Trivia alert: of course that's not because of the Ohio thing, it's because it's an unofficial flag celebrating NM. Technically, new flags are only officially adopted on July 4th and NM entered the union in Jan and AZ entered in Feb one month later...
...Once they receive concrete reliability data for this model, they may change their stance on recommendation if the reliability measures well. Until then it's fair to not recommend it.
I guess they should be doing the same with the Tesla model 3, yet they marked it as likely to be 'average' even though the model X was 'least reliable'. I'm sensing a MSFT vendetta and maybe a Elon fanboi somewhere on their editorial staff...
Just speculating of course...
On the other hand Elon is not reciprocating and probably feels the same way that MSFT feels about CR...
“Consumer Reports has not yet driven a Model 3, let alone do they know anything substantial about how the Model 3 was designed and engineered. Time and time again, our own data shows that Consumer Reports’ automotive reporting is consistently inaccurate and misleading to consumers.”
You open up a different can of worm with population sets. Of course by skewing their employees younger, software companies can often make their employees more gender diverse faster than if they did not do that...
Older engineers are going to be more likely male. If you want to fix a "gender-diversity" problem in tech simply with new hires, you will likely find it to be pipeline limited. Interestingly, if you wanted to make faster progress than being pipeline limited, you can simply reduce the fraction of older engineers (who are more male dominated compared with the younger pool).
Sadly, that's two strikes against companies keeping older engineers, generally more expensive and generally more male.
The essence of intelligence is that it enables one to predict the outcome of a unique situation based upon an understanding of its essential elements.
Starting with only the rules of Go, Zero explored a variety of combinations, learning that some were more likely to give a satisfactory result. It developed a sense of what types of moves are best. Thus, without playing or studying an infinite number of games it could know the type of move that should be best in each unique situation.
Theoretically, a vast intelligence, given only the facts of the Big Bang, could anticipate most of the resulting evolution of our universe. Zero has taken the first small step.
You are making quite a few assumptions. One, that somehow a "game" that has a goal (e.g., a "winner") is the same as predicted an open ended problem. Two: that somehow AlphaGoZero developed a "sense" of what types of moves are best.
First, because of the limited rules and state space of the game Go, and the fact that there is a "winner", the Go universe is certainly closed and quite bounded.
In contrast, the real universe has a much larger state space and the rules are unknown (although some approximate rules are known by the current state of physics, they are known to be somewhat inconsistent) so although perhaps a theoretically vast intelligence, given our *estimate* of the state of the universe at the *assumed* Big Bang could apply our current approximate rules of the universe and potentially extrapolate the evolution of an *idealized* universe, since we know our current rules are inconsistent, this would likely be equivalent to garbage-in, garbage-out.
Similarly if AlphaGoZero wasn't aware of the full laws of physics of Go (say the 19x19 board size limitation, or perhaps was not taught the rule of Ko) and learned to play using simplified rules, it might not have learned anything essential about playing a "real" game of Go.
Secondly, it is unclear if a "sense" of what types of moves are best is being learned (it may simply be better at out-computing humans and building/"learning" its own huge dictionary of game outcomes). I think AI will only truly be useful (and trusted) when it also learns how to "teach". Anecdotally, I often find out how much I know about a subject when I try to explain it to someone else. Until, I do that, I might be able to be okay at muddling/faking my way through it, but I know that I don't really know it until I can successfully explain it to someone else.
FWIW, AI constructions like "GANs" (Generative Adversarial Networks), are a small step in this direction for certain things, but still have the potential loophole that it can "fake-it" as long as the discriminator can't be taught to detect it). Similarly, we can examine the moves that a program like AlphaGoZero makes and look at the probabilities that it assigns as part of it's MonteCarlo tree search before it moves, but that's like looking at an MRI of a Go Master and trying to learn what they are thinking when they made a certain move. By *humans* analysing the games that AlphaGoZero makes (and people have done this already) we can infer what it is trying to teach, but it will be much better when we figure out how to know for sure as integrated as part of its reinforcement learning.
