these acts that are clear and significant.
The question of wire fraud should be one of reasonable protection, but it rarely is. If I put a lock on the door to my house, it's a clear impediment to entry. But what if I have an open doorway? No longer necessarily breaking and entering. Now, what if I have an open doorway with a horizontal rod at six feet, smacking the head of anyone tall who walks in without ducking? Ducking is about as hard as changing your MAC address, and I think you'd have a hard time finding a court that would deem a single horizontal bar above average adult height to be a socially sufficient indication of intent to a reasonable person. Unfortunately, the term "reasonable person" should really be "reasonably technically competent person" in this context, as the opinions of the public at large have more to do with who is telling them than what is being said.
So, should someone run for office and change this stuff? Sure, but it's not legally theft.
They found conventional produce 30% more likely to have organo-phosphates (by compound count rather than amount, which is a moronic measure) then went on to say "but it is below FDA allowed limits, so its safe." FUCK that. FDA limits are the max. They also pointed out that other factors dominate vitamin content in produce while glossing over results from constituent studies (that's right... it's another questionable meta study) that show higher average nutrient content in organic foods.
I'm all for doubting conventional wisdom, but this study is USDA choice bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
As a middle-class desk jockey who lives in San Francisco and works on the peninsula, let me just say this: fuck you.
I've lived out of my car and worked minimum wage jobs. I've also pulled 120 hour weeks in the tech sector. Given the value (in dollars) of the work people in tech do, and the shortage of competent workers, it makes sense to take away the hassle of driving and have people spend those commuting hours working.
On the flip side of things, it's a free fucking market, and San Francisco hasn't done lower income residents any favors. Rent control that severely limits rental income on older properties but leaves a gaping legal hole for eviction? Stupid. Idiotic zoning and permitting practices that leave residential developments in limbo for years and see them stifled by an *anonymous* violation reporting process that stops work for days at a time *at the moment of report*? Batshit. Public transit that shuts down at midnight and renders local suburbs impractical for really taking part in San Francisco's night life? Pathetic. A miniature slice of a peninsula with desirable weather, great sprawling vistas, and wonderful access to water? Okay, that one is nature.
The reality is that the local and state governments have basically set eye-popping real estate prices up as the inevitable outcome of some pretty short sighted choices. You want to protest people who earn money in another city and then pump it into the service economy in San Francisco? You want to protest the people who fund universal healthcare in San Francisco? You're going to give a pass to the elected officials who actually caused these problems? You're going to dismiss the ballot measures passed by residents? You're going to go after people who are the next rung up on the ladder instead of the top?
I rent my place in SF. I'm not happy about skyrocketing rates, either, but I'm not going to just abandon the city because other people want me to make it magically cheaper for them. Someone else will just come fill the void. It is *nice* here.
If half of these protesters had a fucking clue about the basics of supply and demand, maybe they'd figure out a way to make real estate approachable instead of going after mass transit that does the whole city a traffic reduction favor.
As it stands, fuck you.
It is nowhere near that in a normal car...
I have a 40Ah battery in my car (at 12V, that's 480 Wh). If it were drawing like a Model S, it would be dead in under half a day... I often go *weeks* without driving.
45W is huge. Your phone in active standby (screen off) is probably around 45mW... A Macbook Air under load is 45W. That is an *astronomical* amount of energy in standby. Even the cellular connection can only account for, maybe, 1W. Is this for the auto door pulls? Battery heaters?
Isn't the model number the kWh of the battery pack? The 85 is an 85kWh car, right?
So, you know, when you go on vacation, make sure to leave your car plugged in...
One important reason to not have stability control is that stability control is typically configured to specifically avoid significant slip angles. It is *not* designed to avoid hitting that tree, curb, small child, or boat in front of you. The car doesn't know what its surroundings are. A significant slip angle may be the fastest, safest, or otherwise most appropriate approach to the circumstances.
i.e. Sometimes it makes sense to slide a car.
