To reliably photograph keys with a well hidden camera that you can position and deploy (without drawing attention to yourself) and remotely retrieve images from, yes you need a bit of a budget (though that's probably the cheapest of the ones you mentioned). If you're going to personally stand in the hallway with a zoom lens aimed at the doorknob that may be cheaper, but a tad less stealthy.
You'd need a five figure budget and months of development time at minimum for any of those to reliably work, vs. simply installing a $10 magnetic swipe sensor next to the existing one and 3d printing a $3 piece of plastic to go over the thing and make it look normal-ish. As I said, it's been done before.
Live near an airport and breath the leaded gas fumes, inhale the radioactive particles emitted by coal plants (yes, coal plants emit a significant amount of radionuclides), eat bluefin tuna for two meals a day and get mercury poisoning, etc.
You're just babbling. The world is full of dangerous side effect pollutants. But whatever the substance is, the harm is always a function of dose.
I'd be happy to move to Fukushima and raise a family, if you're financing it. Japan has the longest life expectancy in the world. Getting a single CT scan in your lifetime raises your rise of cancer much more than the background radiation increases from minor nuclear accidents like Fukushima or Three Mile Island.
Except non-citizens from these specific countries are free to decline these searches and return to their point of origin. It's not a right being violated; it's a right being waved for the privilege of entry.
The phrase "the constitution is not a suicide pact" has been used to justify some very odious stuff, but it seems rather appropriate here. It's quite alarming to watch leftists bending arguments that I would normally be the first to champion to imply that America is completely powerless to impose any extra security requirements at all to non-citizens of war-torn, theocratic hellholes.
Entry to America has not been and cannot be an automatic, inalienable right. Thsi should be a complete non-starter for anyone who isn't high on keyboard duster, and you risk further marginalizing people who actually do care about discussing the erosion of the bill of rights when you talk in this manner.
What you really should be afraid of is toddlers getting hold of their fathers gun.
After some more research, it appears as though this number was higher than I expected (it was the 'toddler' part in particular I was expecting to keep that number quite low, for both demographic and operational reasons), but of course it is still lower than terrorism unless you expose your own absurd disingenuity by purposefully excluding 9/11.
You probably want to use Qubes OS which provides an environment where all of this is handled for you.
I briefly covered this in a post from last year,, which I linked to in the post you just replied to. I'm using Qubes right now.
OP was talking about Windows, though, and if it's true that he's not a regular Linux user then the Virtualbox solution is probably a better place to start.
Again, unless you have a case study or mathematical estimates to indicate otherwise, it's a reasonable assumption that this is going to be a fairly localized event with limited impact, it's not going to get into the air and get blown to a nearby town, it's not going to make it unsafe to swim or boat, it's not going to get in the drinking water supply (assuming there's no desalinization plant nearby), and it's not going to poison miles of coastline. It might bioaccumulate and affect the local seafood industry, very possibly primarily affecting the fish that are already unhealthy to eat due to mercury bioaccumulation. That's about it.
Use Virtualbox VMs, restoring the previous snapshot after every shutdown. (There might be a way to do this automatically.) When it comes to computer security/privacy, the easiest to understand and easiest to implement options are not infrequently the most powerful ones as well.
If Clinton had been a "proven criminal" she'd have been convicted of something.
I only skimmed the rest of your post, but this is laughably naive premise to build on. James Clapper was a proven criminal (perjury while under oath before Congress, as revealed by Snowden) and not only was he not arrested, he wasn't even asked to resign.
The sad fact of the matter is white collar crime routinely is not pressed even in the presence of compelling evidence. I've no doubt in my mind whatsoever that both Clinton and Trump have committed multiple felonies in their lifetimes and I don't think Hillary's email server is or was likely to have caused much actual harm in the world, but when you begin your defense by asserting innocence due to a lack of arrest and follow it by saying that because the conservatives have thrown a lot of bullshit at Hillary, that therefore implies that she's innocent... no, just no.