Illustration that shows the same type of aerodynamic shaped spaceship on Pad 39, docked to ISS, and sitting on surface of Mars looks so 1950s like Chesley Bonestell paintings from the day. Nice paintings but those don't take into account the Rocket Equation. Yes, Musk demonstrated reusable rockets (with a big boost of govt money) but this Mars fantasy is a huge distraction. For past 50 years they've said we will be on (sending humans) to Mars.
There are limitations evaluating space transit only using the "rocket equation" since it only takes into consideration the momentum changes due to mass leaving a rocket (direct transit). Interplanetary missions generally include additional momentum changes due to sling-shot trajectories to achieve the necessary delta v to move from one solar orbital distance to another. If you want to take a long time, that's enough, but probably with humans we want to minimize the time and that means more delta v and a complicated trajectories needed to enter a reasonable orbit (e.g., and decelerate when we get there).
Also, the bigger problem with Mars is landing once we get there. We don't have the technology to land anything large (-ish) yet. The problem on Mars is the thin atmosphere. Better retro-rockets technology (more advanced than landing back on earth) will probably be required to get this all to work.
Not saying that it's easy (or within our current human technology level), but to cast this as somehow violating the "rocket equation" isn't a correct argument. I put that right up there with how people claimed that all the air would get sucked out of a train moving faster than 40mph...
You answered the question yourself as to why people don't stay.
If I stay at company X and only to get a 3% year over year increase, and you can get 10% by jumping ship.... most people will jump ship....
Companies complain about loyalty but then do nothing to foster it.
Companies complain about a bunch of things, and so does my 4yo. Doesn't mean I should listen to either of them.
I'm just pointing out the past is the past, I don't think there's any going back to the "good-old-days" as if those days of paternalistic companies where there weren't many career options except to stick it out and get your pension was really as great as what people think they remember it was (most of the "complainers" are too young to remember it anyhow)...
The point of training isn't to keep a higher skilled worker in a lower skill position. It is so you get first crack at paying them enough to stay.
Although you might get the first crack, in today's environment, the grass always looks a bit greener over there and you have to counter that.
For example, starting in the late 1990's, people who hopped jobs got significant pay boosts both in the US and in India, but this wasn't true in Europe. Why? My guess is that in the US and India, the grass over at another company looked significantly greener. In Europe (which had fewer startups and larger institutions that hired high tech folks), there was not much green grass to covet. Interestingly, this time was the start of a brain-drain of Europe to the US (where folks sought greener grass).
It might be quaint to think that you can get a high skilled worker to stay by training them, but I suspect the reality is that the numbers don't support the argument that it is a net positive investment in this day and age.
Sure, people may have more choices today that they didn't have decades ago. But companies are willing to do less to keep people around than they did decades ago.
I've heard/commented before around the 'net - is it any coincidence that with the death of the pension, that any type of employee loyalty died along with it?
At least one theory about this is floating around, and they blame institutional shareholders for the death of the pension... https://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2...
Decades ago, when a company invested in their employees, they were pretty sure they would stay with them, not out of loyalty, but out of necessity. There were only a small number of companies to poach them, and starting your own company or joining a small startup wasn't generally a highly mobile path (only taken by people that wanted to get out of the rat-race).
Now, for better or worse, there are a large number of multi-national companies that are out there that are more than willing to poach employees after they are trained and it is easier than ever to start your own company become a millionaire. For many companies, the return on training investment is low enough that it makes poaching and out-sourcing a better strategy. The explanation is probably just that simple.
I would argue that it is probably a bit better for some in this environment and probably worse for most people. Success accumulates now more for the aggressive than the loyal and I don't see the game changing anytime soon. It's basically how silicon valley started.
Some economist say that is not the case. there are plenty of people that worked hard, came up with the next new mouse trap and had some luck but completely failed.
Instead they put it down to being able to overcome the fear of risk and uncertainty.
I think if you query an economist they would say you have to actually take risks to get rich. Playing it conservative (just like any investment), isn't a recipe for higher than average returns.
Part of the formula might be (depending on your personality) overcoming the fear or risk and uncertainty, but you actually have to take the risk itself, which even if you don't fear it, you might be too lazy to execute. That brings it back to where hard work is still somewhat required.
