I agree with you entirely - but if Apple adds some sort of identifier regarding which process triggered the pop-up prompt, it’s not clear a malicious actor couldn’t fake that part of the pop-up as well.
I wonder whether the whole process should be redesigned somehow.
I don't think that the pop-up prompt that the phishing apps are using is the same as the iOS is using. The way it works, normally, is that a pop-up will be displayed when you attempt to start any of those phishing apps. There are some games in the App Store right now that will force you to enter your password before you could even start the game. Some of these apps have similar pop-up format (but not exactly) right when you load it up as well. So it doesn't matter whether Apple adds some sort of identifier to the pop-up prompt, it is the matter of how apple does with their own pop-up (e.g. redirect to their native app which is locked down by Apple itself before allow the password entering).
Then how can using a speedtest server outside of their network be suspicious, unfair, unethical, or "cheating"? That's what the claim is.
Who said I claim that? Where in my post say that it is suspicious, unfair, unethical, or cheating to use speed test server "outside" of their network? Reread again. I simply agree with the parent that speed test using server within the network could, of course, be guaranteed for the advertising speed. And that's cheating.
Here's how CenturyLink, as one example, talks about their "internet speed" (which they don't actually say): "Private, Direct Connection and Speed Claims: Private, direct connection and/or speed claims are based on providing High-Speed Internet customers with a dedicated, virtual-circuit connection between their homes and the CenturyLink central office."
And that's exactly what I am against -- wrongly use and/or associate the word Internet. They don't do it directly but attempt to play with words. Humans mind will attempt to associate what they see with what they know. If they don't know, they will associate whatever closest to their experience with those words. In other words, assumption happens, and providers know exactly what they are doing.
Playing around the edge of the meaning by associating words with something humans are familiar with, but not quite know exactly what those words are, could (and would) psychologically mislead their mind. No need to "explicitly state" that it is not about global Internet in this case. Just use the word "speed" and may add "streaming faster" would be suffice to make most people associate that with the "real" Internet. Why? Because they don't know or understand how Internet works. They all are not engineers (especially have interest in networking) and their experiences are from using computer and get on world wide web / email only.
It seems like CenturyLink is quite explicit in saying "not guaranteed" and "due to conditions outside of network control". I've see the same kind of disclaimers on other ISPs ads, so CL is not unique in this honesty.
Oh please, honesty! I wouldn't say "quite explicit" at all. In every commercial and/or advertising, this kind of definition is "always" either in a small print or a fast talking at the end of a commercial on TV while other things else are flashing by in order to distract audiences. Please don't exaggerate or conflate this kind of behavior as "explicit" because it is not.
Oh, please. Anyone who thinks that the use of the word "internet" in some advertising makes every claim about the service being sold a guarantee that applies to everywhere on the Internet is just, well... there has to be a reasonable person test to every ad, and if a reasonable person would not think that his 100MBps fiber internet meant he could get data from a server in Lower Elbonia on a 56k dialup at 100MBps, then that passes the test.
Oh please. Reasonable person? Let me see... Do you believe the majority of people are reasonable? Do you think laymen are reasonable? Don't use yourself as a standard. You should have known it by now that average people are NOT reasonable. That doesn't count those who are reasonable at a certain degree but then let their bias/faith/belief blind their reasoning, and as a result, they become unreasonable. Do you want an obvious example? Deity religious is one of them. So stop using "reasonable person" as an excuse to say that misleading/falsify ads are OK because consumers should already know if they are reasonable.
I understand that you come from technical point of view that there is no guarantee on Internet speed. But at the same time, you completely ignore psychological point of view that providers play on their consumers. If there is total honesty in any business, there shouldn't be advantages or disadvantages but rather a co-exist that help each other to grow. I highly doubt that ISP and consumers are in that kind of relationship because all ISP are taking advantage of consumers in some way along the way (later or sooner).
Your numbers way off! The French population density is 300.4 people per square mile while the US density is 90.6 people per square mile. So instead of having density ratio of 20 it's only 3.3.