If you don't understand how ridiculous this argument, consider how very similar logic could be used to defend Trump as well. For example, CNN (through Anderson Cooper), The Guardian, The New York Times and countless other news organizations outright lied about the contents of the Pussygate tape. For example, here is Cooper:
âoeYou described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals,â said CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. âoeThat is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?â
But of course "without consent" is a complete fabrication. He said "they let you do it", just a minute earlier he was discussing how he tried to seduce a woman "and failed. I admit it.", and he also said a not-entirely-clear line about magnetism that was clearly intended to mean "women are just attracted to me."
THEREFORE, TRUMP DID NOT EVER COMMIT THE CRIME OF SEXUAL ASSAULT! Well, no, sorry it doesn't work like that. Just because the mainstream media tried to lie about the tape doesn't mean that his multiple accusers are all lying.
It's just generates a lot of headlines when it happens.
Which is the number one reason why it's a big issue. People who don't care about or understand meta-politics (which right now appears to include most of the left, unfortunately) are doomed to see disasters like Trump unfold with regularity.
What you really should be afraid of is toddlers getting hold of their fathers gun.
No, without looking it up I'm going to estimate that this probably kills 5 orders of magnitude fewer people per year. (Perhaps only 2 or 3 orders of magnitude fewer if you're going to 'racistly' limit your perspective to America only.)
And ISIS typically don't commit terrorist acts in countries that doesn't have soldiers in Iraq/Syria.
What, ISIS? You mean Obama's "JV team"? What on Earth makes you think *you* can predict their future growth rate when the most powerful man in the world couldn't?
This is the other major problem with 'terrorism' (other than the meta-political); jihadism has worldwide ramifications and latent potential that car crashes, suicide rates, gun accidents, homicide rates, etc. do not have. No one in the world is nefariously working to quadruple toddler gun accidents overnight. Multinational forces aren't attempting to annihilate/abolish multiple countries because of toddler gun accidents. (Not just Israel, but East Timor as well. Probably several others in Africa and SE Asia, too.)
Technology is an integral part of the problem that exists independent of business and politics. You're just blathering irrelevancies. I've no great love whatsover for corporations or the 1%, but I don't try to hijack every conversation into being about them. The tech and pollution questions would exist even in a governmental utopia.
Not all compounds bioaccumulate. Many chemicals are not absorbed by the digestive tracts of vertebrates and these will (assuming they aren't big enough or heavy enough to stay on-site) disperse in the ocean with no concentrating effects.
The ones that do dissolve in seawater *and* bioaccumulate can be a problem for the people who eat the fish, but unless this happens in the middle of a critically important/valuable sea food producting area, this isn't a catastrophic or even a particularly unusual problem as several people on here seem to be implying.
I don't read in scrupulous detail the posts of ACs who appear to be blathering.
If you're just going Luddite on me, life was of course no walk in the part before we had access to modern technology including electricity. I might hate Monsanto too, but the people who argue for locally grown, organically fertilized everything are being extremely stupid.
If you're not being a Luddite, you're just aimlessly blathering. And/or you haven't wrapped your mind around some rather elementary misanthropic truths.
And you, you, you seemed inclined blame the environmentalists for it.
For focusing on the wrong things and demonizing technology that is safer and won't contribute to global warming, yes.
They are a rather large part of the problem, although there's an extremely depressing but very possibly sound argument that the nuclear taboo is worth preserving intact because of nuclear weapons.
You *were* aware that there are dozens of coal mine fires burning around the world right now, right? That they spew forth toxic gasses and cause the ground to collapse and it ends up rendering many square miles of land uninhabitable? That thousands of people have been forced to evacuate? That it's not too unusual for the fires (like Centralia's) to have lifespans on the order of hundreds of years?
How many coals miners have died from cave-ins? How many workers have died from coal dust or petroleum explosions? How many civilians have died from petroleum and coal? It's monstrous. Nuclear has killed a very, very small number of people over the past 50 years outside of some moronic shit the USSR did. Go ahead and find the worst estimates for increased cancer rates and toss that into the fatality figure; it's still a ridiculously small number compared to hydrocarbons. Because nuclear safety is held to a completely different standard.
If you really want to know what can happen, then look to the Dai-Ichi reactor complex in Fukushima.
