would be just as good as long as it is in competent hands
Exactly the problem. Vast majority of users, including most IT professionals, are not security competent. Expecting people to know the ins-and-outs of computer security before they can be secure is a non-starter.
Depends what your threat model is. If you're worried about leaking data to corporate entities, then Apple / Google / MS based devices are always going to be a potential problem. If you're worried about organised crime or hackers then you're probably better off on a Chromebook as it's pretty locked down from those threats, and a Linux distro is quite easy to make insecure if you install the wrong service and/or don't keep it updated.
But please don't give me "but Apple are secure because they tells me so!" - we don't really know what they do now or in the future because all their stuff is opaque, and Apple are an advertising organisation too.
There's a massive incentive to *find something* if you're paying to have a check done... if you get nothing reported then the value of the test seems to be nothing. If you are told to be "at risk" for some condition then you can go to your friends and tell them that you had no idea and that it was so worth it and that now you can take steps... and that perhaps they should get tested too. The best part is that if you're just reported to be "at risk", rather than an actual diagnosis, there's almost no need for accuracy. If you never develop the condition it will be far in the future, and/or you got 'lucky'.
How fucked are we that we're so afraid of levying any sort of penalty on the company and scaring them away, that emergency services need to field hundreds of preventable calls? Jesus, there has to be a limit at some point.
Anyway, the cost of relocation has got to outweigh the cost to fix the problem, so apply the fine already.
I'm not at all sure how this is a software problem, because the intent of the rules is clearly to keep the racers moving slowly and in order, and if you can shortcut your way through the pit lane to get ahead (intentionally or not), the solution surely isn't to speed up the cars that are slowed down for safety purposes, but to speed down the pit lane, or to make sure that any "accidental" passes are corrected before the race restarts.
It looks like someone is using software to do something stupid rather than software being stupid; that seems to fit with the theme of this century so far.
It's not so much the pits are a shortcut, it's that they are less of a long-cut in circumstances where the VSC is applied, so in this particular case you have an advantage if your competitor has stopped but you haven't when the VSC happens. The software problem was that the necessary gap wasn't calculated properly so given Hamilton probably could have closed the gap if he needed to, it wasn't shown that he needed to.
The problem is that in today's culture, it seems like 'getting wasted' is the objective of drug use. Drink some beer, take some speed and maybe some shrooms, man. Get bent.
Chemicals are a tool, to be used with care. 'Tripping' shouldn't be a 'gee, wow!' roller coaster ride.
Why? Who are you to determine the 'correct' use? This is no different to prohibition really, you have decided on your moral stance and want to impose it on others.
Hackathons Are Dystopian Events That Dupe People Into Working For Free, Say Sociologists. That's the conclusion that two socialists came to after observing seven hackathons over the period of one year, reports Wired.
It genuinely frightens me that we're so quick to support dictatorships....
Yes #metoo. You guys voted in Trump. And you seem to have given your president the power to kick out everyone in his government that disagrees with him or his views, and replace them with others more to his liking.
In most western countries, if the prime minister/president/supreme overlord would kick out ministers and other people in the government because he does not like their opinions, or they disagree with him, or whatever, and nominate his pals instead, iterate until happy, well people might say that looks a lot like dictatorship.
I'm no big fan of the American government system, but this isn't equivalent at all. Most western countries don't have the strict branches separation that the US has, so the POTUS shaping his team (badly) as he sees fit is not affecting the other branches, which if they had a backbone, could stand up to it. Other countries have internal teams that are shaped by the guy in charge too, the US executive is just very visible.
People at highest risk from cardiovascular disease are also at risk to exposure to lead. Lead based paint is still prevalent in some inner cities in older housing. Poor people live in this housing and die earlier than middle/upper income people. Poor people have a higher rate of cardiovascular disease. These studies are always so silly.
Ah yes I've seen your posts before. You come up with some reasons off the top of your head that would explain away the study's findings, and just assume that the practitioners didn't take any of that into account. It's arrogance in the highest degree.
I always assumed this was the case? And it's not really unreasonable is it? Like, some people are going to take the piss, and it's not ridiculous that the company would keep track of customers that are causing them costs.
I'm the last person to be an apologist for big business, but this seems fairly reasonable to me...
... it was "white flight" when middle-class people abandoned crime-infested, poor, dirty urban areas, and it was deemed bad. Now that people are moving back into these areas and the crime and dirt and poverty are leaving, it's "gentrification" and it's deemed bad.