I guess you should use this table instead of separated page link... And it shows that your number is still off a bit (France is at 93rd place with 319/mi^2 and US is at 185th place with 86/mi^2).
"For a large portion of the population, *where* it works as they travel is critically important."
Citation needed.
If you carefully read, the statement is more in general and not specific to T-mobile users. It is for anyone (population). It depends on demography of where mobile users live and their activities. Ask yourself, which choice do you prioritize -- their service strength outside of big cities (especially when you travel) or the price? Does it really need a citation?
I don't see the issue there. They can only guarantee speed on their own network. The second you leave their network, they don't have control of those other factors.
Worked for a cable company years ago. School district customer with a fiber connection complained about speeds. Seems he thought he'd be able to download at 1000Mbit from anyone he liked. We went out and put the light gear on his connection and tested it. Speeds were perfect. He was seeing slowing off network. We don't control the routing of traffic outside our network nor do we control the speed of the servers you connect to. Sorry, that's just not how the internet works.
I agree that they lose network speed control outside of their network. That doesn't mean the way they advertise on Internet speed is acceptable. The meaning of the word "Internet" gives you the sense of global (around the world). If they can't do it as global but still want to advertise their own network speed, then the word should "Intranet" speed instead.
Sure. And if people start *reporting* spam coming out of formerly whitelisted domains, you must un-whitelist them.
I think it is more complicated than that if you want to use domain name alone.
What if a new domain is created, how do you put it in the white listing? If your domain was compromised without your knowledge and was used in spamming/phishing, how do you know that your domain is removed from the white list? And how do you prove that your domain is now safe to be enlisted in the white list again? How much would you lose while you are trying to get it back on the white list? There are a lot more cases going on that domain name white listing approach alone shouldn't be used.
Big data is really huge. Sometimes people don't really feel it until they have to deal with it... I would accept false positive rather than false negative in this case.
The technology is apparently here to support this vehicle.
Which costs $350,000...
Which is a disposable change for royal family of Dubai. In other words, they don't care for the cost. What they may care is that they get a new toy that most (if not all) people in the world don't have/get (yet).
A recent report has calculated that a site... could make around $12,000 per month by mining Monero in the background.
It's not really a case of the site making money. They haven't actually produced anything of real value, so wealth hasn't been created. All they've done is consumed the computing and electricity resources of the site's users, and converted them to an entry in some distributed database. Overall, it's a net economic loss. Resources were consumed without producing anything of value.
At least advertising, as shitty as it is, can potentially result in a sale, which is an example of actual wealth creation.
Hmm... Your post reminds me of someone in economic field. You are looking at something that has no value means no loss in value (but in net economic). However, that is not really true with non-tangible product. In other words, no value is produced does not mean no wealth created at all. In this case, results from hash computation actually has value even though it doesn't find the combination.
Think of it as if you have to look through 1,000,000 boxes to find a mark. If you could eliminate 100 boxes that you don't need to look at because you know for sure that they don't contain a mark (someone has done it for you and you can trust the person), is that valuable time to you? How about 2 people instead of one look over 100 boxes each for you? In the sense of mining on other people's CPU time, it is similar. I'm not saying whether it is worthwhile, but I'm saying that it has its value regardless the amount. But in economic point of view, often times the view assumes little value as no value.
Now, given another example which is a bit different but still in the same sense. Think of a thief taking only 1 cent of every bank account which has $1,000 in the account. The thief just do it once every month. Most people don't feel or see the value of their loss. However, do you think is it worthwhile ignoring legal percussion if there are 1,000,000 accounts and you are the thief?
Therefore, the wealth can be created by nipping off big enough targets. Net economic loss is still a loss to another who is gaining because it is not a total wasted resources. In other words, not-worth-it is not equal to zero (0), and it can create wealth as long as the not-worth-it is above zero (0).
Upgrade to iOS11 and you can have that power drain too!
I love Apple's forced upgrades!