Non sequitur much? This is about a reactor at the bottom of the sea which stands a good chance of being flooded due damage to the vessel before anything melts down. Fukushima was about a reactor overheating and sending crap into the air. It also wasn't nearly as dangerous as the hysteria would have you believe, but that's another story.
As I said elsewhere, people will happily poison themselves and stunt their childrens' IQs by a few points by eating tuna that's been contaminated (*worldwide*) by mercury from coal burning and gold mining and then afterwards go for a nice relaxing lie-down on the beach to give themselves cancer-inducing radiation burns, but god forbid there's a localized incidence of slightly increased radionuclide-based radioactivity somewhere in the world.
Centralia also needs to be brought up whenever people like to imply that the damage from nuclear is uniquely long-lived compared to the alternatives. And the situation there isn't unique.
Seriously? Then why all the brouhaha over nuclear plants?
Because there's a massive amount of misunderstanding and hysteria. There is one potential issue in bioaccumulation in sealife harming the fishing industry, but this would be fairly localized.
few dozen RC dozers could clean up Fukushima in a week or two. Why on earth has this never been proposed?
Well, there's the fishing and there's radioisotope terrorism, but those are largely driven by emotions, too. You make a fatal error when you assume that the public as a whole, or policymakers, are driven by cool, rational, relative risk and cost-based thinking.
Nuclear dangers have always been grossly overstated. We tolerate being poisoned by mecurcy in tuna (due mainly to coal power plants and gold miners) with very little controversy, despite the fact that heavy metal poisoning, even in smaller doses, is proven to permanently lower IQs. But people go insane the moment it's revealed that anything is slightly more radioactive than normal, for any reason.
You have to admit... what army/navy/etc. would sink a nuclear ship in their own waters during war? You'd have to think twice about that - it could be a good deterrent to being attacked. If sunk, it could be a major issue in your region for generations to come.
It's astonishing that anyone (let alone 6 digit slashdotters) still thinks of radioactive contamination like this.
It might be an issue for the fishing industry due to bioaccumulation, but there would be no other significantly worrisome effects. Water absorbs radiation very effectively and unlike fallout on land, currents would eventually disperse any radionuclides that didn't immediately settle on the sea floor.
We're constantly surrounded by radiation. The entire Earth is, in fact, a nuclear reactor orbiting another nuclear reactor that can give you a radiation burn and possibly even cancer if you expose your uncovered skin to it for just an hour or two...
Water absorbs radiation pretty effectively, and the oceans are in fact rather big[citation needed] and contain currents that will dilute and disperse the radionuclides. That's not to say there will definitely be zero impact, but it's not going to be catastrophic even if it sinks over an economically important part of the continental shelf. The biggest issue will probably be bioaccumulation in the sea life. So yes, fishing industries a bit damaged for a while. Beyond that, there's no huge problem other than those stemming from nuclear/radiation hysteria.
Cars don't need to be remotely controlled, ever (nor will cops start lobbying for this ability until after they've already become standard.) Local, physical-access exploits are trickier and much less dangerous than someone simply putting a car bomb underneath.
I'm still dreading the day that we see the first major drone terrorist attack... but affordable, practical flying cars for the masses (not just licensed pilots using airports) are out of the goddamn question for obvious goddamn reasons even if all of the other technical and safety and cost issues can be sorted out.
Cheap, electric-only, driverless cars with next generation batteries and sporting drive trains that might be able to manage a million miles without an expensive breakdown is already a huge revolution to ponder and (assuming someone finally mass produces one of these magical nanotech batteries we keep hearing about) is an entirely realistic one.
Flying cars is just fantasizing about retro-futuristic aesthetics instead of real, practical revolutionary stuff, stuff that could dramatically lower the costs and dangers and inconveniences of driving cars.
1. Your first language doesn't hugely matter, just so long as it isn't your last language.
2. Eric S. Raymond has a point:
Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never actually use Lisp itself a lot.