Each of these things about this car could be thought of as bad or good:
- Why would you want a center of gravity so low as to make it hard to feel how laterally loaded the car is? This might make it more likely to snap at the limit, making it less safe. It might also make it handle better overall, making it safer.
- Why would you want a low polar moment of inertia? This might make it more likely to spin. It might also make it easier to change direction, raising its performance limits. Raising the limits of a car could be thought of as making it more or less safe...
- Why would you want a more responsive engine with very little flywheel inertia? This could cause you to lose control, or it could allow you to keep it.
That said, the GT is an absolutely ridiculous car to drive, and it can easily catch someone out if they aren't paying attention, especially while goofing off.
Well, you still have it. It's a vulnerability, not a teddy bear.
There is no cognitive fault, but instead, a conditioned, and, frankly, dangerous, view of software as protected by legal remedy. This idea has left us with shit software supported by careless organizations propagating paper-thin security already compromised by rafts of governments. A network is a dangerous place, and software and hardware should treat networks like the wild west when it comes to privacy/security.
On your other point, regarding "protection money," the reasoning is rather simple. People respond to incentives. If hackers have little to no financial reason to disclose a vulnerability to Yahoo, some may be motivated to find other ways to monetize their efforts. Forget legality/morality for a second and just think about incentives. What Yahoo is doing is removing their incentive for responsible disclosure. By providing a T-Shirt voucher, they're probably incentivizing attack by otherwise disinterested parties, just for the middle-finger of it all.
I've made my own, but you can buy them inexpensively. They're really convenient if you're, say, trying to keep devices from popping the VMWare Fusion Mac/Linux selection dialog or complaining about ejection.
So, yeah, this guy made a board, but a cut-line extension cable has been the answer to this problem for a while. Some devices may fuss or trickle charge, but it generally works.
Do you have good ideas? Okay. If you have good ideas and good understanding, can you be more effective for the company as a whole as an individual contributor or a leader of six or seven decent implementors/learners?
- If you can push ideas, techniques, and wisdom into other team members, you can make your whole team more effective.
- Formalization/recognition of this helps to grease organizational uptake (though this can admittedly break down). Still, making you a team lead is putting faith in your judgment. This is not necessarily the same as making you a manager, but there is some crossover.
- If you weren't the leader because you actively declined the position, congratulations, you just demonstrated an unwillingness to be leveraged.
I'm not a manager, and I prefer when ideas trump rank, but get real. Companies want people who can help them cultivate teams and act as rudders. They're looking for people they can leverage to make their whole team better.
And, yes, "leverage" is a douchy management word these days, but anyone should get what I mean here. You may not sure that it is right, but people who lift teams up are hard to find.
That said, if you're the silent type, lead with code. Create examples of competence, and see them ask the way through, even if that means finding advocates to help you. There are ways to demonstrate value and improve your resume that don't require taking on leadership positions.
I'm totally with you, even solo, I'm going to throw a laptop or two at the guy and rush him. That said, I'm not sure that people travelling with families is the main use for air transport. For flights local to the west coast, my totally un-scientific sample-set (roughly 50 flights per year) would indicate that most of the person-miles flown are solo travelers.
I dunno. I drove the wrong way up a one way, slid to a stop, hopped out of my car, and wrestled a bike thief to the ground today, all because I saw a guy in bike clothes yelling "stop that guy!" Only later, when I was telling my wife about it, did it occur to me that there was a fair bit of risk involved.
No doubt there are at least a few dudes on that plane who watched Bourne with a magazine and want to see if it works against a knife. It won't be box-cutters that take a plane ever again.
I give an attacker about 15-30 seconds of confusion before it's game over. Taking a full 737? I'd wager 8-15 people would be required. The era of low-effort hijacking is over.
I'm pretty sure that my MacBook Air 13" will do some damage if thrown, and I've been really looking for an excuse to get a Retina...
That is true. People should feel free to speak with police, but they should also feel free not to.
I have a video of the person who broke into and vandalized six cars (including mine), with the perpetrator clearly looking at the camera from three feet. It's a straightforward way to identify him. When I handed this video to the police, they said. "eh. We may look at it," and took off.