No, it is not forced upgrades iOS but rather annoyingly nag you to upgrade. Since iOS9 (iirc), the system will keep asking you everyday on updating the iOS if you haven't done it already. If you click "Later", it will ask you whether you want to set up the upgrade after 5pm and asks you to enter your pin (or authorization). You could simply discard it by canceling to pin entering screen. I don't know what happen if you do not lock your phone though, but that's plain stupid not to lock your phone anyway. Therefore, it is not a forced upgrades, but it nags you to upgrade.
You can insist that words don't mean what they do, but your mis-definitions would obliterate the distinction that drinkypoo was trying to make. He argued that the patent office should be funded by fees for things besides issuing patents, which is already essentially true. It's not clear that the "issue fee" is disproportionately high compared to the work it entails.
Nope, you are the one who misunderstand the post, and then attempt to misinform others. "Granting" in patent field means you attempt to get a patent whether the application is approved.
And as long as the USPTO is funded by charging fees for granting patents (and not just applying for them) the situation will persist.
What does that tell you? It meant the opposite from what you said. If USPTO keeps themselves funded by the fees, then the problem persists. There is no such thing that you claim about USPTO "should be funded by fees" at all because currently USPTO is funded by fees.
The summary says most of the challenges are NOT about public libraries, but about school curriculum. One example being ELEMENTARY school having kids read about a transgender child.
However, many of books in the ban list are ABOUT PUBLIC LIBRARIES. You are looking at only one link (with top 10 in 2016 ban books) and then conflate it to the whole list (a bigger list link or better yet here).
Multiple books on the list were about transgender children, presenting that as normal.
Hmm... Half of the top 10 ban list are about LGBTQ, and two of them are about transgender child. That's only from the "top banned in 2016" list. I don't disagree that these books shouldn't be read by children "alone" but rather being approved by their parents. However, you are conflating (again) the number of books about trangender children in order to support your bias.
If you (and anyone) really want to check on banned books from public schools & libraries (mostly in Canada & USA), here is the list of those books in different years. Below, I listed what
From the link:
2015-2016 -- 2 out of 45 books (7 LGBTQ books)
2014-2015 -- 0 out of 33 books (4 LGBTQ books)
2013-2014 -- 0 out of 28 books (0 LGBTQ book)
2012-2013 -- 0 out of 44 books (3 LGBTQ books)
2011-2012 -- 0 out of 42 books (4 LGBTQ books) ... and so on...
It could well be argued that parents shouldn't be putting their children through multiple surgeries and heavy doses of unnatural hormones to turn a boy into a girl or vice versa, in the vast majority of cases. That's the kind of thing a person ought to decide for themselves, making an informed decision when they are an adult, some would say.
I wouldn't go that far. You are making an assumption about what the content of the book is. You are making an assumption how transgender children become. If you haven't read the book, you have no right to assume about parents making/allowing the decision. It is similar to someone writing a review on a restaurant where the person has never been to before. The person is unqualified to write criticism about the restaurant.
I don't care to argue for or against on any of these issues, but they are certainly issues on which reasonable people may disagree. On such issues, perhaps the government schools shouldn't be forcing this stuff on grade-school kids. If you want to teach your kids that it's normal to chop off a little boys penis, you can do that, but I don't see that you have a need or a right to force that on every other family.
I agree that government should never force the kind of book reading on kids, but I disagree that you or a few people have the right to forbid others to read the book either (ban from public libraries). If you look at the list of banned book, you should at least see that this is NOT about public school ONLY but rather on the whole society in the sense of "family" or "children" relation.
In conclusion, I agree on the part that no one should have the right to force or forbid on kids reading books. The decision should be on their parents. Thus, some books should be banned from public schools but no book should be banned from public libraries.
Patent examiners are not the USPTO. They are employees of the USPTO, and the USPTO is -- contrary to drinkypoo's assertion -- not "funded by charging fees for granting patents". There are extensive fees for applying for a patent, but no fees are due upon grant of a patent.
To me, the word "granting" means "patenting process" regardless an application is granted. The overall cost to apply and get a patent is not cheap. And yes, USPTO is funded by itself from their own revenue. They have their own budget which comes from their own revenue (fee collections).