Lisp is different from most programming languages in that it basically has only one syntactical structure. There's a not-unreasonable argument that this makes things more cumbersome or opaque than necessary for professionals, but as a beginner it's very easy to at least very grasp what pieces are doing and in what order. Get a good IDE to help with the parentheses and show what the function arguments are, and I think it may be a good way to learn how to write structured code without getting bogged down in syntax. Don't spend too much time on Common Lisp's or Clojures' object oriented stuff, though... they are considerably more powerful and general-purpose than almost every other object oriented programming languages and will not properly prepare you for the nonsensical function-method divide, limited dynamic dispatch, and tedious "design pattern" based approaches that most C++ / Java inspired languages use.
3. What job are you at now? If it involves a computer, you might be able to find a use for programming after all. Anything that you think could in principle be automated, probably can be. Work on it in your own time. Don't worry if the tools available suck. Even VBA would probably be fine as a first language, just as long as it isn't your last language.
It was some years back, possibly a forum post or other less official source. I distinctly remember reading it and feeling annoyed and depressed about its implications for popular-for-being-popular momentum, but I can't vouch for nor recall the source. If they were wrong then they're wrong (and yay.)
This isn't a symmetrical war. The Democrats have the youth (for now), intelligent people, and strong footholds in academia and the media. What they do NOT have are the ability to easily tap a huge contingent of far-left nutters for power or a proficiency with lies and hyperbole.
Don't go invading Russia in the winter. Being more proactive and confrontational than Obama means just that; using better tactics, not altering your ideology or truth standards or rationality. For instance, and this is just a small example, I spoke out repeatedly in favor of the Democrats openly supporting an electoral college rebellion. There was a perfectly reasonable case to make there and even if it failed, the awareness this would have raised might have led to eventual reforms. And I also think it would've been interesting if Obama had simply appointed a SCOTUS of his choosing, forcing the Republicans to sue and the SCOTUS to rule on whether "advice and consent" actually means that Congress can indefinitely delay matters. Roberts might have carried the day; who knows.
You can't beat the Republicans at their own game. Just play hardball, not shittalk. The fact that people like you seem to think that talking about Trump's inauguration crowd lies will do any damage whatsoever to him just goes to show what novices the left are at this.
Slashdot Mirror
To reliably photograph keys with a well hidden camera that you can position and deploy (without drawing attention to yourself) and remotely retrieve images from, yes you need a bit of a budget (though that's probably the cheapest of the ones you mentioned). If you're going to personally stand in the hallway with a zoom lens aimed at the doorknob that may be cheaper, but a tad less stealthy.
You'd need a five figure budget and months of development time at minimum for any of those to reliably work, vs. simply installing a $10 magnetic swipe sensor next to the existing one and 3d printing a $3 piece of plastic to go over the thing and make it look normal-ish. As I said, it's been done before.
Live near an airport and breath the leaded gas fumes, inhale the radioactive particles emitted by coal plants (yes, coal plants emit a significant amount of radionuclides), eat bluefin tuna for two meals a day and get mercury poisoning, etc.
You're just babbling. The world is full of dangerous side effect pollutants. But whatever the substance is, the harm is always a function of dose.
I'd be happy to move to Fukushima and raise a family, if you're financing it. Japan has the longest life expectancy in the world. Getting a single CT scan in your lifetime raises your rise of cancer much more than the background radiation increases from minor nuclear accidents like Fukushima or Three Mile Island.
Except non-citizens from these specific countries are free to decline these searches and return to their point of origin. It's not a right being violated; it's a right being waved for the privilege of entry.
The phrase "the constitution is not a suicide pact" has been used to justify some very odious stuff, but it seems rather appropriate here. It's quite alarming to watch leftists bending arguments that I would normally be the first to champion to imply that America is completely powerless to impose any extra security requirements at all to non-citizens of war-torn, theocratic hellholes.
Entry to America has not been and cannot be an automatic, inalienable right. Thsi should be a complete non-starter for anyone who isn't high on keyboard duster, and you risk further marginalizing people who actually do care about discussing the erosion of the bill of rights when you talk in this manner.
What you really should be afraid of is toddlers getting hold of their fathers gun.
After some more research, it appears as though this number was higher than I expected (it was the 'toddler' part in particular I was expecting to keep that number quite low, for both demographic and operational reasons), but of course it is still lower than terrorism unless you expose your own absurd disingenuity by purposefully excluding 9/11.
