I don't know about California, but in Oklahoma a speeding ticket is going to cost you at least $200. If you avoid two tickets a year, it would pay for itself in 12.5 years.
No one really cares about the tickets themselves. For someone making $200k a year, they would gladly pay $200 every week for the right to zip through crawling traffic.
The real problem comes from getting "points" and the eventual loss of your license. And once that happens, you have drive like a frickin' choirboy or they start giving out real punishments, like spending weekends in a cage (c'mon, let's not pretend people actually stop driving when they lose their license - In 99% of the US, "not driving" amounts to a sentence of death-by-life-on-welfare).
For some reason, Windows admins have been trained to reboot immediately when things don't work well rather than to figure out why something is failing.
Because in the Windows world, I usually don't have the luxury of digging into the kernel's or driver's source code to figure out exactly why it has stopped behaving correctly. If it doesn't log any errors, doesn't export any useful diagnostic messages, doesn't outright crash on reproducible conditions, and just stops working "right", your avenues of further inquiry get very very ugly, very fast.
I can reboot a VM in well under a minute. For any nontrivial problem that happens roughly twice a month and a reboot makes it go away, it would take twenty years of rebooting to justify spending an entire eight hour day diagnosing the root cause.
And I say that as someone who (in the Linux world) has written his own kernel patches to work around buggy hardware. In Windows, just not worth the time; because even if you do successfully diagnose the problem, you may well have no ability to correct it.
I'm pretty sure that you can't teach politicians to code either, they just don't have the intellectual capability to handle such a task.
The bigger problem I see with teaching politicians to code comes from their comprehension of boolean logic. In computer science, we constantly evaluate the truth of various simple expressions. In politics, their entire career depends on their ability to obfuscate the truth of insanely complex issues in such a way as to make them look true (or false) based on the interest of their highest bidder.;)
More seriously, though, I have to agree with Bloomberg. Not everyone can code, and of those who have the raw capacity to learn it, many of them would hate actually doing it. Coding requires going into an almost trancelike state for hours at a time, sitting motionless while visualizing the flow of data through complex control structures and eventually interacting with some form of I/O. You try to stick a traditional manual laborer (I mean that in the good way - The kind of guy who enjoys nothing more than an honest day's hard work) into that seat for ten hours, and watch him slowly go crazy.
Personally, I find it just hilarious that TFA fails to recognize two points:
First, that our inability to live long enough to win a prize that takes a 150 year career directly highlights a domain of science that we still have some pretty amazing leaps left to take.
And second, that a NatGeo author of all people would dare to write about another discipline running out of material - How many indigenous tribes do you have left to exploit for stories, NG? And will you do the honorable thing and close up shop when you finally run out, or will you just turn into yet another travel-n'-tourism rag?;)
We can talk about this again when a human born on Earth can someday physically walk on another habitable planet. I can think of three completely-physically-possible ways to accomplish that, without even giving it much thought: Living forever (with enough energy and the right tools, we can repair anything); near-infinite free energy (fusion) combined with time dilation, uploading your consciousness to a clone made, at the receiving end, from your own digitized and transmitted DNA. Any combination of just those alone would completely reshape human existence, and don't even require getting into the "maybe but probably not" methods like FTL travel or wormholes.
This really doesn't take much effort, you poor uncreative bastard (not you, parent poster - the TFA author). Pick something you can't do that the laws of physics don't outright ban (and even some of those might have a way to "bend" them, if not outright break them). Pick something obvious we have almost no understanding of - gravity; what your dog really wants for dinner; the size of the universe (the Hubble Radius merely describes our causal universe - We actually can't tell whether or not we live in an infinite universe); how to feed everyone in a world that throws away more food than it actually needs; fuckin' magnets (as Hofstadter said, "greenness dissolves" - You can't explain macroscopic effects with turtles all the way down); why hot models like ugly singers; what "causes" radioactive decay; why writers in a dying genre feel the need to prove their inadequacy in other domains of knowledge - And you'll have a breakthrough just waiting to happen.
a bog-standard usb/spdif dongle that I own and use from time to time won't work on win7/64. no driver on earth for it. 32bit, yes. 64, no.
So to keep a $30 USB audio dongle working, you plan to forgo all the advantages that come with more than 4GB of RAM?
And you realize, of course, that within the next year or two you'll start seeing more "can't live without it" software no longer releasing 32bit builds?
Do these updates look like they'll solve Tesla's problems?
Since Tesla's biggest problems come from buggy whip... I mean, car dealership... protectionism, combined with a dislike bordering on zealotry from a media that still considers the Chevy L88 as the engine to beat for every compact sedan they review?
No. No, these updates will not solve Tesla's problems.
You'll notice my first sentence echos the GP's almost word for word. I'll readily admit that as hyperbole, but I didn't start it.