Of course after you take the risk, you need a bit of luck too...
Well... after a couple of years of working nights and weekends and not having much of anything to show for it I started to realize that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while... lesson learned, I guess.
On the other hand nothing ventured, nothing gained. Working for startup is something you are investing your time in (not money). Some people are more conservative in their time investments, others are more aggressive. Just like any investment, as long as you can sleep at night, you are probably near your risk tolerance level.
No computer in the world is secure. And yet here you are, still carrying one around in your pocket while you poke fun at a company that makes them, pretending like you're immune to the vulnerabilities.
Why do you assume I carry one of those attention deficit creation machines around in my pocket? (not saying that I don't) Do you also assume I don't also poke fun at my company which also makes chips that go into pocket computing devices? FWIW, I don't pretend that I'm not immune to risk, just like I don't pretend to have courage when I take calculated risks so I ridicule those that claim courage...
Courage is showing strength of will in the face of suffering or sacrifice. Taking a calculated tactic when being the market leader with no competition isn't courage, it's simply taking advantage of your strategic position. Real courage would be something like breaking an addiction to an attention deficit creation machine, or not using one to begin with in our modern society. That would be *real* courage...
My bottom line: she was always conscious. It was not that her consciousness changed, but the physical architecture, in terms of muscle control, methods of communication, energy levels, and emotionally coming to terms with the end of the world she had formerly known that had been the changes.
You may have done a little bit of experimentation, but that's a tiny sample size, colored through the perceptions of you being her father, and (it sounds like) not having a background in psychology. There has been extensive scientific study on these topics, and it's pretty well established that your daughter's consciousness has changed. Being able to control her limbs and tongue does not constitute consciousness.
I don't mean that as an insult against you or your daughter, by the day. It's just that newborns have very limited awareness and understanding of what's going on around them.
I would argue that *humans* have very limited awareness and understanding of what's going on around them. We are mostly limited by our visual cortex's representation of reality which is only slightly augmented by our sensory inputs (we can only sense an extremely limited amount about our environment). We mostly spend our lives living out the allegory of cave of our own creation.
What many call "consciousness" is probably mostly just the brain focusing attention. In the human brain, this happens mostly in the pre-frontal cortex (more specifically, the inferior frontal junction) which temporarily synchronizes with the visual cortex and object matching areas such as the fusiform face area or parahippocampal place area. It is hypothesized that this ability of "synchronization" between brain functions is the actual feeling of consciousness (where unconsciousness is simply non-synchronization between these functions).
Yes nothing says she (or anyone with a liberal arts degree) can't be a good security officer. But it is suspicious that all of her background is now hidden. It might have been she was CSO for political reasons as one would find in big companies that the person who plays politics is promoted over people who have experience or skill.
Well, as it turns out, her "resume" prior to Equifax lists
* Senior Director of Information Security, Audit and Compliance at HP * Senior Vice President and Chief Security Officer and First Data Corporation * Group Vice President Sun Trust Bank
Sounds to me that she worked up the "vice-president" track (easy to do in a bank as everyone is a VP) and stumbled on to security from the audit/compliance side of the house. This is like a VP of engineering coming up from the marketing/product specification side of the house. All most of these folks know how to do is check the boxes... They might have learned some buzzwords along the way, but you would never trust them to actually *do* anything...
Maybe they think that UHT still qualifies as milk?
Maybe you still think milk is a healthy drink for adults? Boy the American Dairy Association has done a number on you...
Besides UHT is "better" for the environment (doesn't need as much refrigeration whilst in distribution). It doesn't have all the enzymes and iodine, but neither does most organic milk (mostly because most organic milk sold in the US is UHT pasteurized). Are you drinking raw milk?
At least now they won't have dealers calling the police or the insurance companies claiming someone stole the stash from their drone... They are now on their own because it is against the guidelines...
PDF has harsher transients, whereas paper sounds warmer with a more rounded bass.
And to get the best experience from paper, I always use my $1000 Monster reading glasses.