You probably want to use Qubes OS which provides an environment where all of this is handled for you.
I briefly covered this in a post from last year,, which I linked to in the post you just replied to. I'm using Qubes right now.
OP was talking about Windows, though, and if it's true that he's not a regular Linux user then the Virtualbox solution is probably a better place to start.
Again, unless you have a case study or mathematical estimates to indicate otherwise, it's a reasonable assumption that this is going to be a fairly localized event with limited impact, it's not going to get into the air and get blown to a nearby town, it's not going to make it unsafe to swim or boat, it's not going to get in the drinking water supply (assuming there's no desalinization plant nearby), and it's not going to poison miles of coastline. It might bioaccumulate and affect the local seafood industry, very possibly primarily affecting the fish that are already unhealthy to eat due to mercury bioaccumulation. That's about it.
Use Virtualbox VMs, restoring the previous snapshot after every shutdown. (There might be a way to do this automatically.) When it comes to computer security/privacy, the easiest to understand and easiest to implement options are not infrequently the most powerful ones as well.
Or you can go a step further.
If Clinton had been a "proven criminal" she'd have been convicted of something.
I only skimmed the rest of your post, but this is laughably naive premise to build on. James Clapper was a proven criminal (perjury while under oath before Congress, as revealed by Snowden) and not only was he not arrested, he wasn't even asked to resign.
The sad fact of the matter is white collar crime routinely is not pressed even in the presence of compelling evidence. I've no doubt in my mind whatsoever that both Clinton and Trump have committed multiple felonies in their lifetimes and I don't think Hillary's email server is or was likely to have caused much actual harm in the world, but when you begin your defense by asserting innocence due to a lack of arrest and follow it by saying that because the conservatives have thrown a lot of bullshit at Hillary, that therefore implies that she's innocent... no, just no.
If you don't understand how ridiculous this argument, consider how very similar logic could be used to defend Trump as well. For example, CNN (through Anderson Cooper), The Guardian, The New York Times and countless other news organizations outright lied about the contents of the Pussygate tape. For example, here is Cooper:
âoeYou described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals,â said CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. âoeThat is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?â
But of course "without consent" is a complete fabrication. He said "they let you do it", just a minute earlier he was discussing how he tried to seduce a woman "and failed. I admit it.", and he also said a not-entirely-clear line about magnetism that was clearly intended to mean "women are just attracted to me."
THEREFORE, TRUMP DID NOT EVER COMMIT THE CRIME OF SEXUAL ASSAULT! Well, no, sorry it doesn't work like that. Just because the mainstream media tried to lie about the tape doesn't mean that his multiple accusers are all lying.
It's just generates a lot of headlines when it happens.
Which is the number one reason why it's a big issue. People who don't care about or understand meta-politics (which right now appears to include most of the left, unfortunately) are doomed to see disasters like Trump unfold with regularity.
What you really should be afraid of is toddlers getting hold of their fathers gun.
No, without looking it up I'm going to estimate that this probably kills 5 orders of magnitude fewer people per year. (Perhaps only 2 or 3 orders of magnitude fewer if you're going to 'racistly' limit your perspective to America only.)
And ISIS typically don't commit terrorist acts in countries that doesn't have soldiers in Iraq/Syria.
What, ISIS? You mean Obama's "JV team"? What on Earth makes you think *you* can predict their future growth rate when the most powerful man in the world couldn't?
This is the other major problem with 'terrorism' (other than the meta-political); jihadism has worldwide ramifications and latent potential that car crashes, suicide rates, gun accidents, homicide rates, etc. do not have. No one in the world is nefariously working to quadruple toddler gun accidents overnight. Multinational forces aren't attempting to annihilate/abolish multiple countries because of toddler gun accidents. (Not just Israel, but East Timor as well. Probably several others in Africa and SE Asia, too.)
With a semen sample, you can even get a free upgrade to first class.
Technology is an integral part of the problem that exists independent of business and politics. You're just blathering irrelevancies. I've no great love whatsover for corporations or the 1%, but I don't try to hijack every conversation into being about them. The tech and pollution questions would exist even in a governmental utopia.