From the link you gave, Uber point of view, they believe that those 2 cases (that were not reported to the police by Uber) weren't serious and were from misunderstanding (but no detail in the link). However, the police point of view is that both cases were serious issues, which could be influent by political side (who knows?). But there is no detail for both cases, so I'm not sure anyone could decide which side is more correct (unless you take a side).
PS: What is "Spray to identify criminal" (from the link)??? Are there that kind of spray to identify criminal these days???
Is that the only problem you have? Your life must be boring, then.
(Pro tip from a metric guy: use the command-line "units". Or Emacs "calc" mode. Or just use your head, if you have one. I guesstimated it to 2300K in my head)
Because it has history of conversion errors, and that caused a lot of money (yours included if you were paying taxes). If you don't take it seriously, the similar loss could happen again (and possibly lives).
Unfortunately, the Mariner I incident wasn’t the last time NASA lost a mission due to an easily-avoidable gaff. In 1999, the $125 million ($172 million in 2014 dollars) Mars Climate Orbiter flew off course and disintegrated after spacecraft engineers forgot to convert from English to metric measurements.
Virus scanners have never been possible on iOS due to each app not bring able to read the disk folders of other apps. So why have Apple been approving apps that claim to do so for years?
How about they automate the app approval process? I know, it is a cheap way to do, but that's the only reason I can think of to bypass their approval as long as the app follows all the guidelines (not trigger any error/warning in the detection process). Also, Apple hopes that people would submit a complaint if they find something wrong -- another cheaper way to operate and manage their app.
It's unclear what the statistics might be for hyperloop but assuming instant fiery death is probably not going to be correct for the majority of failure modes.
How about this amataur statistic to compared to yours? If you want to talk about hyperloop which has not even been implemented yet, you should compare it with early implemented commercial airplane statistic instead of modern time (1983~2000). Even though the link I give is outdated already (it didn't collect newer data except the Malaysian one), it should give some ideas about early development of airplane safety...
We don't know what will happen because it hasn't been engineered and built yet. Determining how it handles various types of failures will certainly be part of the engineering process. Worst case scenario is everyone dies, which isn't much different than a plane crash. But just like with a plane, plenty of fail safes will be there to allow for managed failures. Most catastrophic failures will probably just cause the train to come to a gradual halt.
Even though I agree that scenario could be similar to a plane crashes, I still agree with the parent. The reason is that it takes quite some times (decades) even for the plane to be as safe as now. Until we have figured out most of the issues that may occur with hyperloop technology, most likely many (if not all who ride it) people will die a long the process. Thus, there is no if, and, or but until then.
Your logic is faulty though. If they have to factor the price of an extended warranty into the retail price because their quality control is crap, it will reduce their sales. They pick the sales price not on manufacturing cost + margin, but on what they calculate will maximize profit. Being forced to move away from the maximum profit sweet spot is clearly going to result in less than maximum profit.
Hmm... Even though there may be many things combined together as margin, isn't profit a part of those things??? I'm stunned by this extremely obscured maths.
I agreed that salesman/saleswoman should get commission as a motivation to do the job. If there is no motivation, why would a person try to do his/her best for her job? However, I am not going to get into abuse of the model though (for both not enough commission and overly promises) because that would be a completely different topic.
I actually agreed with the other poster that TFA is a troll. Just because TFA has the word "engineering" in it -- comparing engineering with sales job -- it should not be posted here at all.
It's possible that they were fulfilling your definition of good or excellent and still got screwed, but until we know what happened you have no frame of reference as to how good their procedures were.
Well, no that what they (Equifax) think that their fulfillment is good or excellent, but what they were doing was just good enough (if not worse). What you said is not determined by their clients (us) side. On the other hand, many of Americans, in general, accept the good enough work quality which is also not a really good way of dealing with security work in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you entirely - but if Apple adds some sort of identifier regarding which process triggered the pop-up prompt, it’s not clear a malicious actor couldn’t fake that part of the pop-up as well.
I wonder whether the whole process should be redesigned somehow.