As for those old win98 and 2000 systems you mention - I have had the "pleasure" of helping people upgrade from them, years after they went EoL. One word: Ugly. These things pick up so much malware (not even counting the viruses you can't see, just the obvious shit that doesn't even try to hide) you may as well just publish your PII on the front page of the NYT.
Yes, you can take some steps to minimize the damage, and if you have a realistic upgrade path in the next month, I wouldn't completely panic about missing today's XP EoL deadline. If, however, you just plan to keep using it indefinitely until Microsoft gives in and decides to go back to the look and feel of Win95... What can I say but "Thanks for the contribution to my retirement fund" when you need someone like me to clean up your mess in a few years.:)
and yet his efforts will probably stop 99.9% of the crap that affects "modern" Windows versions with their clueless users.
99% of the crap that affects "modern" versions of windows makes use of bugs that date back to the days of XP and older. And as these long-standing bugs get discovered and patched, effectively the very act of MS releasing a patch will serve as an advertisement to the world of malware about the existence of a new XP exploit that will never get closed.
Continuing to use XP for any box either connected to the network or publicly-accessible (ie, kiosks) at this point amounts to begging the world to hack you - Nothing short of willful negligence.
Wouldn't you prefer that they create conditions where students learn a lot more? After all, failure isn't an objective.
If I believed in the trivially-false progressive delusion that no dumb kids exist? Sure. I would also prefer that the Rockefellers give everyone a gold-shitting unicorn when they turn 18.
In this world, however, a good three quarters of people shouldn't go to college. If we want to elevate the "trade" schools to have a "similar" status (with a wink and a nod), hey, great. But when we push everyone to go to college and then half the incoming freshmen need to take remedial math and English... Then no, failing half the freshmen out in their first semester would provide the greatest benefit to everyone. It would save those who don't belong there a ton of money; and when when you pack a real class with morons, they distract from the actual instruction time for people who do belong there.
TLDR: Yes, Virginia, there are stupid questions. And you waste the class time I paid for by asking an awfully lot of them.
/ Hint #1 that you don't belong in college: If you feel the need to waste class time arguing with the professor about how he grades (particularly about how much partial credit he gives wrong answers) - Just go home.
Yes, it is. What you meant to say was, "I find it unlikely that anyone would offer me what I consider my home and experiences to be worth."
Fair enough, but it amounts to the same thing under the present discussion. Of course someone could conceivably offer me enough money that I would gladly take it and buy my own private Caribbean island. I won't hold my breath on RDS offering me $100M for my 3Br cape in the middle of nowhere, however.
Please be more clear with your wording in the future. Blatant trolling like the above does no-one any good.
My wording perfectly communicated my intent, although I will admit to a bit (and just a bit, not anything over the top) of hyperbole - Though make no mistake, people do exist who wouldn't voluntarily sell at any price. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call my comment "trolling", though - I meant every word of what I said. People bought out under eminent domain seizures - Or in this case, under "oops we turned your block into a hazardous waste dump, collect your $300k checks on the way out of town" conditions don't get compensated for their emotional investment in their property. Simple as that.
You want "fair" compensation, or the closest thing we can get to it? Every time we hear about one of these minor disasters, the CEO's family homestead gets bulldozed and turned into high-end luxury housing for everyone displaced. CEO doesn't have enough land? Work through the entire board until everyone has a new place to live. Of course, that would often fail because the soulless CEO finds it more convenient to live in a series of condos scattered across the world, but we can at least try to demonstrate to these scum why I wouldn't sell my home for twice its appraised value.
There's a video of someone asking astronomy graduates from an Ivy League university what causes the phases of the moon and the seasons, and most cannot answer.
And I graduated from a state school known for its quality engineering programs with a degree in CS, and half my graduating class could barely write HTML, much less actually code.
Unfortunately, the reality of a modern college education has become more a matter of opportunity than actual rigor. I would love to see colleges failing out half their freshman classes - except, that ignores the reality of the modern college as a business rather than an institution of higher learning. Bad for business, having a reputation for "firing" the majority of your clients.
Make no mistake, you can still get a lot out of a college education - I like to believe I took full advantage of my time there. But you can also get by with an insultingly high GPA (we can't just "pass" them, every precious little snowflake deserves A's, dontchaknow) just by showing up.
That said... I have trouble believing that astronomy graduates can't visualize how the steadily changing angle from which we view a 50% illuminated sphere gives rise to the appearance of "phases"... The light half of it shadows the dark half, and we see part of both from a sideways perspective.
I answered your actual question. Now, you' seem to be mocking it, based on how my answer does not apply to a question you did not ask
Fair enough. I should not have mocked your answer, and I apologize for doing so.
I thought it clear, though (from my subject, if nothing else), that I asked my original question rhetorically. I simply don't find that even remotely an acceptable answer.