Just try reading it with diamond. Some technophiles are trying laser but the pleasing resonances with the arm are impossible to recreate with a laser...
Reading many of the comments, I don't think most people understand the threat of identity theft.
They usually don't use your information to access/empty your existing bank accounts, or charge up your current credit accounts, they attempt create new credit accounts using your stolen information but with bogus addresses, phone numbers and emails, so you don't know that they did it until the account is so delinquent that goes into collection (and you get a call from a collection agency trying to track you down).
Although you aren't technically liable for these things, clearing up your credit can take years (and a significant amount of your spare time) and you will have to deal with the hassle for quite a while.
Freezing your credit, will let you know when they *apply* for the fraudulent credit. Even minimally putting a fraud alert on your credit will alert the business to be extra vigilant before extending credit using those credentials.
Simply looking over statements sent to you for existing accounts and getting a credit report every 4 months, is a piss poor substitute for fraud alert/monitoring. Equifax should be offering to freeze everyone's credit for free that has been effected (instead of giving out free samples of their product for a year in exchange for not sueing them).
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I only fly the 47-star flag.
Better keep that safe ;^) Those 47 star flags are fetching a pretty penny on Ebay...
https://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-...
Trivia alert: of course that's not because of the Ohio thing, it's because it's an unofficial flag celebrating NM. Technically, new flags are only officially adopted on July 4th and NM entered the union in Jan and AZ entered in Feb one month later...
...Once they receive concrete reliability data for this model, they may change their stance on recommendation if the reliability measures well. Until then it's fair to not recommend it.
I guess they should be doing the same with the Tesla model 3, yet they marked it as likely to be 'average' even though the model X was 'least reliable'. I'm sensing a MSFT vendetta and maybe a Elon fanboi somewhere on their editorial staff...
Just speculating of course...
On the other hand Elon is not reciprocating and probably feels the same way that MSFT feels about CR...
“Consumer Reports has not yet driven a Model 3, let alone do they know anything substantial about how the Model 3 was designed and engineered. Time and time again, our own data shows that Consumer Reports’ automotive reporting is consistently inaccurate and misleading to consumers.”
You open up a different can of worm with population sets. Of course by skewing their employees younger, software companies can often make their employees more gender diverse faster than if they did not do that...
Older engineers are going to be more likely male. If you want to fix a "gender-diversity" problem in tech simply with new hires, you will likely find it to be pipeline limited. Interestingly, if you wanted to make faster progress than being pipeline limited, you can simply reduce the fraction of older engineers (who are more male dominated compared with the younger pool).
Sadly, that's two strikes against companies keeping older engineers, generally more expensive and generally more male.
The essence of intelligence is that it enables one to predict the outcome of a unique situation based upon an understanding of its essential elements.
Starting with only the rules of Go, Zero explored a variety of combinations, learning that some were more likely to give a satisfactory result. It developed a sense of what types of moves are best. Thus, without playing or studying an infinite number of games it could know the type of move that should be best in each unique situation.
Theoretically, a vast intelligence, given only the facts of the Big Bang, could anticipate most of the resulting evolution of our universe. Zero has taken the first small step.
You are making quite a few assumptions. One, that somehow a "game" that has a goal (e.g., a "winner") is the same as predicted
an open ended problem. Two: that somehow AlphaGoZero developed a "sense" of what types of moves are best.
First, because of the limited rules and state space of the game Go, and the fact that there is a "winner", the Go universe is certainly closed and quite bounded.
In contrast, the real universe has a much larger state space and the rules are unknown (although some approximate rules are known by the current state of physics, they are known to be somewhat inconsistent) so although perhaps a theoretically vast intelligence, given our *estimate* of the state of the universe at the *assumed* Big Bang could apply our current approximate rules of the universe and potentially extrapolate the evolution of an *idealized* universe, since we know our current rules are inconsistent, this would likely be equivalent to garbage-in, garbage-out.
Similarly if AlphaGoZero wasn't aware of the full laws of physics of Go (say the 19x19 board size limitation, or perhaps was not taught the rule of Ko) and learned to play using simplified rules, it might not have learned anything essential about playing a "real" game of Go.
