You don't get a feel for that by giving people formulas and not emphasising that their final answer needs to also be correct. People need to learn a cohesive whole. Otherwise we pat them on the back, they fat finger an answer and something goes fizz and pop when they go to construction because they never understand the problem to the end and thus never get a feel for if the final answer is correct.
And that's why 50% is all about - to implicitly teach the person to verify the answer.
I never said "just". I said "if you get to engineering then nothing is more important than the final answer".
Ok, sorry about misunderstanding.
Okay you didn't make that clear in the first place. We are in agreement on this. But too often I see people marking assessment and a student gets the answer wrong, 4.5/5 marks. Hurrah, he passed and everyone using the equipment he designed died. When I marked 4/5 marks were roughly given for the final answer being correct, a mark for the correct working, marks deducted for no working, and the exam gets forwarded to a disciplinary review panel for the correct answer but incorrect working.
Great! However, I still think that you give too much credit on the final answer. If, for example, I answer a question (which said to show your work) in your test by giving the correct equation which should be applied to the question and then the correct final answer. Would you still give 80% to the person??? To me, it raises a question whether the person really know how to solve the problem. It is possible that the person did cheat/copy the answer from others, but there is no obvious proof. As a result, it is possible that the only thing the person learns from the class would be how to cheat (make me think of South Park Season 12, Episode 5).
What exactly is the nature of the attack? Are the phishers trying to get fake documents, like a quickclaim deed transferring property to a bad guy, signed?
I am not sure whether you are either trolling or lazy to look for infos. I don't use docuSign but I could make a guess from its name -- trusted content of email. The attackers could be sending a link to a malicious web page or infected file to recipients. If you use docuSign, you wouldn't need to worry that the link or file is unsafe. It is like a 3rd party who verifies the sender for you...
There's two parts to it, but as someone who has taught at university I have to say I put a lot of weight on people working through problems to the end and getting a correct final answer. Getting a lot of marks for only working through the problem misses one important aspect of learning: Getting a feel for what is right.
Too many times I've marked assignments where someone has fat fingered something and ended up with an answer that was orders of magnitude off and completely unreasonable given the initial scenario. I put more value in producing an engineer who can instinctively know that what they did wasn't right without necessarily understanding the what the computers do (because frankly we don't use any of the math we learnt at uni in the field), than someone who can tell me in detail the theory but doesn't straight away see that the result will fall over from the number.
It's something we should be focusing a bit more on teaching in the classroom because learning this through practical experience in the field is not a good outcome for anyone involved.
Your statement doesn't make sense. If someone really understand a problem and knows how to calculate, the person is likely to feel strange for a wrong or way off answer. On the other hand, if someone needs to just give a final answer, then the person may have no idea how to get to the answer but rather find a way to get the answer (by other means).
I understand that teachers shouldn't give a high mark on the process to get to the answer, but the teacher shouldn't also give a high mark on a correct answer without a clear (theory) process to the answer. The formal doesn't teach students to verify the answer, and the latter doesn't teach the students anything but rather trust and use some kind of methods (e.g. tools, cheat, etc.) to get the right answer. I usually give it 50:50 for each part.
Also, mathematics is an important subject which is often times hiding in the background in your real life. It is a building block. You may say maths are dots mixed in with other dots (from other building blocks). Your real life experience is to connect dots to achieve things without explicitly identify what those dots are. Please do not underestimate what mathematics (at any level) taught in school can do...
Users will be more willing to deal with slightly more complicated authentication if the process is the same across the spectrum of accounts needed to be accessed. If the users don't understand the importance of protecting their data, both scenarios are doomed so for that reason better have the simpler system which has a chance of avoiding breaches and a better chance of being fully embraced by users.
In reality, user will lose trust once even a small wrong thing happens, and then they will reject it. Also, your argument doesn't invalidate what I said in my previous post -- simpler is not equal to more security or even easier maintenance because it could introduce more worse situations that would be more difficult to handle.