Anyone exposed to the oil, or with property damage, will be compensated.
"Home" does not count as fungible.
The value to me of the place I've chosen to settle down far exceeds its market value. Yeah, great, they destroyed some houses and will pay for them plus a few grand extra as a "nuisance" fee; except they didn't destroy "some houses", they destroyed a neighborhood.
You can't just pay me off for my sunny spot on the back deck where the light hits just so, filtered between my favorite trees. You can't just pay me off for the trails I've made in the woods behind my house, or all the time I've spent learning those woods and enjoying them. You can't just pay me off for the squirrels I've trained to take peanuts right from my hand while sitting in that aforementioned favorite sunny spot. You can't just pay me off for needing to move away from my neighbor who I consider a close friend, or pay off his kids who love coming over to play with the cat.
Now... I would agree with you completely if the issue at hand involved individual property owners voluntarily selling a right of way across their yard to random oil companies, knowing that an accident could eventually occur. Except it doesn't work like that, and that explains why we hold these parasites to a higher standard of safety. They apply to the government for permission to steal that right of way for a pittance under eminent domain, they dot all their "i"s and cross all their "t"s to have the right people look the other way... And then they expect us to just live in the shadow of their stellar record of safety and caring about the environment?
FUCK THAT. They can damned well pay to put in pressure shutoffs every hundred feet.
For the same reason we don't put firewalls after 100 feet of network cabling. It's expensive and likely to _create_ more failures than it prevents.
Great analogy, because just like water or crude, bits on the wire leak out when a failure occurs and make a mess of everything around them. Man, I'll never forget the sticky mess I found myself in when a backhoe came through the top wall of the server room and took out a densely packed cabling tray. Bits up to my waist within minutes, just awful.;)
Ironically, though, your answer does more to promote the idea than discredit it - Because, we do put routers between network segments and firewalls at each end-point, and no more fine-grained points of (virtual) compromise really exist.
Why don't pipelines like that have passive shutoff valves every hundred feet or so, such that if the pipeline suddenly looses pressure, the valve closes and no more oil can escape than already made it into that section?
We've had those for water pipes in our homes for decades to keep the house from flooding in case of a burst. And filling your basement with water does a hell of a lot less damage than filling your basement with crude.
Of course, we all already know the answer to that. The same answer GM didn't give congress last week; the same answer we always have when talking about health and safety tradeoffs: Money.
Pre-cooking food at low heat for a period before slapping it on the grill can cut down the time needed to cook it as well as limit how much burnt material is produced.
Except, by doing that, you've ruined the whole reason we barbecue things - Because we want that thin outer layer of charring.
Yes, we have plenty of ways to cook foods without forming PAH, acrylamide, or the other carcinogens-of-the-week. We could boil everything. We could microwave everything. We could bake everything on low heat while basting to keep the surface moist. Those will all pretty much prevent the formation of all the nasty chemicals we worry about in our barbecued foods. They all take less effort than barbecuing, too - A typical cookout basically requires someone manning the grill continuously to cook up a steady flow of burgers and hotdogs; vs throwing 10 lbs of dogs in a big boiling pot and having enough cooked to feed a small army in under ten minutes.
We grill things over open flame because all those nasty carcinogens make it taste better. Simple as that.
TFA contains no actual information, just an assertion that the interaction between poorly-described models of "biological" systems might kinda possibly maybe make them money because the world needs car door key fobs, or something like that.
Seriously, this looks like a solution in need of a problem - And worse, a "solution" that breaks a critical aspect of existing functionality, namely, "human readability".
Instead of making note of a few key points in the message, this will require taking a picture of the screen just so you can "automatically" Google the meaning of an unintelligible pattern of dots. WTF, guys, in what world do you consider that an improvement?
It also ignores the reality of Linux's dominant niche - Not as end-user desktops where poor widdle grandmas might get confused by all that technical information; but rather, as servers-on-the-cheap. And where do servers live? In the server room. I don't know about how your company does things, but many (including mine) don't allow cameras in the server room, and that includes cellphones. And I don't even work for any sort of especially high-security company.
If you really want to make panics more intelligible, just reduce them to the few items of useful information they actually contain - No stupid register dump, no stack trace, no list of a dozen maybe-related-but-almost-never-really modules. List the type of panic, the faulting module, and just the top of the call stack. That alone provides the level of detail most people can do something about - "Looks kinda like that new video driver blew up, better roll back and see if the problem goes away". Anything more than that only matters to kernel devs, and for that, we have debugging and verbosity command line options they can set.
TLDR: If, by default, a panic scrolls a 40x25 text screen, you've failed. Adding the requirement of a smartphone and internet connection only makes it worse.
Cough. Your freedoms end where other's begin. Cough.