Yes, large numbers of people moving en mass is bad for those that are in-place, whether in or out. Really do you need this explaining?
The fact that the whole thing is described by what white people are doing only goes to *highlight* that nobody gives a fuck unless it's affecting white people.
Imagine if you could buy an artificial vagina or human head that integrates with your gaming console so that you could rape it. Perhaps this will happen in a few years. This sort of thing is fundamentally bad.
I'm not sure I even agree with this - there is a reasonable argument that darker side of the human psyche exists and will exist nomatter what you do, and that it is safer to exercise this harmlessly than suppress it. Violence worldwide has been on the decline for decades. It could be argued part of the reason why is mass media violence providing catharsis...
"We are exploring utilizing location-based marketing as a way to help enhance the overall experience..."
"We are exploring exciting new ways to rape the wallets of people stupid enough to give a corporate predator unfettered access to their personal lives.
I know it's popular on here to laud intellectual superiority, but for the record:
1. it's an app that locates cinemas. It's not unreasonable for it to want to know your location to do that in a way that is more useful. 2. Neither iOS nor Android let you give session-length permissions for location. Once you give it once, they app has it forever 3. This app is abusing that permission, but there is no way to know what it (or any app) is doing. You have to trust it
It is *us* (IT / developers) as a community who are failing here, not the "stupid normals". We should be devising ways of better protecting people - not criticising them for using widespread technology in a commonly expected way. It is not for every single human to deeply understand the technology, in the same way that we don't deeply understand the various mechanisms and interactions of medical treatments. We are supposed to be making this work, and providing a safe abstract interface, and we are not.
go into a food court or starbucks and you will see the problem. people binging on sugar daily and then wondering why they get sick. some cultures eat nothing but carbs and think it's good to be overweight
Nothing like Slashdot to find someone with no medical training telling the 'simple' answer to something that has been extensively studied by actual professionals...
That doesn't necessarily follow. A Prime Minister can decide to retire at any point with their legacy intact., the problem is that the position attracts people who are bad at judging when it's time for someone else. The benefit of term limits is that they're forced to step down for a while. The Chinese limit of consecutive terms is probably a good one: if you take a few years off and still look like the best bet then you can come back, but you can also leave gracefully.
Is the ultimate problem with being in charge - you always have to give way to someone less 'qualified' than you are. Nomatter how virtuous you are, that's got to be hard to choose to do.
We know why the first is important, But I don't know what the point is to the second. You must have a way of removing a leader from office, but a limit on their term doesn't make any real sense. If you have the best leader ever, you need to kick them out despite overwhelming public support just because some arbitrary date has passed? Conversely, many countries with term limits fail to have any way to remove a horrible leader before a set amount of time has passed (a term minimum?) which is, in my opinion, an even worse problem.
No, I think #2 should be replaced with: An effective mechanism to remove leaders.
Interestingly I think, the UK has no limit on Prime Ministers, so every single one of them ends in failure, either by being voted out of power and resigning from leading their party, or being kicked out by their own party, or leaving of their own accord (but usually this is after some pressure). So all past PMs in the UK are tainted. With term limits you get to have 'successful' past leaders, who leave without actually losing face. There is a disadvantage though, the last term is a free-for-all where they don't have to listen...
Honest question... When you take an Uber, don't you think about who has pissed/barfed/bled on the seat you're sitting on and wonder how deeply it has been cleaned? I would.
Do you also think that about the bus / taxi / public toilet / train / door handles / tables / keyboards / anything you touch in public ever?
thats a month without paying this bill, which is more than enough time for collectors to begin calling
No it's not. They can have sent you a second statement within that time, but they can't have the collectors begin calling. I believe three months delinquent is the minimum (which leads to typically 4 months), but it sure as hell is more than a month.
That's the point that you're going to debate? Whether they can take your stuff after 1 month or 3? Kindof missing the point..
Slashdot Mirror
would be just as good as long as it is in competent hands
Exactly the problem. Vast majority of users, including most IT professionals, are not security competent. Expecting people to know the ins-and-outs of computer security before they can be secure is a non-starter.
Free people use their private BBS,
..on their own..
Depends what your threat model is. If you're worried about leaking data to corporate entities, then Apple / Google / MS based devices are always going to be a potential problem. If you're worried about organised crime or hackers then you're probably better off on a Chromebook as it's pretty locked down from those threats, and a Linux distro is quite easy to make insecure if you install the wrong service and/or don't keep it updated.