Well, it depends on how they reward the bounty. If they set the $20k as the TOTAL amount of the reward, then they are very cheap because they will divide the money to each evidence they get. For example, if they accept 10,000 submissions as relevant, then the average reward for each submission is $2 (could be much lower or higher depends on how they value the submission). And I believe they do that... CHEAP!
Cloudflare’s experts and attorneys will review each submission for its value in invalidating each patent. Again, the money will be awarded based on relevance and usefulness.
I agree with your post. I would simplify the lecture issue into 3 different major components -- teachers, learners (student), and subject/material. If any of these 3 aren't good, any kind of lecture may not have a good outcome. If teachers are bad (not interested in teaching or have bad teaching style, e.g. verbatim go through the text book), then the lecture is not interesting. If learners have no motivation to learn at all, regardless how many nudges they get to motivate them, the learners won't learn anything. Also, if the subject/material is not fully well describe, it may be difficult for teachers to deliver to learners with the material. As a result, learners may come out more confused on the subject/material.
To me, however, teachers are the most important part in all 3. If teachers are bad, it would be nearly impossible to give a good lecture. On the other hand, if teachers are good, then they may be able to find a way to motivate any learners, and also could digest and deliver the subject/material to any level of learners.
Well, if you get caught red handed, then it could be different. Also, if your business goes against another big business, then it is all depended on how big your wallet against the opponent. Though, this news is not new... Don't know why they keep repeating the same thing over and over again on here. So redundant news...
I agree that simplicity could reduce risk; however, it is correct if and only if you are talking about its own aspect. However, changing from one stage to the other, regardless make it more complicated or simplified, does not guarantee that the change will not introduce any critical flaws. In this case, it obviously gives users an ease to do stuff (convenience), but at the same time it introduces an ease abusing data in various ways. Does this centralization really simplify security? I don't think so. They are 2 different entities because it does not make security easier but rather change the way security handling data, and not in a simpler way.
Agreed, and note that in general, I am an H1-B fan. We benefit a great deal in the US from this program. However, no one in the US should be asked to train a replacement with an H1-B. This is not the situation describe in this article: they were training remote replacements without H1-Bs. Frankly, that is at least as bad, even if it does not involve visas of any kind. Also, it rarely works: companies off-shoring their design staff typically are on the financial rocks soon after. This is typically an act of either desparation (the company is already on the rocks) or stupidity (unfortunately, most big companies).
The problem is that the company (Eversource) did the outsourcing to Indian companies (InfoSys, Tata) that are those who have the highest H1B applications (abuse the system). Even though the article does not say anything about training in detail, one may assume that those Indian companies will eventually get H1B people in to replace the person.
I don't think congested city has much to do with the outcome of the solution (if it is correct). If the algorithm covers and controls approach speed of every car to any intersections, it could clear up any congestion.
However, I think the study jumps the conclusion. There are so many assumptions in the study that DO NOT and CANNOT apply to the real world.
1. Every vehicle on the road has a connection to "Intersection Controller" and has no interference with their communication.
2. The pedestrians move into any intersection normally (no accident or sudden event to change their crossing behavior).
3. Every connected vehicle doesn't have any malfunction, e.g. flat tired, brake malfunction, etc., while it is moving on the road.
4. No vehicle needs to suddenly change its speed (e.g. immediately stop, slow down, or speed up).
I don't like the way the researcher (Ali Reza Fayazi) quantifies his study...
Over the course of an hour, the intelligent intersection only required 11 vehicles to come to a complete halt. By contrast, when the simulation was run with a traffic light instead, more than 1,100 vehicles had to stop at the junction over the course of an hour.
In other words, the quantification comes from his own simulation. What would you think about it? He could simply find a way to work around the flaw in his traffic light algorithm, so that his "intelligent intersection" could result better.