So far, virtually all the discussion on this topic has centered around the rights of the victim. I apologize for responding to you personally, but you have the most visible post continuing the "wrong" discussion here.:)
The problem here has nothing to do with whether or not we should condemn the concept of "revenge" porn, but rather, whether a website should bear liability for content posted by a third party. That should scare the hell out of all of us, liberal or conservative, pro-porn or feminist, rich or poor.
Look beyond porn for the implications of this - Should Amazon bear criminal liability for allowing a joking review that says "this blender turns lead into gold" to remain? Should Yelp need to fact check every single review of some rat-trap motel or suffer liability for defamation? If a blogger dares to criticize Italian or French judges for their sham of a legal system, should Wordpress' CEO (or given what I just said, Dice's CEO) go to prison? And those don't even get into the issue of search engines, where literally everything on the internet can show up - Do we really expect Google to bear the burden of making sure no one has posted something incorrect or illegal on the entire internet?
If so... Goodbye, Internet (at least in the US - Which still effectively means "Goodbye, Intenet"). Section 230 means more than a loophole for pesky websites to intentionally look the other way - It makes the entire concept of public participation in a shared discussion possible.
Are all the childless people really making more of a difference? I didn't know that clubbing, going to the movies, and trying to get laid really was that effective at motivating political reform!
We also vote, and have the disposable income (that in your case goes to crap like paying for all those antibiotics you keep ruining as placebos to treat viral ear infections) to contribute to our preferred candidates. And hey, the USSC actually just raised we mere humans to the level of corporations as far as "money as free speech" goes!
That said, let's not get sidetracked by the breeder-vs-DINK arguments. We have one very simple, fundamental problem with getting scientifically-literate people in office:
None run.
We have, as a nearly unanimous pool of candidates, complete fucking morons (with nice hair, oh and "ironically" enough, a median net worth in the eight digits). So whether we vote for Tweedle-dee (D) or Tweedle-dum (R), we still all lose.
Hackathons are great, but there are easier ways to find jobs.
No, actually, I would very much have to disagree with that.
I got my first job out of HS (over two decades past, now) in a "hackathon" for a scholarship with a bonus summer internship (which evolved into a "real" job once I graduated, though I earned that part, it didn't come as part of the package).
Although I eventually moved beyond that job, I have honestly never gotten another job that easily since then. And suffice it to say, having won that scholarship and internship, I have a reasonably impressive resume.
If you can actually code well, "hackathon" style contests let you prove it, simple as that. No stupid psych questions that HR forces interviewers to ask, no stress on whether to dress up or down to "fit" to corporate climate at your target company, no "you match our listing perfectly but we really meant to hire someone internally and just posted the ad to meet funding-requirement-X". Just show off your skills, and call it good.
If, however, you can kinda sorta do some things with computers at your Uncle's company... Don't bother, and invest in a better suit..
Permanent incognito/private browsing mode + Adblock + Ghostery + click-to-play + DNT (yeah, you all ignore it anyway) + a vanilla user agent. Make them the default for every browser.
Marketers take heed: Ads no longer server the purpose they once did. Every time you manage to sneak a clever ad past my technical defenses, you piss me off about your product/company/campaign.
You want to get my to buy Pepsi? Advertise for Coke. Simple as that.
If you were asked to do something then fucking do it. Any sticker shock is the CTOs problem to explain.
In spirit, I agree with you.
In practice, I write two kinds of in-house app on a regular basis - Integrations, and reports (yeah, I know, reporting doesn't generally count as an app, but compiling the data that goes into them behind the scenes very much does). How exactly do you move an integration that hits two (or more!) local servers, which may well contain sensitive (even in the PCI/PII sense) data, to "the cloud"? And for reporting, the task sounds simple until you ask "reporting on what?" Unless you want response times measured in hours or days, that would includes a hidden requirement that I also build a complete mirror of my local data warehouse in the cloud. Even ignoring the cost of that much storage, bandwidth rapidly becomes an issue when talking about trying to keep hundreds of gigs of data as close to realtime-fresh as possible.
So no, you can't always just "fucking do it". The FP likely understands that, and simply hopes to use price as an argument rather than patiently explain to his CTO why playing "Buzzword Bingo" doesn't make a viable long-term IT strategy.
You should read economic theories that compare metallism vs. chartalism.
I have some familiarity with Knapp's work. He conveniently glosses over what happens when a government's spending grows at a higher rate than inflation of its issued currency, however. Fortunately, we have several modern examples of that... Greece, Cyprus, Ireland... Great clubs to join - They all have awesome beaches, right?
Chartalism "guarantees" the USD only while we keep our spending and foreign debt within certain bounds. Beyond that, we may as well use oak leaves as money for all the value the USD will have.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about California, but in Oklahoma a speeding ticket is going to cost you at least $200. If you avoid two tickets a year, it would pay for itself in 12.5 years.