I don't think that the pop-up prompt that the phishing apps are using is the same as the iOS is using. The way it works, normally, is that a pop-up will be displayed when you attempt to start any of those phishing apps. There are some games in the App Store right now that will force you to enter your password before you could even start the game. Some of these apps have similar pop-up format (but not exactly) right when you load it up as well. So it doesn't matter whether Apple adds some sort of identifier to the pop-up prompt, it is the matter of how apple does with their own pop-up (e.g. redirect to their native app which is locked down by Apple itself before allow the password entering).
Then how can using a speedtest server outside of their network be suspicious, unfair, unethical, or "cheating"? That's what the claim is.
Who said I claim that? Where in my post say that it is suspicious, unfair, unethical, or cheating to use speed test server "outside" of their network? Reread again. I simply agree with the parent that speed test using server within the network could, of course, be guaranteed for the advertising speed. And that's cheating.
Here's how CenturyLink, as one example, talks about their "internet speed" (which they don't actually say): "Private, Direct Connection and Speed Claims: Private, direct connection and/or speed claims are based on providing High-Speed Internet customers with a dedicated, virtual-circuit connection between their homes and the CenturyLink central office."
And that's exactly what I am against -- wrongly use and/or associate the word Internet. They don't do it directly but attempt to play with words. Humans mind will attempt to associate what they see with what they know. If they don't know, they will associate whatever closest to their experience with those words. In other words, assumption happens, and providers know exactly what they are doing.
Playing around the edge of the meaning by associating words with something humans are familiar with, but not quite know exactly what those words are, could (and would) psychologically mislead their mind. No need to "explicitly state" that it is not about global Internet in this case. Just use the word "speed" and may add "streaming faster" would be suffice to make most people associate that with the "real" Internet. Why? Because they don't know or understand how Internet works. They all are not engineers (especially have interest in networking) and their experiences are from using computer and get on world wide web / email only.
It seems like CenturyLink is quite explicit in saying "not guaranteed" and "due to conditions outside of network control". I've see the same kind of disclaimers on other ISPs ads, so CL is not unique in this honesty.
Oh please, honesty! I wouldn't say "quite explicit" at all. In every commercial and/or advertising, this kind of definition is "always" either in a small print or a fast talking at the end of a commercial on TV while other things else are flashing by in order to distract audiences. Please don't exaggerate or conflate this kind of behavior as "explicit" because it is not.
Oh, please. Anyone who thinks that the use of the word "internet" in some advertising makes every claim about the service being sold a guarantee that applies to everywhere on the Internet is just, well ... there has to be a reasonable person test to every ad, and if a reasonable person would not think that his 100MBps fiber internet meant he could get data from a server in Lower Elbonia on a 56k dialup at 100MBps, then that passes the test.
Oh please. Reasonable person? Let me see... Do you believe the majority of people are reasonable? Do you think laymen are reasonable? Don't use yourself as a standard. You should have known it by now that average people are NOT reasonable. That doesn't count those who are reasonable at a certain degree but then let their bias/faith/belief blind their reasoning, and as a result, they become unreasonable. Do you want an obvious example? Deity religious is one of them. So stop using "reasonable person" as an excuse to say that misleading/falsify ads are OK because consumers should already know if they are reasonable.
I understand that you come from technical point of view that there is no guarantee on Internet speed. But at the same time, you completely ignore psychological point of view that providers play on their consumers. If there is total honesty in any business, there shouldn't be advantages or disadvantages but rather a co-exist that help each other to grow. I highly doubt that ISP and consumers are in that kind of relationship because all ISP are taking advantage of consumers in some way along the way (later or sooner).
It really does not matter. Either way your numbers were off by a factor > 5!
Not my number! >:(
I'm stuck in a place where I can't tell who doesn't understand whose sarcasm. - Not GP
I'm not sure who really doesn't understand... I guess the "politics" word in the parent post you replied to should be the key for you...
Your numbers way off! The French population density is 300.4 people per square mile while the US density is 90.6 people per square mile. So instead of having density ratio of 20 it's only 3.3.
I guess you should use this table instead of separated page link... And it shows that your number is still off a bit (France is at 93rd place with 319/mi^2 and US is at 185th place with 86/mi^2).