Another thing, because it is a simulation, the implementor can plug in all variables to make its outcome look good. In this case, I have a feeling that the researcher wants grants and/or advertise for his work. This type of study is not as simple and would need a lot more data than this study has. Of course, it may be possible in the future, but it is still far away as long as we include humans in the road.
Of course, that also means only one ID and password to hack for someone ELSE to get access to all of your online accounts
The advantages of centralizing credential validation far outweighs the disadvantages you mentioned:
1. Most people already use the same username and password for most of their accounts
2. Currently these 3rd parties are getting their databases hacked hence, accounts are hacked. With centralized account management we can apply very strong security to minimize such instances.
3. With only one service to cater to, devices can run anti logging software (such as what some banks have you install to avoid account theft via key logging)
Off course having your account stolen is going to be a huge problem but it already is for most as mentioned in #1.
Err... I have to disagree...
1. Your answer is not relevant. Even though most people already have the same username and password, it does not mean all people do. Also, you exaggerate the number of "most people" by the way. If you said "more than half" then I could agree with, but it is still irrelevant. Because majority of people do not follow or understand security, does not mean we all have to adjust to their less secure way.
2. How do we apply "strong security" when users themselves don't understand or even care about security (look at #1 why they keep repeatedly use the same username & password)? Let say you have implemented an unhackable system. Let's say a mother gives her ID and password (and whatever your system requires) to her daughter to do some online shopping for her. Then later on, the daughter does the online shopping without the mother's permission. How could your unhackable system prevent that? I'm not talking about how to catch her misbehave, but I'm pointing directly to your argument about "strong security" perspective. There is no minimize risk here because it is still the same old scenario.
3. Please look back at #2. If someone could steal crucial information to log in, it is extremely difficult to distinguish who is who. Sometimes, you may be able to find out, but it is usually too late because all other information/asset have been stolen/sold already.
Centralized data is good for convenience, but it goes opposite way of security. You have to pick the right proportion of convenience and security. If you want pure security, you have to let go convenience, and vice versa. If you believe they both can coexist at the same extreme level, you may need to learn more about the real world (practical) because you seem to watch too much of sci-fi movies...
I'm not sure how to apply that to this situation.......
Sometimes, white list approach looks similar to black list approach. However, in white list, you apply/check for known conditions. One solution, as others have stated, is to use the length of known string (calculate_hash) instead of user input (response). But this would give a reverse situation (could be a bug) -- will accept and pass anything (response is empty or not) if the calculate_hash is empty by itself. Another way for this situation is to validate the input -- not null or empty -- before calling strncmp() with similar arguments because you expect that the input (password) will always contain something -- white list.
The programmer who did this (if with naive intention) does not fully understand the function and may expect that strncmp() to verify the inputs for him/her.
White list instead of black list approach? Often times, programmers use black list approach which is cheaper and will not be adequate to test negative (no way to know all cases). If they do white list approach, it automatically rejects negative cases. Of course, the rejection (exception) handler must be included.
I felt like my military experience gave me a head start. When I later went to college, I had a much deeper and more mature perspective. To other students in history class, the places mentioned were just names on a map. But I had been there. I had a better understanding of the world,
A bit off topic... I agreed to your statement here. Though, I would add that it is not just military experience, but rather any real life experience would give a head start in college education. Simply go directly from high school to college isn't for most people. Majority of them should at least come out of school and work in order to see what the real world is. Then they should get some ideas about what they are expecting before they go back to take higher education. The real world experience will help them understand how to study and what to look for in the future from the education.
Too little sodium --> You die
More than the recommended sodium --> you live
Lots more --> There is a very very weak correlation with a minute increase in blood pressure that is heavily confounded with the many things that go along with high sodium diets and is more than offset with for example walking for 10 minutes a day.
Partially true. However, it would be...
Too little sodium >> you die
Around recommended amount >> good
Double amount of recommended amount >> your body attempts to adjust itself to the situation by getting rid of sodium through, e.g. urinal, sweat, etc. Not good and rather harm your body in a long run.