No one really cares about the tickets themselves. For someone making $200k a year, they would gladly pay $200 every week for the right to zip through crawling traffic.
The real problem comes from getting "points" and the eventual loss of your license. And once that happens, you have drive like a frickin' choirboy or they start giving out real punishments, like spending weekends in a cage (c'mon, let's not pretend people actually stop driving when they lose their license - In 99% of the US, "not driving" amounts to a sentence of death-by-life-on-welfare).
For some reason, Windows admins have been trained to reboot immediately when things don't work well rather than to figure out why something is failing.
Because in the Windows world, I usually don't have the luxury of digging into the kernel's or driver's source code to figure out exactly why it has stopped behaving correctly. If it doesn't log any errors, doesn't export any useful diagnostic messages, doesn't outright crash on reproducible conditions, and just stops working "right", your avenues of further inquiry get very very ugly, very fast.
I can reboot a VM in well under a minute. For any nontrivial problem that happens roughly twice a month and a reboot makes it go away, it would take twenty years of rebooting to justify spending an entire eight hour day diagnosing the root cause.
And I say that as someone who (in the Linux world) has written his own kernel patches to work around buggy hardware. In Windows, just not worth the time; because even if you do successfully diagnose the problem, you may well have no ability to correct it.
I'm pretty sure that you can't teach politicians to code either, they just don't have the intellectual capability to handle such a task.
;)
The bigger problem I see with teaching politicians to code comes from their comprehension of boolean logic. In computer science, we constantly evaluate the truth of various simple expressions. In politics, their entire career depends on their ability to obfuscate the truth of insanely complex issues in such a way as to make them look true (or false) based on the interest of their highest bidder.
More seriously, though, I have to agree with Bloomberg. Not everyone can code, and of those who have the raw capacity to learn it, many of them would hate actually doing it. Coding requires going into an almost trancelike state for hours at a time, sitting motionless while visualizing the flow of data through complex control structures and eventually interacting with some form of I/O. You try to stick a traditional manual laborer (I mean that in the good way - The kind of guy who enjoys nothing more than an honest day's hard work) into that seat for ten hours, and watch him slowly go crazy.
Personally, I find it just hilarious that TFA fails to recognize two points:
;)
First, that our inability to live long enough to win a prize that takes a 150 year career directly highlights a domain of science that we still have some pretty amazing leaps left to take.
And second, that a NatGeo author of all people would dare to write about another discipline running out of material - How many indigenous tribes do you have left to exploit for stories, NG? And will you do the honorable thing and close up shop when you finally run out, or will you just turn into yet another travel-n'-tourism rag?
We can talk about this again when a human born on Earth can someday physically walk on another habitable planet. I can think of three completely-physically-possible ways to accomplish that, without even giving it much thought: Living forever (with enough energy and the right tools, we can repair anything); near-infinite free energy (fusion) combined with time dilation, uploading your consciousness to a clone made, at the receiving end, from your own digitized and transmitted DNA. Any combination of just those alone would completely reshape human existence, and don't even require getting into the "maybe but probably not" methods like FTL travel or wormholes.
This really doesn't take much effort, you poor uncreative bastard (not you, parent poster - the TFA author). Pick something you can't do that the laws of physics don't outright ban (and even some of those might have a way to "bend" them, if not outright break them). Pick something obvious we have almost no understanding of - gravity; what your dog really wants for dinner; the size of the universe (the Hubble Radius merely describes our causal universe - We actually can't tell whether or not we live in an infinite universe); how to feed everyone in a world that throws away more food than it actually needs; fuckin' magnets (as Hofstadter said, "greenness dissolves" - You can't explain macroscopic effects with turtles all the way down); why hot models like ugly singers; what "causes" radioactive decay; why writers in a dying genre feel the need to prove their inadequacy in other domains of knowledge - And you'll have a breakthrough just waiting to happen.
a bog-standard usb/spdif dongle that I own and use from time to time won't work on win7/64. no driver on earth for it. 32bit, yes. 64, no.
So to keep a $30 USB audio dongle working, you plan to forgo all the advantages that come with more than 4GB of RAM?
And you realize, of course, that within the next year or two you'll start seeing more "can't live without it" software no longer releasing 32bit builds?
throwing away working hardware is a sin.
Ever heard of the Sunk Cost fallacy?
Do these updates look like they'll solve Tesla's problems?
Since Tesla's biggest problems come from buggy whip... I mean, car dealership... protectionism, combined with a dislike bordering on zealotry from a media that still considers the Chevy L88 as the engine to beat for every compact sedan they review?
No. No, these updates will not solve Tesla's problems.
I'm not sure where your 98% statistic comes from
:)
You'll notice my first sentence echos the GP's almost word for word. I'll readily admit that as hyperbole, but I didn't start it.