"For a large portion of the population, *where* it works as they travel is critically important."
Citation needed.
If you carefully read, the statement is more in general and not specific to T-mobile users. It is for anyone (population). It depends on demography of where mobile users live and their activities. Ask yourself, which choice do you prioritize -- their service strength outside of big cities (especially when you travel) or the price? Does it really need a citation?
I don't see the issue there. They can only guarantee speed on their own network. The second you leave their network, they don't have control of those other factors. Worked for a cable company years ago. School district customer with a fiber connection complained about speeds. Seems he thought he'd be able to download at 1000Mbit from anyone he liked. We went out and put the light gear on his connection and tested it. Speeds were perfect. He was seeing slowing off network. We don't control the routing of traffic outside our network nor do we control the speed of the servers you connect to. Sorry, that's just not how the internet works.
I agree that they lose network speed control outside of their network. That doesn't mean the way they advertise on Internet speed is acceptable. The meaning of the word "Internet" gives you the sense of global (around the world). If they can't do it as global but still want to advertise their own network speed, then the word should "Intranet" speed instead.
Sure. And if people start *reporting* spam coming out of formerly whitelisted domains, you must un-whitelist them.
I think it is more complicated than that if you want to use domain name alone.
What if a new domain is created, how do you put it in the white listing? If your domain was compromised without your knowledge and was used in spamming/phishing, how do you know that your domain is removed from the white list? And how do you prove that your domain is now safe to be enlisted in the white list again? How much would you lose while you are trying to get it back on the white list? There are a lot more cases going on that domain name white listing approach alone shouldn't be used.
Big data is really huge. Sometimes people don't really feel it until they have to deal with it... I would accept false positive rather than false negative in this case.
is it 2032 already?
In Buddhist year, it is already 2560. :D
The technology is apparently here to support this vehicle.
Which costs $350,000 ...
Which is a disposable change for royal family of Dubai. In other words, they don't care for the cost. What they may care is that they get a new toy that most (if not all) people in the world don't have/get (yet).
What about packet radio? You can cover more messages with fewer people.
If it is like this, then no because it requires Internet...
It's not really a case of the site making money. They haven't actually produced anything of real value, so wealth hasn't been created. All they've done is consumed the computing and electricity resources of the site's users, and converted them to an entry in some distributed database. Overall, it's a net economic loss. Resources were consumed without producing anything of value.
At least advertising, as shitty as it is, can potentially result in a sale, which is an example of actual wealth creation.
Hmm... Your post reminds me of someone in economic field. You are looking at something that has no value means no loss in value (but in net economic). However, that is not really true with non-tangible product. In other words, no value is produced does not mean no wealth created at all. In this case, results from hash computation actually has value even though it doesn't find the combination.
Think of it as if you have to look through 1,000,000 boxes to find a mark. If you could eliminate 100 boxes that you don't need to look at because you know for sure that they don't contain a mark (someone has done it for you and you can trust the person), is that valuable time to you? How about 2 people instead of one look over 100 boxes each for you? In the sense of mining on other people's CPU time, it is similar. I'm not saying whether it is worthwhile, but I'm saying that it has its value regardless the amount. But in economic point of view, often times the view assumes little value as no value.
Now, given another example which is a bit different but still in the same sense. Think of a thief taking only 1 cent of every bank account which has $1,000 in the account. The thief just do it once every month. Most people don't feel or see the value of their loss. However, do you think is it worthwhile ignoring legal percussion if there are 1,000,000 accounts and you are the thief?
Therefore, the wealth can be created by nipping off big enough targets. Net economic loss is still a loss to another who is gaining because it is not a total wasted resources. In other words, not-worth-it is not equal to zero (0), and it can create wealth as long as the not-worth-it is above zero (0).
Upgrade to iOS11 and you can have that power drain too!
I love Apple's forced upgrades!