Too high sodium >> you die
In other words, too little or too much is BAD for our bodies. Everything should be done in a moderate way. Extreme solutions won't solve a problem but rather swing the issue to the other side...
Be sure to include a chapter on how you went to community college. That's the sort of unique experience that most of the rest of us here have never experienced, since we went to a real college (or university, for those Brits among us).
I am not sure why you would say that??? It sounds like an insult to me. I went through a community college, and then transferred to a public university after I graduated from the community college. University don't teach freshman and sophomore classess better than a community college anyway because those classes aren't that useful but rather a transition from High school to college level. Why should I pay 2x~3x times tuition just to get not-so-useful knowledge, let alone other fees? To me, community college is a good and economic way to get through higher education.
Also, although job culture could not really have been the root cause, it definitely could be a contributing factor. Someone prone to depression can easily enter a downward spiral when placed under immense stress, to a degree that they're too depressed to take the obvious actions to get out of the stressful environment. If this guy came from LinkedIn and turned down a job at Apple, he obviously had excellent prospects for getting another job, and that would have been the obvious response to excessive job stress. But depressed people don't think that clearly. A good manager and good co-workers should have recognized the situation and encouraged him to seek help.
That is an excellent point. That actually makes me think even further... Why wouldn't his wife who should be the closest person to his life know about his depression? Or did she ever suggest him to find a new job if her husband made a lot of complaints about his work situation? Or did she actually pressure him to keep working in the place? How about his father whom the wife claimed that he was complaining about the job to? What was actually going on at home for him? There are too many unknown things that we should not jump into a conclusion. Though, I agreed with you that the work environment had at least some (if not huge) contributions to the tragedy...
It took 15 months to figure this out and now the guy is out on bail? His gun matches, he had major insurance, and the husband is always the prime suspect. This investigation should have taken weeks. Ellington seems to have had 4 murders in the past 12 years, including this one. Must have been a high priority case. I'll bet the crime scene had over a dozen cops onsite eating donuts. The next day they went back to their speed traps.
If you see at least some real investigation shows, you would have an idea that often times a murder case takes months to years to collect enough evidence in order to charge someone. I am sure that the husband was in their suspect list, but they did not charge him until now because they wanted to have as much evidence as they could to fight in the court. They might have asked their DA (or someone who has the authority to make the decision) whether they should charge him, and the person said NO and told them to look for more evidence. Circumstantial evidence is easy to collect (or make up -- logical sense), but that could easily fail to convince (to juries if it is a jury court) in court because the evidence, often times, would be struck down with doubt. You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict on a murder crime.
Except what he stole was source code files that contain modifications (some of it his own code that he developed outside of work) for open source programs....
That would be depended on the contract he signed with his ex-employer. Often times, a contract would include certain clauses that will cover all the works you do (even outside of work hours) to belong to the company as work-for-hire while you are hired to work for the company. Then he could be in trouble. There were many cases about this kind of infamous contract iirc...
Does iOS make the actual MAC address readily available to the application layer?
You can read it here on the "Deprecated APIs" section.
In iOS 7 and later, if you ask for the MAC address of an iOS device, the system returns the value 02:00:00:00:00:00. If you need to identify the device, use the identifierForVendor property of UIDevice instead. (Apps that need an identifier for their own advertising purposes should consider using the advertisingIdentifier property of ASIdentifierManager instead.)
No need to filter, or worry about getting the plastic out. The bits will break down by sun, waves, and bacteria.
Correct, but you forgot one thing which is more important -- consequence. When plastic broke down to plastic-derived chemicals, that is the real issue. You shouldn't just sit an way for plastic to degrade by itself if you could take it out before it becomes toxic to the ocean!