Secondly, it is unclear if a "sense" of what types of moves are best is being learned (it may simply be better at out-computing humans and building/"learning" its own huge dictionary of game outcomes). I think AI will only truly be useful (and trusted) when it also learns how to "teach". Anecdotally, I often find out how much I know about a subject when I try to explain it to someone else. Until, I do that, I might be able to be okay at muddling/faking my way through it, but I know that I don't really know it until I can successfully explain it to someone else.
FWIW, AI constructions like "GANs" (Generative Adversarial Networks), are a small step in this direction for certain things, but still have the potential loophole that it can "fake-it" as long as the discriminator can't be taught to detect it). Similarly, we can examine the moves that a program like AlphaGoZero makes and look at the probabilities that it assigns as part of it's MonteCarlo tree search before it moves, but that's like looking at an MRI of a Go Master and trying to learn what they are thinking when they made a certain move. By *humans* analysing the games that AlphaGoZero makes (and people have done this already) we can infer what it is trying to teach, but it will be much better when we figure out how to know for sure as integrated as part of its reinforcement learning.
Illustration that shows the same type of aerodynamic shaped spaceship on Pad 39, docked to ISS, and sitting on surface of Mars looks so 1950s like Chesley Bonestell paintings from the day. Nice paintings but those don't take into account the Rocket Equation. Yes, Musk demonstrated reusable rockets (with a big boost of govt money) but this Mars fantasy is a huge distraction. For past 50 years they've said we will be on (sending humans) to Mars.
There are limitations evaluating space transit only using the "rocket equation" since it only takes into consideration the momentum changes due to mass leaving a rocket (direct transit). Interplanetary missions generally include additional momentum changes due to sling-shot trajectories to achieve the necessary delta v to move from one solar orbital distance to another. If you want to take a long time, that's enough, but probably with humans we want to minimize the time and that means more delta v and a complicated trajectories needed to enter a reasonable orbit (e.g., and decelerate when we get there).
Also, the bigger problem with Mars is landing once we get there. We don't have the technology to land anything large (-ish) yet. The problem on Mars is the thin atmosphere. Better retro-rockets technology (more advanced than landing back on earth) will probably be required to get this all to work.
Not saying that it's easy (or within our current human technology level), but to cast this as somehow violating the "rocket equation" isn't a correct argument. I put that right up there with how people claimed that all the air would get sucked out of a train moving faster than 40mph...
They just have to get it done quickly before the dark army gets wind of their plans...
You answered the question yourself as to why people don't stay.
If I stay at company X and only to get a 3% year over year increase, and you can get 10% by jumping ship.... most people will jump ship....
Companies complain about loyalty but then do nothing to foster it.
Companies complain about a bunch of things, and so does my 4yo. Doesn't mean I should listen to either of them.
I'm just pointing out the past is the past, I don't think there's any going back to the "good-old-days" as if those days of paternalistic companies where there weren't many career options except to stick it out and get your pension was really as great as what people think they remember it was (most of the "complainers" are too young to remember it anyhow)...
The point of training isn't to keep a higher skilled worker in a lower skill position. It is so you get first crack at paying them enough to stay.
Although you might get the first crack, in today's environment, the grass always looks a bit greener over there and you have to counter that.
For example, starting in the late 1990's, people who hopped jobs got significant pay boosts both in the US and in India, but this wasn't true in Europe. Why? My guess is that in the US and India, the grass over at another company looked significantly greener. In Europe (which had fewer startups and larger institutions that hired high tech folks), there was not much green grass to covet. Interestingly, this time was the start of a brain-drain of Europe to the US (where folks sought greener grass).
It might be quaint to think that you can get a high skilled worker to stay by training them, but I suspect the reality is that the numbers don't support the argument that it is a net positive investment in this day and age.
Sure, people may have more choices today that they didn't have decades ago. But companies are willing to do less to keep people around than they did decades ago.
I've heard/commented before around the 'net - is it any coincidence that with the death of the pension, that any type of employee loyalty died along with it?