But please don't give me "but Apple are secure because they tells me so!" - we don't really know what they do now or in the future because all their stuff is opaque, and Apple are an advertising organisation too.
Yes, you do lease it, but that doesn't mean that that the lease can be revoked halfway through its term.
Rules is rules.
They voted to leave, they've got nothing coming.
Yes, and also law is law. Domains are usually regarded as property so we're talking about seizing someone's property. Which sounds mighty suspect.
There's a massive incentive to *find something* if you're paying to have a check done... if you get nothing reported then the value of the test seems to be nothing. If you are told to be "at risk" for some condition then you can go to your friends and tell them that you had no idea and that it was so worth it and that now you can take steps... and that perhaps they should get tested too. The best part is that if you're just reported to be "at risk", rather than an actual diagnosis, there's almost no need for accuracy. If you never develop the condition it will be far in the future, and/or you got 'lucky'.
How fucked are we that we're so afraid of levying any sort of penalty on the company and scaring them away, that emergency services need to field hundreds of preventable calls? Jesus, there has to be a limit at some point.
Anyway, the cost of relocation has got to outweigh the cost to fix the problem, so apply the fine already.
Apple needs to set up a stingray at the factory, filter out 911 calls from unknown devices, allow employee phones to dial through to 911 if needed.
I cannot imagine that's legal...
There is, but seemingly no rules were broken.
I'm not at all sure how this is a software problem, because the intent of the rules is clearly to keep the racers moving slowly and in order, and if you can shortcut your way through the pit lane to get ahead (intentionally or not), the solution surely isn't to speed up the cars that are slowed down for safety purposes, but to speed down the pit lane, or to make sure that any "accidental" passes are corrected before the race restarts.
It looks like someone is using software to do something stupid rather than software being stupid; that seems to fit with the theme of this century so far.
It's not so much the pits are a shortcut, it's that they are less of a long-cut in circumstances where the VSC is applied, so in this particular case you have an advantage if your competitor has stopped but you haven't when the VSC happens. The software problem was that the necessary gap wasn't calculated properly so given Hamilton probably could have closed the gap if he needed to, it wasn't shown that he needed to.
The problem is that in today's culture, it seems like 'getting wasted' is the objective of drug use. Drink some beer, take some speed and maybe some shrooms, man. Get bent.
Chemicals are a tool, to be used with care. 'Tripping' shouldn't be a 'gee, wow!' roller coaster ride.
Why? Who are you to determine the 'correct' use? This is no different to prohibition really, you have decided on your moral stance and want to impose it on others.
Read the article summary carefully:
The mask slips.
Over-analysing a typo is 'insightful' now?
It genuinely frightens me that we're so quick to support dictatorships....
Yes #metoo. You guys voted in Trump. And you seem to have given your president the power to kick out everyone in his government that disagrees with him or his views, and replace them with others more to his liking.
In most western countries, if the prime minister/president/supreme overlord would kick out ministers and other people in the government because he does not like their opinions, or they disagree with him, or whatever, and nominate his pals instead, iterate until happy, well people might say that looks a lot like dictatorship.
I'm no big fan of the American government system, but this isn't equivalent at all. Most western countries don't have the strict branches separation that the US has, so the POTUS shaping his team (badly) as he sees fit is not affecting the other branches, which if they had a backbone, could stand up to it. Other countries have internal teams that are shaped by the guy in charge too, the US executive is just very visible.
He doesn't read them, he just assumes that everyone else is stupid.
People at highest risk from cardiovascular disease are also at risk to exposure to lead. Lead based paint is still prevalent in some inner cities in older housing. Poor people live in this housing and die earlier than middle/upper income people. Poor people have a higher rate of cardiovascular disease. These studies are always so silly.
Ah yes I've seen your posts before. You come up with some reasons off the top of your head that would explain away the study's findings, and just assume that the practitioners didn't take any of that into account. It's arrogance in the highest degree.
Per say? For each speak? Does that make any fucking sense at all?
Don't mindlessly repeat phrases you've heard better-educated people use. It makes you look like a right thick cunt."
George Orwell (Collected Essays, Vol 3).
What a useful and valuable contribution to the technical discussion.
I always assumed this was the case? And it's not really unreasonable is it? Like, some people are going to take the piss, and it's not ridiculous that the company would keep track of customers that are causing them costs.