Not all compounds bioaccumulate. Many chemicals are not absorbed by the digestive tracts of vertebrates and these will (assuming they aren't big enough or heavy enough to stay on-site) disperse in the ocean with no concentrating effects.
The ones that do dissolve in seawater *and* bioaccumulate can be a problem for the people who eat the fish, but unless this happens in the middle of a critically important/valuable sea food producting area, this isn't a catastrophic or even a particularly unusual problem as several people on here seem to be implying.
If you're just going Luddite on me, life was of course no walk in the part before we had access to modern technology including electricity. I might hate Monsanto too, but the people who argue for locally grown, organically fertilized everything are being extremely stupid.
If you're not being a Luddite, you're just aimlessly blathering. And/or you haven't wrapped your mind around some rather elementary misanthropic truths.
And you, you, you seemed inclined blame the environmentalists for it.
For focusing on the wrong things and demonizing technology that is safer and won't contribute to global warming, yes.
They are a rather large part of the problem, although there's an extremely depressing but very possibly sound argument that the nuclear taboo is worth preserving intact because of nuclear weapons.
They can't even construct the plants efficiently, let alone be trusted to operate them.
They can't even be trusted to mine coal, let alone burn it.
You *were* aware that there are dozens of coal mine fires burning around the world right now, right? That they spew forth toxic gasses and cause the ground to collapse and it ends up rendering many square miles of land uninhabitable? That thousands of people have been forced to evacuate? That it's not too unusual for the fires (like Centralia's) to have lifespans on the order of hundreds of years?
How many coals miners have died from cave-ins? How many workers have died from coal dust or petroleum explosions? How many civilians have died from petroleum and coal? It's monstrous. Nuclear has killed a very, very small number of people over the past 50 years outside of some moronic shit the USSR did. Go ahead and find the worst estimates for increased cancer rates and toss that into the fatality figure; it's still a ridiculously small number compared to hydrocarbons. Because nuclear safety is held to a completely different standard.
If you really want to know what can happen, then look to the Dai-Ichi reactor complex in Fukushima.
Non sequitur much? This is about a reactor at the bottom of the sea which stands a good chance of being flooded due damage to the vessel before anything melts down. Fukushima was about a reactor overheating and sending crap into the air. It also wasn't nearly as dangerous as the hysteria would have you believe, but that's another story.
As I said elsewhere, people will happily poison themselves and stunt their childrens' IQs by a few points by eating tuna that's been contaminated (*worldwide*) by mercury from coal burning and gold mining and then afterwards go for a nice relaxing lie-down on the beach to give themselves cancer-inducing radiation burns, but god forbid there's a localized incidence of slightly increased radionuclide-based radioactivity somewhere in the world.
Centralia also needs to be brought up whenever people like to imply that the damage from nuclear is uniquely long-lived compared to the alternatives. And the situation there isn't unique.
"...do not need to be controlled remotely"...
Seriously? Then why all the brouhaha over nuclear plants?
Because there's a massive amount of misunderstanding and hysteria. There is one potential issue in bioaccumulation in sealife harming the fishing industry, but this would be fairly localized.
few dozen RC dozers could clean up Fukushima in a week or two. Why on earth has this never been proposed?
Well, there's the fishing and there's radioisotope terrorism, but those are largely driven by emotions, too. You make a fatal error when you assume that the public as a whole, or policymakers, are driven by cool, rational, relative risk and cost-based thinking.
Nuclear dangers have always been grossly overstated. We tolerate being poisoned by mecurcy in tuna (due mainly to coal power plants and gold miners) with very little controversy, despite the fact that heavy metal poisoning, even in smaller doses, is proven to permanently lower IQs. But people go insane the moment it's revealed that anything is slightly more radioactive than normal, for any reason.
You have to admit... what army/navy/etc. would sink a nuclear ship in their own waters during war? You'd have to think twice about that - it could be a good deterrent to being attacked. If sunk, it could be a major issue in your region for generations to come.
It's astonishing that anyone (let alone 6 digit slashdotters) still thinks of radioactive contamination like this.