Let's take rent control as a simple example. Imposing these distortions removes the incentive for landlords to maintain and improve their properties. When this happens, the wealthier people eventually move away to better properties, leaving only the impoverished who can't move. They often can't, or don't, pay rent, which again hurts the landlords. The landlords who do remain will become slumlords. Others will just abandon their properties, or worse, destroy them to collect at least some insurance reimbursement. The end result is that "high-poverty districts" form, and stay like that until the economic distortion that caused them to be formed is removed.
However, your example does not apply to the issue because it is too broad with lots of competitors. Most areas in the U.S. only have ONE broad band provider in each area. Then the provider would do whatever it can to get itself to be the ONLY one in the area; thus, there is NO competition. Allowing no price cap in this case actually opens a can of worm. The no-limit cap could work if and only if there is a competition.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get a feel for that by giving people formulas and not emphasising that their final answer needs to also be correct. People need to learn a cohesive whole. Otherwise we pat them on the back, they fat finger an answer and something goes fizz and pop when they go to construction because they never understand the problem to the end and thus never get a feel for if the final answer is correct.
And that's why 50% is all about - to implicitly teach the person to verify the answer.
I never said "just". I said "if you get to engineering then nothing is more important than the final answer".
Ok, sorry about misunderstanding.
Okay you didn't make that clear in the first place. We are in agreement on this. But too often I see people marking assessment and a student gets the answer wrong, 4.5/5 marks. Hurrah, he passed and everyone using the equipment he designed died. When I marked 4/5 marks were roughly given for the final answer being correct, a mark for the correct working, marks deducted for no working, and the exam gets forwarded to a disciplinary review panel for the correct answer but incorrect working.
Great! However, I still think that you give too much credit on the final answer. If, for example, I answer a question (which said to show your work) in your test by giving the correct equation which should be applied to the question and then the correct final answer. Would you still give 80% to the person??? To me, it raises a question whether the person really know how to solve the problem. It is possible that the person did cheat/copy the answer from others, but there is no obvious proof. As a result, it is possible that the only thing the person learns from the class would be how to cheat (make me think of South Park Season 12, Episode 5).
What exactly is the nature of the attack? Are the phishers trying to get fake documents, like a quickclaim deed transferring property to a bad guy, signed?
I am not sure whether you are either trolling or lazy to look for infos. I don't use docuSign but I could make a guess from its name -- trusted content of email. The attackers could be sending a link to a malicious web page or infected file to recipients. If you use docuSign, you wouldn't need to worry that the link or file is unsafe. It is like a 3rd party who verifies the sender for you...
There's two parts to it, but as someone who has taught at university I have to say I put a lot of weight on people working through problems to the end and getting a correct final answer. Getting a lot of marks for only working through the problem misses one important aspect of learning: Getting a feel for what is right.
Too many times I've marked assignments where someone has fat fingered something and ended up with an answer that was orders of magnitude off and completely unreasonable given the initial scenario. I put more value in producing an engineer who can instinctively know that what they did wasn't right without necessarily understanding the what the computers do (because frankly we don't use any of the math we learnt at uni in the field), than someone who can tell me in detail the theory but doesn't straight away see that the result will fall over from the number.
It's something we should be focusing a bit more on teaching in the classroom because learning this through practical experience in the field is not a good outcome for anyone involved.
Your statement doesn't make sense. If someone really understand a problem and knows how to calculate, the person is likely to feel strange for a wrong or way off answer. On the other hand, if someone needs to just give a final answer, then the person may have no idea how to get to the answer but rather find a way to get the answer (by other means).
I understand that teachers shouldn't give a high mark on the process to get to the answer, but the teacher shouldn't also give a high mark on a correct answer without a clear (theory) process to the answer. The formal doesn't teach students to verify the answer, and the latter doesn't teach the students anything but rather trust and use some kind of methods (e.g. tools, cheat, etc.) to get the right answer. I usually give it 50:50 for each part.