No, it is not forced upgrades iOS but rather annoyingly nag you to upgrade. Since iOS9 (iirc), the system will keep asking you everyday on updating the iOS if you haven't done it already. If you click "Later", it will ask you whether you want to set up the upgrade after 5pm and asks you to enter your pin (or authorization). You could simply discard it by canceling to pin entering screen. I don't know what happen if you do not lock your phone though, but that's plain stupid not to lock your phone anyway. Therefore, it is not a forced upgrades, but it nags you to upgrade.
You can insist that words don't mean what they do, but your mis-definitions would obliterate the distinction that drinkypoo was trying to make. He argued that the patent office should be funded by fees for things besides issuing patents, which is already essentially true. It's not clear that the "issue fee" is disproportionately high compared to the work it entails.
Nope, you are the one who misunderstand the post, and then attempt to misinform others. "Granting" in patent field means you attempt to get a patent whether the application is approved.
And as long as the USPTO is funded by charging fees for granting patents (and not just applying for them) the situation will persist.
What does that tell you? It meant the opposite from what you said. If USPTO keeps themselves funded by the fees, then the problem persists. There is no such thing that you claim about USPTO "should be funded by fees" at all because currently USPTO is funded by fees.
The summary says most of the challenges are NOT about public libraries, but about school curriculum. One example being ELEMENTARY school having kids read about a transgender child.
However, many of books in the ban list are ABOUT PUBLIC LIBRARIES. You are looking at only one link (with top 10 in 2016 ban books) and then conflate it to the whole list (a bigger list link or better yet here).
Multiple books on the list were about transgender children, presenting that as normal.
Hmm... Half of the top 10 ban list are about LGBTQ, and two of them are about transgender child. That's only from the "top banned in 2016" list. I don't disagree that these books shouldn't be read by children "alone" but rather being approved by their parents. However, you are conflating (again) the number of books about trangender children in order to support your bias.
If you (and anyone) really want to check on banned books from public schools & libraries (mostly in Canada & USA), here is the list of those books in different years. Below, I listed what
From the link:
... and so on ...
2015-2016 -- 2 out of 45 books (7 LGBTQ books)
2014-2015 -- 0 out of 33 books (4 LGBTQ books)
2013-2014 -- 0 out of 28 books (0 LGBTQ book)
2012-2013 -- 0 out of 44 books (3 LGBTQ books)
2011-2012 -- 0 out of 42 books (4 LGBTQ books)
It could well be argued that parents shouldn't be putting their children through multiple surgeries and heavy doses of unnatural hormones to turn a boy into a girl or vice versa, in the vast majority of cases. That's the kind of thing a person ought to decide for themselves, making an informed decision when they are an adult, some would say.
I wouldn't go that far. You are making an assumption about what the content of the book is. You are making an assumption how transgender children become. If you haven't read the book, you have no right to assume about parents making/allowing the decision. It is similar to someone writing a review on a restaurant where the person has never been to before. The person is unqualified to write criticism about the restaurant.
I don't care to argue for or against on any of these issues, but they are certainly issues on which reasonable people may disagree. On such issues, perhaps the government schools shouldn't be forcing this stuff on grade-school kids. If you want to teach your kids that it's normal to chop off a little boys penis, you can do that, but I don't see that you have a need or a right to force that on every other family.
I agree that government should never force the kind of book reading on kids, but I disagree that you or a few people have the right to forbid others to read the book either (ban from public libraries). If you look at the list of banned book, you should at least see that this is NOT about public school ONLY but rather on the whole society in the sense of "family" or "children" relation.
In conclusion, I agree on the part that no one should have the right to force or forbid on kids reading books. The decision should be on their parents. Thus, some books should be banned from public schools but no book should be banned from public libraries.
Patent examiners are not the USPTO. They are employees of the USPTO, and the USPTO is -- contrary to drinkypoo's assertion -- not "funded by charging fees for granting patents". There are extensive fees for applying for a patent, but no fees are due upon grant of a patent.
To me, the word "granting" means "patenting process" regardless an application is granted. The overall cost to apply and get a patent is not cheap. And yes, USPTO is funded by itself from their own revenue. They have their own budget which comes from their own revenue (fee collections).