It might be an issue for the fishing industry due to bioaccumulation, but there would be no other significantly worrisome effects. Water absorbs radiation very effectively and unlike fallout on land, currents would eventually disperse any radionuclides that didn't immediately settle on the sea floor.
We're constantly surrounded by radiation. The entire Earth is, in fact, a nuclear reactor orbiting another nuclear reactor that can give you a radiation burn and possibly even cancer if you expose your uncovered skin to it for just an hour or two...
Water absorbs radiation pretty effectively, and the oceans are in fact rather big[citation needed] and contain currents that will dilute and disperse the radionuclides. That's not to say there will definitely be zero impact, but it's not going to be catastrophic even if it sinks over an economically important part of the continental shelf. The biggest issue will probably be bioaccumulation in the sea life. So yes, fishing industries a bit damaged for a while. Beyond that, there's no huge problem other than those stemming from nuclear/radiation hysteria.
Cars don't need to be remotely controlled, ever (nor will cops start lobbying for this ability until after they've already become standard.) Local, physical-access exploits are trickier and much less dangerous than someone simply putting a car bomb underneath.
I'm still dreading the day that we see the first major drone terrorist attack... but affordable, practical flying cars for the masses (not just licensed pilots using airports) are out of the goddamn question for obvious goddamn reasons even if all of the other technical and safety and cost issues can be sorted out.
Cheap, electric-only, driverless cars with next generation batteries and sporting drive trains that might be able to manage a million miles without an expensive breakdown is already a huge revolution to ponder and (assuming someone finally mass produces one of these magical nanotech batteries we keep hearing about) is an entirely realistic one.
Flying cars is just fantasizing about retro-futuristic aesthetics instead of real, practical revolutionary stuff, stuff that could dramatically lower the costs and dangers and inconveniences of driving cars.
2. Eric S. Raymond has a point:
Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never actually use Lisp itself a lot.
Lisp is different from most programming languages in that it basically has only one syntactical structure. There's a not-unreasonable argument that this makes things more cumbersome or opaque than necessary for professionals, but as a beginner it's very easy to at least very grasp what pieces are doing and in what order. Get a good IDE to help with the parentheses and show what the function arguments are, and I think it may be a good way to learn how to write structured code without getting bogged down in syntax. Don't spend too much time on Common Lisp's or Clojures' object oriented stuff, though... they are considerably more powerful and general-purpose than almost every other object oriented programming languages and will not properly prepare you for the nonsensical function-method divide, limited dynamic dispatch, and tedious "design pattern" based approaches that most C++ / Java inspired languages use.
3. What job are you at now? If it involves a computer, you might be able to find a use for programming after all. Anything that you think could in principle be automated, probably can be. Work on it in your own time. Don't worry if the tools available suck. Even VBA would probably be fine as a first language, just as long as it isn't your last language.
It was some years back, possibly a forum post or other less official source. I distinctly remember reading it and feeling annoyed and depressed about its implications for popular-for-being-popular momentum, but I can't vouch for nor recall the source. If they were wrong then they're wrong (and yay.)
This isn't a symmetrical war. The Democrats have the youth (for now), intelligent people, and strong footholds in academia and the media. What they do NOT have are the ability to easily tap a huge contingent of far-left nutters for power or a proficiency with lies and hyperbole.
Don't go invading Russia in the winter. Being more proactive and confrontational than Obama means just that; using better tactics, not altering your ideology or truth standards or rationality. For instance, and this is just a small example, I spoke out repeatedly in favor of the Democrats openly supporting an electoral college rebellion. There was a perfectly reasonable case to make there and even if it failed, the awareness this would have raised might have led to eventual reforms. And I also think it would've been interesting if Obama had simply appointed a SCOTUS of his choosing, forcing the Republicans to sue and the SCOTUS to rule on whether "advice and consent" actually means that Congress can indefinitely delay matters. Roberts might have carried the day; who knows.
You can't beat the Republicans at their own game. Just play hardball, not shittalk. The fact that people like you seem to think that talking about Trump's inauguration crowd lies will do any damage whatsoever to him just goes to show what novices the left are at this.