Also, mathematics is an important subject which is often times hiding in the background in your real life. It is a building block. You may say maths are dots mixed in with other dots (from other building blocks). Your real life experience is to connect dots to achieve things without explicitly identify what those dots are. Please do not underestimate what mathematics (at any level) taught in school can do...
Users will be more willing to deal with slightly more complicated authentication if the process is the same across the spectrum of accounts needed to be accessed. If the users don't understand the importance of protecting their data, both scenarios are doomed so for that reason better have the simpler system which has a chance of avoiding breaches and a better chance of being fully embraced by users.
In reality, user will lose trust once even a small wrong thing happens, and then they will reject it. Also, your argument doesn't invalidate what I said in my previous post -- simpler is not equal to more security or even easier maintenance because it could introduce more worse situations that would be more difficult to handle.
Well, it depends on how they reward the bounty. If they set the $20k as the TOTAL amount of the reward, then they are very cheap because they will divide the money to each evidence they get. For example, if they accept 10,000 submissions as relevant, then the average reward for each submission is $2 (could be much lower or higher depends on how they value the submission). And I believe they do that... CHEAP!
Cloudflare’s experts and attorneys will review each submission for its value in invalidating each patent. Again, the money will be awarded based on relevance and usefulness.
I agree with your post. I would simplify the lecture issue into 3 different major components -- teachers, learners (student), and subject/material. If any of these 3 aren't good, any kind of lecture may not have a good outcome. If teachers are bad (not interested in teaching or have bad teaching style, e.g. verbatim go through the text book), then the lecture is not interesting. If learners have no motivation to learn at all, regardless how many nudges they get to motivate them, the learners won't learn anything. Also, if the subject/material is not fully well describe, it may be difficult for teachers to deliver to learners with the material. As a result, learners may come out more confused on the subject/material.
To me, however, teachers are the most important part in all 3. If teachers are bad, it would be nearly impossible to give a good lecture. On the other hand, if teachers are good, then they may be able to find a way to motivate any learners, and also could digest and deliver the subject/material to any level of learners.
Just my 2 cents...
Well, if you get caught red handed, then it could be different. Also, if your business goes against another big business, then it is all depended on how big your wallet against the opponent. Though, this news is not new... Don't know why they keep repeating the same thing over and over again on here. So redundant news...
I agree that simplicity could reduce risk; however, it is correct if and only if you are talking about its own aspect. However, changing from one stage to the other, regardless make it more complicated or simplified, does not guarantee that the change will not introduce any critical flaws. In this case, it obviously gives users an ease to do stuff (convenience), but at the same time it introduces an ease abusing data in various ways. Does this centralization really simplify security? I don't think so. They are 2 different entities because it does not make security easier but rather change the way security handling data, and not in a simpler way.
Agreed, and note that in general, I am an H1-B fan. We benefit a great deal in the US from this program. However, no one in the US should be asked to train a replacement with an H1-B. This is not the situation describe in this article: they were training remote replacements without H1-Bs. Frankly, that is at least as bad, even if it does not involve visas of any kind. Also, it rarely works: companies off-shoring their design staff typically are on the financial rocks soon after. This is typically an act of either desparation (the company is already on the rocks) or stupidity (unfortunately, most big companies).
The problem is that the company (Eversource) did the outsourcing to Indian companies (InfoSys, Tata) that are those who have the highest H1B applications (abuse the system). Even though the article does not say anything about training in detail, one may assume that those Indian companies will eventually get H1B people in to replace the person.
I don't think congested city has much to do with the outcome of the solution (if it is correct). If the algorithm covers and controls approach speed of every car to any intersections, it could clear up any congestion.
However, I think the study jumps the conclusion. There are so many assumptions in the study that DO NOT and CANNOT apply to the real world.
I don't like the way the researcher (Ali Reza Fayazi) quantifies his study...
Over the course of an hour, the intelligent intersection only required 11 vehicles to come to a complete halt. By contrast, when the simulation was run with a traffic light instead, more than 1,100 vehicles had to stop at the junction over the course of an hour.