As for those old win98 and 2000 systems you mention - I have had the "pleasure" of helping people upgrade from them, years after they went EoL. One word: Ugly. These things pick up so much malware (not even counting the viruses you can't see, just the obvious shit that doesn't even try to hide) you may as well just publish your PII on the front page of the NYT.
Yes, you can take some steps to minimize the damage, and if you have a realistic upgrade path in the next month, I wouldn't completely panic about missing today's XP EoL deadline. If, however, you just plan to keep using it indefinitely until Microsoft gives in and decides to go back to the look and feel of Win95... What can I say but "Thanks for the contribution to my retirement fund" when you need someone like me to clean up your mess in a few years.
and yet his efforts will probably stop 99.9% of the crap that affects "modern" Windows versions with their clueless users.
99% of the crap that affects "modern" versions of windows makes use of bugs that date back to the days of XP and older. And as these long-standing bugs get discovered and patched, effectively the very act of MS releasing a patch will serve as an advertisement to the world of malware about the existence of a new XP exploit that will never get closed.
Continuing to use XP for any box either connected to the network or publicly-accessible (ie, kiosks) at this point amounts to begging the world to hack you - Nothing short of willful negligence.
Wouldn't you prefer that they create conditions where students learn a lot more? After all, failure isn't an objective.
If I believed in the trivially-false progressive delusion that no dumb kids exist? Sure. I would also prefer that the Rockefellers give everyone a gold-shitting unicorn when they turn 18.
In this world, however, a good three quarters of people shouldn't go to college. If we want to elevate the "trade" schools to have a "similar" status (with a wink and a nod), hey, great. But when we push everyone to go to college and then half the incoming freshmen need to take remedial math and English... Then no, failing half the freshmen out in their first semester would provide the greatest benefit to everyone. It would save those who don't belong there a ton of money; and when when you pack a real class with morons, they distract from the actual instruction time for people who do belong there.
TLDR: Yes, Virginia, there are stupid questions. And you waste the class time I paid for by asking an awfully lot of them.
/ Hint #1 that you don't belong in college: If you feel the need to waste class time arguing with the professor about how he grades (particularly about how much partial credit he gives wrong answers) - Just go home.
Yes, it is. What you meant to say was, "I find it unlikely that anyone would offer me what I consider my home and experiences to be worth."
Fair enough, but it amounts to the same thing under the present discussion. Of course someone could conceivably offer me enough money that I would gladly take it and buy my own private Caribbean island. I won't hold my breath on RDS offering me $100M for my 3Br cape in the middle of nowhere, however.
Please be more clear with your wording in the future. Blatant trolling like the above does no-one any good.
My wording perfectly communicated my intent, although I will admit to a bit (and just a bit, not anything over the top) of hyperbole - Though make no mistake, people do exist who wouldn't voluntarily sell at any price. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call my comment "trolling", though - I meant every word of what I said. People bought out under eminent domain seizures - Or in this case, under "oops we turned your block into a hazardous waste dump, collect your $300k checks on the way out of town" conditions don't get compensated for their emotional investment in their property. Simple as that.
You want "fair" compensation, or the closest thing we can get to it? Every time we hear about one of these minor disasters, the CEO's family homestead gets bulldozed and turned into high-end luxury housing for everyone displaced. CEO doesn't have enough land? Work through the entire board until everyone has a new place to live. Of course, that would often fail because the soulless CEO finds it more convenient to live in a series of condos scattered across the world, but we can at least try to demonstrate to these scum why I wouldn't sell my home for twice its appraised value.
There's a video of someone asking astronomy graduates from an Ivy League university what causes the phases of the moon and the seasons, and most cannot answer.
And I graduated from a state school known for its quality engineering programs with a degree in CS, and half my graduating class could barely write HTML, much less actually code.
Unfortunately, the reality of a modern college education has become more a matter of opportunity than actual rigor. I would love to see colleges failing out half their freshman classes - except, that ignores the reality of the modern college as a business rather than an institution of higher learning. Bad for business, having a reputation for "firing" the majority of your clients.
Make no mistake, you can still get a lot out of a college education - I like to believe I took full advantage of my time there. But you can also get by with an insultingly high GPA (we can't just "pass" them, every precious little snowflake deserves A's, dontchaknow) just by showing up.
That said... I have trouble believing that astronomy graduates can't visualize how the steadily changing angle from which we view a 50% illuminated sphere gives rise to the appearance of "phases"... The light half of it shadows the dark half, and we see part of both from a sideways perspective.
I answered your actual question. Now, you' seem to be mocking it, based on how my answer does not apply to a question you did not ask
Fair enough. I should not have mocked your answer, and I apologize for doing so.
I thought it clear, though (from my subject, if nothing else), that I asked my original question rhetorically. I simply don't find that even remotely an acceptable answer.