So, yeah, your chances of getting your car back are pretty much the same either way. The police are far too busy between violent crimes and issuing parking tickets to deal with property crime.
It's like when you trade your old Civic in for a new Civic and discover that they've made it a little bit worse.
Oh.. Hey!
Well, rich-er, but if we keep this up, only the rich will have property. Problem solved.
Please, please, please, please, please let the portal gun exist in multi-player, except you only control one side of the portal. Holding control of one half is exclusive to holding control of the other. Comedy effin' gold.
I saw a guy file a formal grievance this weekend (early voting) because someone at the polling place was taking photos of people within 100 feet of the polling place (really, within five feet). It turns out he was just taking pictures of his kid's first time voting, but it took all of a minute for cops to come, get his info, and ask him to leave.
We have laws against activities that we know have been used to a large degree to corrupt the voting process. I actually believe in large-scale absentee voting (and I've signed up for permanent absentee voting), but I can see where people would have legitimate concerns about the risks. I just think that the benefits wildly outweigh the risks.
I think the argument is that it *could* happen. Historically, electioneering, intimidation, and watchful-eye forced voting have happened. They just haven't happened recently.
I think that the strongest argument is typically vote selling. As you say, absentee voting breaks this anyway.
I think he's saying that it's laughably parallelizable, which is true. Heck, counting 500 ballots isn't that tough. Have two people do that, so it's 250 ballots per person. That's what, 360k people? For an hour?
This is the US, of course, so give me my reaching stick for the TV remote.
Profits. Increasing profits. If I buy oranges for $1 and sell them for $0.50, a doubling in revenue is pretty awful for me.
I'm pretty sure that's going to be ASCAP. Do I need to now pay $0.08 to the PIAA?
And at the rate that they rubber-stamp cases, there is no way that they do due diligence. Both juries and grand juries are effectively instructed to limit their thinking and consideration to ridiculously narrow determinations that could be done just about as effectively by trained chickens. Grand juries merely have to agree (by majority) that the one-sided evidence presented satisfies the basic constraints of the charges. It's a pretty damned-low bar. The chances that the majority of a layperson grand jury would say "hold on a second... This is ridiculous" are pretty damned slim.
And this is why, when prosecutors have clearly dog-piled unreasonable charges in an effort to force a plea, judges should reflexively dismiss cases with prejudice. At this point, there's no harm in trying.
Hell, prosecutors who bully with untenable charges should be held in contempt. This is up to judges. It is their responsibility to maintain fairness. Perhaps we should start appointing/electing judges who didn't go to the same law schools and work in the same firms as the attorneys they interact with. Perhaps we should stop appointing/electing lawyers.
You may mean "legally, it is theft," but you'd be wrong. Legally, there are gaps between these acts that are clear and significant.
The question of wire fraud should be one of reasonable protection, but it rarely is. If I put a lock on the door to my house, it's a clear impediment to entry. But what if I have an open doorway? No longer necessarily breaking and entering. Now, what if I have an open doorway with a horizontal rod at six feet, smacking the head of anyone tall who walks in without ducking? Ducking is about as hard as changing your MAC address, and I think you'd have a hard time finding a court that would deem a single horizontal bar above average adult height to be a socially sufficient indication of intent to a reasonable person. Unfortunately, the term "reasonable person" should really be "reasonably technically competent person" in this context, as the opinions of the public at large have more to do with who is telling them than what is being said.
So, should someone run for office and change this stuff? Sure, but it's not legally theft.
So.... Your handle is wire fraud?
I think that there is a clear civil case here, but I have a hard time buying into the criminal aspects of the case.
They found conventional produce 30% more likely to have organo-phosphates (by compound count rather than amount, which is a moronic measure) then went on to say "but it is below FDA allowed limits, so its safe." FUCK that. FDA limits are the max. They also pointed out that other factors dominate vitamin content in produce while glossing over results from constituent studies (that's right... it's another questionable meta study) that show higher average nutrient content in organic foods.
I'm all for doubting conventional wisdom, but this study is USDA choice bullshit.