In other words, the quantification comes from his own simulation. What would you think about it? He could simply find a way to work around the flaw in his traffic light algorithm, so that his "intelligent intersection" could result better.
Another thing, because it is a simulation, the implementor can plug in all variables to make its outcome look good. In this case, I have a feeling that the researcher wants grants and/or advertise for his work. This type of study is not as simple and would need a lot more data than this study has. Of course, it may be possible in the future, but it is still far away as long as we include humans in the road.
Correct myself... "Centralization" not "Centralized data"
Of course, that also means only one ID and password to hack for someone ELSE to get access to all of your online accounts
The advantages of centralizing credential validation far outweighs the disadvantages you mentioned:
1. Most people already use the same username and password for most of their accounts
2. Currently these 3rd parties are getting their databases hacked hence, accounts are hacked. With centralized account management we can apply very strong security to minimize such instances.
3. With only one service to cater to, devices can run anti logging software (such as what some banks have you install to avoid account theft via key logging)
Off course having your account stolen is going to be a huge problem but it already is for most as mentioned in #1.
Err... I have to disagree...
Centralized data is good for convenience, but it goes opposite way of security. You have to pick the right proportion of convenience and security. If you want pure security, you have to let go convenience, and vice versa. If you believe they both can coexist at the same extreme level, you may need to learn more about the real world (practical) because you seem to watch too much of sci-fi movies...
I'm not sure how to apply that to this situation.......
Sometimes, white list approach looks similar to black list approach. However, in white list, you apply/check for known conditions. One solution, as others have stated, is to use the length of known string (calculate_hash) instead of user input (response). But this would give a reverse situation (could be a bug) -- will accept and pass anything (response is empty or not) if the calculate_hash is empty by itself. Another way for this situation is to validate the input -- not null or empty -- before calling strncmp() with similar arguments because you expect that the input (password) will always contain something -- white list.
The programmer who did this (if with naive intention) does not fully understand the function and may expect that strncmp() to verify the inputs for him/her.
White list instead of black list approach? Often times, programmers use black list approach which is cheaper and will not be adequate to test negative (no way to know all cases). If they do white list approach, it automatically rejects negative cases. Of course, the rejection (exception) handler must be included.
I felt like my military experience gave me a head start. When I later went to college, I had a much deeper and more mature perspective. To other students in history class, the places mentioned were just names on a map. But I had been there. I had a better understanding of the world,
A bit off topic... I agreed to your statement here. Though, I would add that it is not just military experience, but rather any real life experience would give a head start in college education. Simply go directly from high school to college isn't for most people. Majority of them should at least come out of school and work in order to see what the real world is. Then they should get some ideas about what they are expecting before they go back to take higher education. The real world experience will help them understand how to study and what to look for in the future from the education.
Indeed.
Too little sodium --> You die
More than the recommended sodium --> you live
Lots more --> There is a very very weak correlation with a minute increase in blood pressure that is heavily confounded with the many things that go along with high sodium diets and is more than offset with for example walking for 10 minutes a day.
Partially true. However, it would be...
In other words, too little or too much is BAD for our bodies. Everything should be done in a moderate way. Extreme solutions won't solve a problem but rather swing the issue to the other side...
Be sure to include a chapter on how you went to community college. That's the sort of unique experience that most of the rest of us here have never experienced, since we went to a real college (or university, for those Brits among us).
I am not sure why you would say that??? It sounds like an insult to me. I went through a community college, and then transferred to a public university after I graduated from the community college. University don't teach freshman and sophomore classess better than a community college anyway because those classes aren't that useful but rather a transition from High school to college level. Why should I pay 2x~3x times tuition just to get not-so-useful knowledge, let alone other fees? To me, community college is a good and economic way to get through higher education.