I'm the last person to be an apologist for big business, but this seems fairly reasonable to me...
... it was "white flight" when middle-class people abandoned crime-infested, poor, dirty urban areas, and it was deemed bad. Now that people are moving back into these areas and the crime and dirt and poverty are leaving, it's "gentrification" and it's deemed bad.
Yes, large numbers of people moving en mass is bad for those that are in-place, whether in or out. Really do you need this explaining?
The fact that the whole thing is described by what white people are doing only goes to *highlight* that nobody gives a fuck unless it's affecting white people.
Imagine if you could buy an artificial vagina or human head that integrates with your gaming console so that you could rape it. Perhaps this will happen in a few years. This sort of thing is fundamentally bad.
I'm not sure I even agree with this - there is a reasonable argument that darker side of the human psyche exists and will exist nomatter what you do, and that it is safer to exercise this harmlessly than suppress it. Violence worldwide has been on the decline for decades. It could be argued part of the reason why is mass media violence providing catharsis...
"We are exploring utilizing location-based marketing as a way to help enhance the overall experience..."
"We are exploring exciting new ways to rape the wallets of people stupid enough to give a corporate predator unfettered access to their personal lives.
I know it's popular on here to laud intellectual superiority, but for the record:
1. it's an app that locates cinemas. It's not unreasonable for it to want to know your location to do that in a way that is more useful.
2. Neither iOS nor Android let you give session-length permissions for location. Once you give it once, they app has it forever
3. This app is abusing that permission, but there is no way to know what it (or any app) is doing. You have to trust it
It is *us* (IT / developers) as a community who are failing here, not the "stupid normals". We should be devising ways of better protecting people - not criticising them for using widespread technology in a commonly expected way. It is not for every single human to deeply understand the technology, in the same way that we don't deeply understand the various mechanisms and interactions of medical treatments. We are supposed to be making this work, and providing a safe abstract interface, and we are not.
go into a food court or starbucks and you will see the problem. people binging on sugar daily and then wondering why they get sick. some cultures eat nothing but carbs and think it's good to be overweight
Nothing like Slashdot to find someone with no medical training telling the 'simple' answer to something that has been extensively studied by actual professionals...
That doesn't necessarily follow. A Prime Minister can decide to retire at any point with their legacy intact., the problem is that the position attracts people who are bad at judging when it's time for someone else. The benefit of term limits is that they're forced to step down for a while. The Chinese limit of consecutive terms is probably a good one: if you take a few years off and still look like the best bet then you can come back, but you can also leave gracefully.
Is the ultimate problem with being in charge - you always have to give way to someone less 'qualified' than you are. Nomatter how virtuous you are, that's got to be hard to choose to do.
you might end up in a debtors prison via contempt or court charges. The judge orders you to pay, you can't pay, they lock you up for contempt.
You have effective *debtors prison*? Are you fucking kidding me? The US never ceases to amaze.
We know why the first is important, But I don't know what the point is to the second. You must have a way of removing a leader from office, but a limit on their term doesn't make any real sense. If you have the best leader ever, you need to kick them out despite overwhelming public support just because some arbitrary date has passed? Conversely, many countries with term limits fail to have any way to remove a horrible leader before a set amount of time has passed (a term minimum?) which is, in my opinion, an even worse problem.
No, I think #2 should be replaced with: An effective mechanism to remove leaders.
Interestingly I think, the UK has no limit on Prime Ministers, so every single one of them ends in failure, either by being voted out of power and resigning from leading their party, or being kicked out by their own party, or leaving of their own accord (but usually this is after some pressure). So all past PMs in the UK are tainted. With term limits you get to have 'successful' past leaders, who leave without actually losing face. There is a disadvantage though, the last term is a free-for-all where they don't have to listen...
Honest question... When you take an Uber, don't you think about who has pissed/barfed/bled on the seat you're sitting on and wonder how deeply it has been cleaned? I would.
Do you also think that about the bus / taxi / public toilet / train / door handles / tables / keyboards / anything you touch in public ever?
Relax, you have an immune system for this.
thats a month without paying this bill, which is more than enough time for collectors to begin calling
No it's not. They can have sent you a second statement within that time, but they can't have the collectors begin calling. I believe three months delinquent is the minimum (which leads to typically 4 months), but it sure as hell is more than a month.
That's the point that you're going to debate? Whether they can take your stuff after 1 month or 3? Kindof missing the point..