Anyone exposed to the oil, or with property damage, will be compensated.
"Home" does not count as fungible.
The value to me of the place I've chosen to settle down far exceeds its market value. Yeah, great, they destroyed some houses and will pay for them plus a few grand extra as a "nuisance" fee; except they didn't destroy "some houses", they destroyed a neighborhood.
You can't just pay me off for my sunny spot on the back deck where the light hits just so, filtered between my favorite trees. You can't just pay me off for the trails I've made in the woods behind my house, or all the time I've spent learning those woods and enjoying them. You can't just pay me off for the squirrels I've trained to take peanuts right from my hand while sitting in that aforementioned favorite sunny spot. You can't just pay me off for needing to move away from my neighbor who I consider a close friend, or pay off his kids who love coming over to play with the cat.
Now... I would agree with you completely if the issue at hand involved individual property owners voluntarily selling a right of way across their yard to random oil companies, knowing that an accident could eventually occur. Except it doesn't work like that, and that explains why we hold these parasites to a higher standard of safety. They apply to the government for permission to steal that right of way for a pittance under eminent domain, they dot all their "i"s and cross all their "t"s to have the right people look the other way... And then they expect us to just live in the shadow of their stellar record of safety and caring about the environment?
FUCK THAT. They can damned well pay to put in pressure shutoffs every hundred feet.
For the same reason we don't put firewalls after 100 feet of network cabling. It's expensive and likely to _create_ more failures than it prevents.
;)
Great analogy, because just like water or crude, bits on the wire leak out when a failure occurs and make a mess of everything around them. Man, I'll never forget the sticky mess I found myself in when a backhoe came through the top wall of the server room and took out a densely packed cabling tray. Bits up to my waist within minutes, just awful.
Ironically, though, your answer does more to promote the idea than discredit it - Because, we do put routers between network segments and firewalls at each end-point, and no more fine-grained points of (virtual) compromise really exist.
Backhoes notwithstanding.
Why don't pipelines like that have passive shutoff valves every hundred feet or so, such that if the pipeline suddenly looses pressure, the valve closes and no more oil can escape than already made it into that section?
We've had those for water pipes in our homes for decades to keep the house from flooding in case of a burst. And filling your basement with water does a hell of a lot less damage than filling your basement with crude.
Of course, we all already know the answer to that. The same answer GM didn't give congress last week; the same answer we always have when talking about health and safety tradeoffs: Money.
Pre-cooking food at low heat for a period before slapping it on the grill can cut down the time needed to cook it as well as limit how much burnt material is produced.
Except, by doing that, you've ruined the whole reason we barbecue things - Because we want that thin outer layer of charring.
Yes, we have plenty of ways to cook foods without forming PAH, acrylamide, or the other carcinogens-of-the-week. We could boil everything. We could microwave everything. We could bake everything on low heat while basting to keep the surface moist. Those will all pretty much prevent the formation of all the nasty chemicals we worry about in our barbecued foods. They all take less effort than barbecuing, too - A typical cookout basically requires someone manning the grill continuously to cook up a steady flow of burgers and hotdogs; vs throwing 10 lbs of dogs in a big boiling pot and having enough cooked to feed a small army in under ten minutes.
We grill things over open flame because all those nasty carcinogens make it taste better. Simple as that.
TFA contains no actual information, just an assertion that the interaction between poorly-described models of "biological" systems might kinda possibly maybe make them money because the world needs car door key fobs, or something like that.
Deep.
Seriously, this looks like a solution in need of a problem - And worse, a "solution" that breaks a critical aspect of existing functionality, namely, "human readability".
Instead of making note of a few key points in the message, this will require taking a picture of the screen just so you can "automatically" Google the meaning of an unintelligible pattern of dots. WTF, guys, in what world do you consider that an improvement?
It also ignores the reality of Linux's dominant niche - Not as end-user desktops where poor widdle grandmas might get confused by all that technical information; but rather, as servers-on-the-cheap. And where do servers live? In the server room. I don't know about how your company does things, but many (including mine) don't allow cameras in the server room, and that includes cellphones. And I don't even work for any sort of especially high-security company.
If you really want to make panics more intelligible, just reduce them to the few items of useful information they actually contain - No stupid register dump, no stack trace, no list of a dozen maybe-related-but-almost-never-really modules. List the type of panic, the faulting module, and just the top of the call stack. That alone provides the level of detail most people can do something about - "Looks kinda like that new video driver blew up, better roll back and see if the problem goes away". Anything more than that only matters to kernel devs, and for that, we have debugging and verbosity command line options they can set.
TLDR: If, by default, a panic scrolls a 40x25 text screen, you've failed. Adding the requirement of a smartphone and internet connection only makes it worse.
Cough. Your freedoms end where other's begin. Cough.