From the link you gave, Uber point of view, they believe that those 2 cases (that were not reported to the police by Uber) weren't serious and were from misunderstanding (but no detail in the link). However, the police point of view is that both cases were serious issues, which could be influent by political side (who knows?). But there is no detail for both cases, so I'm not sure anyone could decide which side is more correct (unless you take a side).
PS: What is "Spray to identify criminal" (from the link)??? Are there that kind of spray to identify criminal these days???
Errr, the quote is from this link (another article).
Is that the only problem you have? Your life must be boring, then.
(Pro tip from a metric guy: use the command-line "units". Or Emacs "calc" mode. Or just use your head, if you have one. I guesstimated it to 2300K in my head)
Because it has history of conversion errors, and that caused a lot of money (yours included if you were paying taxes). If you don't take it seriously, the similar loss could happen again (and possibly lives).
Unfortunately, the Mariner I incident wasn’t the last time NASA lost a mission due to an easily-avoidable gaff. In 1999, the $125 million ($172 million in 2014 dollars) Mars Climate Orbiter flew off course and disintegrated after spacecraft engineers forgot to convert from English to metric measurements.
Virus scanners have never been possible on iOS due to each app not bring able to read the disk folders of other apps. So why have Apple been approving apps that claim to do so for years?
How about they automate the app approval process? I know, it is a cheap way to do, but that's the only reason I can think of to bypass their approval as long as the app follows all the guidelines (not trigger any error/warning in the detection process). Also, Apple hopes that people would submit a complaint if they find something wrong -- another cheaper way to operate and manage their app.
Worst case scenario is everyone dies, which isn't much different than a plane crash.
Evidently you aren't aware that 95.7% of surviving an accident in a plane. The vast majority of people actually do survive. When the National Transportation Safety Board studied accidents between 1983 and 2000 involving 53,487 passengers, they found that 51,207 survived.
It's unclear what the statistics might be for hyperloop but assuming instant fiery death is probably not going to be correct for the majority of failure modes.
How about this amataur statistic to compared to yours? If you want to talk about hyperloop which has not even been implemented yet, you should compare it with early implemented commercial airplane statistic instead of modern time (1983~2000). Even though the link I give is outdated already (it didn't collect newer data except the Malaysian one), it should give some ideas about early development of airplane safety...
We don't know what will happen because it hasn't been engineered and built yet. Determining how it handles various types of failures will certainly be part of the engineering process. Worst case scenario is everyone dies, which isn't much different than a plane crash. But just like with a plane, plenty of fail safes will be there to allow for managed failures. Most catastrophic failures will probably just cause the train to come to a gradual halt.
Even though I agree that scenario could be similar to a plane crashes, I still agree with the parent. The reason is that it takes quite some times (decades) even for the plane to be as safe as now. Until we have figured out most of the issues that may occur with hyperloop technology, most likely many (if not all who ride it) people will die a long the process. Thus, there is no if, and, or but until then.
Your logic is faulty though. If they have to factor the price of an extended warranty into the retail price because their quality control is crap, it will reduce their sales. They pick the sales price not on manufacturing cost + margin, but on what they calculate will maximize profit. Being forced to move away from the maximum profit sweet spot is clearly going to result in less than maximum profit.
Hmm... Even though there may be many things combined together as margin, isn't profit a part of those things??? I'm stunned by this extremely obscured maths.
I agreed that salesman/saleswoman should get commission as a motivation to do the job. If there is no motivation, why would a person try to do his/her best for her job? However, I am not going to get into abuse of the model though (for both not enough commission and overly promises) because that would be a completely different topic.
I actually agreed with the other poster that TFA is a troll. Just because TFA has the word "engineering" in it -- comparing engineering with sales job -- it should not be posted here at all.
It's possible that they were fulfilling your definition of good or excellent and still got screwed, but until we know what happened you have no frame of reference as to how good their procedures were.
Well, no that what they (Equifax) think that their fulfillment is good or excellent, but what they were doing was just good enough (if not worse). What you said is not determined by their clients (us) side. On the other hand, many of Americans, in general, accept the good enough work quality which is also not a really good way of dealing with security work in this case.