Also, although job culture could not really have been the root cause, it definitely could be a contributing factor. Someone prone to depression can easily enter a downward spiral when placed under immense stress, to a degree that they're too depressed to take the obvious actions to get out of the stressful environment. If this guy came from LinkedIn and turned down a job at Apple, he obviously had excellent prospects for getting another job, and that would have been the obvious response to excessive job stress. But depressed people don't think that clearly. A good manager and good co-workers should have recognized the situation and encouraged him to seek help.
That is an excellent point. That actually makes me think even further... Why wouldn't his wife who should be the closest person to his life know about his depression? Or did she ever suggest him to find a new job if her husband made a lot of complaints about his work situation? Or did she actually pressure him to keep working in the place? How about his father whom the wife claimed that he was complaining about the job to? What was actually going on at home for him? There are too many unknown things that we should not jump into a conclusion. Though, I agreed with you that the work environment had at least some (if not huge) contributions to the tragedy...
It took 15 months to figure this out and now the guy is out on bail? His gun matches, he had major insurance, and the husband is always the prime suspect. This investigation should have taken weeks. Ellington seems to have had 4 murders in the past 12 years, including this one. Must have been a high priority case. I'll bet the crime scene had over a dozen cops onsite eating donuts. The next day they went back to their speed traps.
If you see at least some real investigation shows, you would have an idea that often times a murder case takes months to years to collect enough evidence in order to charge someone. I am sure that the husband was in their suspect list, but they did not charge him until now because they wanted to have as much evidence as they could to fight in the court. They might have asked their DA (or someone who has the authority to make the decision) whether they should charge him, and the person said NO and told them to look for more evidence. Circumstantial evidence is easy to collect (or make up -- logical sense), but that could easily fail to convince (to juries if it is a jury court) in court because the evidence, often times, would be struck down with doubt. You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict on a murder crime.
Except what he stole was source code files that contain modifications (some of it his own code that he developed outside of work) for open source programs....
That would be depended on the contract he signed with his ex-employer. Often times, a contract would include certain clauses that will cover all the works you do (even outside of work hours) to belong to the company as work-for-hire while you are hired to work for the company. Then he could be in trouble. There were many cases about this kind of infamous contract iirc...
Lets just wait to see what he puts on his LinkedIn profile.
You mean wait to check on this?
Does iOS make the actual MAC address readily available to the application layer?
You can read it here on the "Deprecated APIs" section.
In iOS 7 and later, if you ask for the MAC address of an iOS device, the system returns the value 02:00:00:00:00:00. If you need to identify the device, use the identifierForVendor property of UIDevice instead. (Apps that need an identifier for their own advertising purposes should consider using the advertisingIdentifier property of ASIdentifierManager instead.)
So what? Merely being a derivative work is not a sufficient condition to make it "illegal;" it should have been ruled to be Fair Use.
Sadly, derivative work in intellectual property (copyright) is NOT fair use...
No need to filter, or worry about getting the plastic out. The bits will break down by sun, waves, and bacteria.
Correct, but you forgot one thing which is more important -- consequence. When plastic broke down to plastic-derived chemicals, that is the real issue. You shouldn't just sit an way for plastic to degrade by itself if you could take it out before it becomes toxic to the ocean!
Let's take rent control as a simple example. Imposing these distortions removes the incentive for landlords to maintain and improve their properties. When this happens, the wealthier people eventually move away to better properties, leaving only the impoverished who can't move. They often can't, or don't, pay rent, which again hurts the landlords. The landlords who do remain will become slumlords. Others will just abandon their properties, or worse, destroy them to collect at least some insurance reimbursement. The end result is that "high-poverty districts" form, and stay like that until the economic distortion that caused them to be formed is removed.
However, your example does not apply to the issue because it is too broad with lots of competitors. Most areas in the U.S. only have ONE broad band provider in each area. Then the provider would do whatever it can to get itself to be the ONLY one in the area; thus, there is NO competition. Allowing no price cap in this case actually opens a can of worm. The no-limit cap could work if and only if there is a competition.