:)
So far, virtually all the discussion on this topic has centered around the rights of the victim. I apologize for responding to you personally, but you have the most visible post continuing the "wrong" discussion here.
The problem here has nothing to do with whether or not we should condemn the concept of "revenge" porn, but rather, whether a website should bear liability for content posted by a third party. That should scare the hell out of all of us, liberal or conservative, pro-porn or feminist, rich or poor.
Look beyond porn for the implications of this - Should Amazon bear criminal liability for allowing a joking review that says "this blender turns lead into gold" to remain? Should Yelp need to fact check every single review of some rat-trap motel or suffer liability for defamation? If a blogger dares to criticize Italian or French judges for their sham of a legal system, should Wordpress' CEO (or given what I just said, Dice's CEO) go to prison? And those don't even get into the issue of search engines, where literally everything on the internet can show up - Do we really expect Google to bear the burden of making sure no one has posted something incorrect or illegal on the entire internet?
If so... Goodbye, Internet (at least in the US - Which still effectively means "Goodbye, Intenet"). Section 230 means more than a loophole for pesky websites to intentionally look the other way - It makes the entire concept of public participation in a shared discussion possible.
So you mean, he didn't admit to a variety of felonies in public?
Shocking.
Are all the childless people really making more of a difference? I didn't know that clubbing, going to the movies, and trying to get laid really was that effective at motivating political reform!
We also vote, and have the disposable income (that in your case goes to crap like paying for all those antibiotics you keep ruining as placebos to treat viral ear infections) to contribute to our preferred candidates. And hey, the USSC actually just raised we mere humans to the level of corporations as far as "money as free speech" goes!
That said, let's not get sidetracked by the breeder-vs-DINK arguments. We have one very simple, fundamental problem with getting scientifically-literate people in office:
None run.
We have, as a nearly unanimous pool of candidates, complete fucking morons (with nice hair, oh and "ironically" enough, a median net worth in the eight digits). So whether we vote for Tweedle-dee (D) or Tweedle-dum (R), we still all lose.
Hackathons are great, but there are easier ways to find jobs.
No, actually, I would very much have to disagree with that.
I got my first job out of HS (over two decades past, now) in a "hackathon" for a scholarship with a bonus summer internship (which evolved into a "real" job once I graduated, though I earned that part, it didn't come as part of the package).
Although I eventually moved beyond that job, I have honestly never gotten another job that easily since then. And suffice it to say, having won that scholarship and internship, I have a reasonably impressive resume.
If you can actually code well, "hackathon" style contests let you prove it, simple as that. No stupid psych questions that HR forces interviewers to ask, no stress on whether to dress up or down to "fit" to corporate climate at your target company, no "you match our listing perfectly but we really meant to hire someone internally and just posted the ad to meet funding-requirement-X". Just show off your skills, and call it good.
If, however, you can kinda sorta do some things with computers at your Uncle's company... Don't bother, and invest in a better suit..
You want to know how to make ads acceptable?
Permanent incognito/private browsing mode + Adblock + Ghostery + click-to-play + DNT (yeah, you all ignore it anyway) + a vanilla user agent. Make them the default for every browser.
Marketers take heed: Ads no longer server the purpose they once did. Every time you manage to sneak a clever ad past my technical defenses, you piss me off about your product/company/campaign.
You want to get my to buy Pepsi? Advertise for Coke. Simple as that.
If you were asked to do something then fucking do it. Any sticker shock is the CTOs problem to explain.
In spirit, I agree with you.
In practice, I write two kinds of in-house app on a regular basis - Integrations, and reports (yeah, I know, reporting doesn't generally count as an app, but compiling the data that goes into them behind the scenes very much does). How exactly do you move an integration that hits two (or more!) local servers, which may well contain sensitive (even in the PCI/PII sense) data, to "the cloud"? And for reporting, the task sounds simple until you ask "reporting on what?" Unless you want response times measured in hours or days, that would includes a hidden requirement that I also build a complete mirror of my local data warehouse in the cloud. Even ignoring the cost of that much storage, bandwidth rapidly becomes an issue when talking about trying to keep hundreds of gigs of data as close to realtime-fresh as possible.
So no, you can't always just "fucking do it". The FP likely understands that, and simply hopes to use price as an argument rather than patiently explain to his CTO why playing "Buzzword Bingo" doesn't make a viable long-term IT strategy.
You should read economic theories that compare metallism vs. chartalism.
I have some familiarity with Knapp's work. He conveniently glosses over what happens when a government's spending grows at a higher rate than inflation of its issued currency, however. Fortunately, we have several modern examples of that... Greece, Cyprus, Ireland... Great clubs to join - They all have awesome beaches, right?
Chartalism "guarantees" the USD only while we keep our spending and foreign debt within certain bounds. Beyond that, we may as well use oak leaves as money for all the value the USD will have.