At least one theory about this is floating around, and they blame institutional shareholders for the death of the pension...
https://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2...
Decades ago, when a company invested in their employees, they were pretty sure they would stay with them, not out of loyalty, but out of necessity. There were only a small number of companies to poach them, and starting your own company or joining a small startup wasn't generally a highly mobile path (only taken by people that wanted to get out of the rat-race).
Now, for better or worse, there are a large number of multi-national companies that are out there that are more than willing to poach employees after they are trained and it is easier than ever to start your own company become a millionaire. For many companies, the return on training investment is low enough that it makes poaching and out-sourcing a better strategy. The explanation is probably just that simple.
I would argue that it is probably a bit better for some in this environment and probably worse for most people. Success accumulates now more for the aggressive than the loyal and I don't see the game changing anytime soon. It's basically how silicon valley started.
Some economist say that is not the case. there are plenty of people that worked hard, came up with the next new mouse trap and had some luck but completely failed.
Instead they put it down to being able to overcome the fear of risk and uncertainty.
I think if you query an economist they would say you have to actually take risks to get rich. Playing it conservative (just like any investment), isn't a recipe for higher than average returns.
Part of the formula might be (depending on your personality) overcoming the fear or risk and uncertainty, but you actually have to take the risk itself, which even if you don't fear it, you might be too lazy to execute. That brings it back to where hard work is still somewhat required.
Of course after you take the risk, you need a bit of luck too...
Unfortunately we don't really want involuntary evolution any more
Fixed your fix...
Perhaps the phrase you are looking for is simply: People want eugenics...
When you boil it down like this, are you sure that's what we *should* want?
Well... after a couple of years of working nights and weekends and not having much of anything to show for it I started to realize that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while... lesson learned, I guess.
On the other hand nothing ventured, nothing gained. Working for startup is something you are investing your time in (not money). Some people are more conservative in their time investments, others are more aggressive. Just like any investment, as long as you can sleep at night, you are probably near your risk tolerance level.
Whiterose has them in xer grasp.
Otherwise they come for Elliot...
Stand up and walk with us... Do it...
No computer in the world is secure. And yet here you are, still carrying one around in your pocket while you poke fun at a company that makes them, pretending like you're immune to the vulnerabilities.
Why do you assume I carry one of those attention deficit creation machines around in my pocket? (not saying that I don't)
Do you also assume I don't also poke fun at my company which also makes chips that go into pocket computing devices?
FWIW, I don't pretend that I'm not immune to risk, just like I don't pretend to have courage when I take calculated risks so I ridicule those that claim courage...
Courage is showing strength of will in the face of suffering or sacrifice. Taking a calculated tactic when being the market leader with no competition isn't courage, it's simply taking advantage of your strategic position. Real courage would be something like breaking an addiction to an attention deficit creation machine, or not using one to begin with in our modern society. That would be *real* courage...
My bottom line: she was always conscious. It was not that her consciousness changed, but the physical architecture, in terms of muscle control, methods of communication, energy levels, and emotionally coming to terms with the end of the world she had formerly known that had been the changes.
You may have done a little bit of experimentation, but that's a tiny sample size, colored through the perceptions of you being her father, and (it sounds like) not having a background in psychology. There has been extensive scientific study on these topics, and it's pretty well established that your daughter's consciousness has changed. Being able to control her limbs and tongue does not constitute consciousness.
I don't mean that as an insult against you or your daughter, by the day. It's just that newborns have very limited awareness and understanding of what's going on around them.
I would argue that *humans* have very limited awareness and understanding of what's going on around them. We are mostly limited by our visual cortex's representation of reality which is only slightly augmented by our sensory inputs (we can only sense an extremely limited amount about our environment). We mostly spend our lives living out the allegory of cave of our own creation.
What many call "consciousness" is probably mostly just the brain focusing attention. In the human brain, this happens mostly in the pre-frontal cortex (more specifically, the inferior frontal junction) which temporarily synchronizes with the visual cortex and object matching areas such as the fusiform face area or parahippocampal place area. It is hypothesized that this ability of "synchronization" between brain functions is the actual feeling of consciousness (where unconsciousness is simply non-synchronization between these functions).
Courage in the wake of wifi stack vunerabilities.
Courage that they won't have a bluetooth stack vulnerability like android.
Courage is what it takes, courage...
Yes nothing says she (or anyone with a liberal arts degree) can't be a good security officer. But it is suspicious that all of her background is now hidden. It might have been she was CSO for political reasons as one would find in big companies that the person who plays politics is promoted over people who have experience or skill.
Well, as it turns out, her "resume" prior to Equifax lists
* Senior Director of Information Security, Audit and Compliance at HP
* Senior Vice President and Chief Security Officer and First Data Corporation
* Group Vice President Sun Trust Bank
Sounds to me that she worked up the "vice-president" track (easy to do in a bank as everyone is a VP) and stumbled on to security from the audit/compliance side of the house. This is like a VP of engineering coming up from the marketing/product specification side of the house. All most of these folks know how to do is check the boxes... They might have learned some buzzwords along the way, but you would never trust them to actually *do* anything...
Maybe they think that UHT still qualifies as milk?
Maybe you still think milk is a healthy drink for adults? Boy the American Dairy Association has done a number on you...
Besides UHT is "better" for the environment (doesn't need as much refrigeration whilst in distribution). It doesn't have all the enzymes and iodine, but neither does most organic milk (mostly because most organic milk sold in the US is UHT pasteurized). Are you drinking raw milk?
Although this might seem like an outlier, it really isn't for the area...
Other similar houses that have been recently sold in Sunnyvale...
7/12/2017 $2.700M (4Bed) 1341 Nelson Way
4/24/2017 $2.490M (4Bed) 1378 Los Arboles Ave.
8/14/2017 $2.425M (4Bed) 1519 Kennewick Dr.
6/05/2017 $2.411M (4Bed) 1562 Jasper Dr.
9/01/2017 $2.350M (4Bed) 953 W. Cardinal Dr.
6/09/2017 $2.330M (4Bed) 816 Lennox Ct.
8/25/2017 $2.300M (4Bed) 1162 Crandano Ct.
But the realtors probably priced these closer to market than this Prunelle Ct house, so it isn't news...
which won't be obeyed, anyway.
At least now they won't have dealers calling the police or the insurance companies claiming someone stole the stash from their drone... They are now on their own because it is against the guidelines...
PDF has harsher transients, whereas paper sounds warmer with a more rounded bass.
And to get the best experience from paper, I always use my $1000 Monster reading glasses.
Just try reading it with diamond. Some technophiles are trying laser but the pleasing resonances with the arm are impossible to recreate with a laser...
I look over my statements, just in case.
Reading many of the comments, I don't think most people understand the threat of identity theft.
They usually don't use your information to access/empty your existing bank accounts, or charge up your current credit accounts, they attempt create new credit accounts using your stolen information but with bogus addresses, phone numbers and emails, so you don't know that they did it until the account is so delinquent that goes into collection (and you get a call from a collection agency trying to track you down).
Although you aren't technically liable for these things, clearing up your credit can take years (and a significant amount of your spare time) and you will have to deal with the hassle for quite a while.
Freezing your credit, will let you know when they *apply* for the fraudulent credit. Even minimally putting a fraud alert on your credit will alert the business to be extra vigilant before extending credit using those credentials.
Simply looking over statements sent to you for existing accounts and getting a credit report every 4 months, is a piss poor substitute for fraud alert/monitoring. Equifax should be offering to freeze everyone's credit for free that has been effected (instead of giving out free samples of their product for a year in exchange for not sueing them).
The difference here is that you are not equifax's customer - you are their product.
You should remember the fact you are the product every time you do a search on the internet, or partake in a free email provider...
You probably know this already, but you already get one free per year from each of the 3 credit reporting agencies. (Thanks Uncle Sam!)
If you time it right, you can pull one every 4 months (rotating agencies, using each one yearly)
https://www.annualcreditreport...
Free credit report != Free fraud alert/monitoring.
Lots of fraud can happen in a 4 month time...