Right around the time you become immune to cancer and hit-n-run car accidents, probably.
Obviously you think that insurance is something you only get if you already have a problem, not as "insurance" against going broke if something unforeseen happens. Perhaps when you're a grown-up you'll realize that not everything in your life is planned. Or maybe nothing will ever go wrong for you ever, because you're "young and healthy."
Alternately, since they can no longer deny coverage based on a preexisitng condition, why doesn't he just only buy the insurance the day before he goes into the doctor because he's feeling lousy, or the day after the preexisting cancer is diagnosed?
In reality, the only reasonable solution is actually a single payer system, potentially with a private insurance option on top of that, if you want to pay to jump the wait list when you have something that's not life threatening (or, like in the UK, they won't fix do a knee replacement because your job description is programming, and you don't need your knee to function optimally if your job involves sitting on your ass).
Of course, that would mean this TARP III bailout for the insurance companies would mean they fail because we've disintermediated healthcare, and thrown out the profit-taking middlemen whose only purpose in life is to deny claims because something got coded wrong by a clerk.
Linus is an expert at kernels. I wouldn't pay much notice over his opinions on UI toolkits. He'd probably be against anything C++.
It doesn't matter if *you* personnaly pay attention, it matters whether he's respected enough to play 800 pound gorilla. Also, it doesn't really matter who "wins" as the selected GUI, what matters is that *one* does.
If Linus would just endorse a toolkit, then there would be One True Toolkit; this would be the most likely thing to drive an actual "Linux desktop revolution". I am not holding my breath.
And that's why he won't. The whole point is to avoid homogeneity, because homogeneity strangles progress and provides a single target for the spread of malware.
I was more concerned with a single target for the spread of commercial applications. Malware is only really a big issue once you make yourself a target by having a large user base. Being a target of malware would be a *good* thing for Linux, since it would indicate a higher market share.
AFAIKT Aura is a more than just a UI Toolkit, it's a complete Window Manager. A replacement for Gnome (wow! I hope that takes off!) Apparently it's been running on the Chromebooks. Here is Linus' take on the topic.
If Linus would just endorse a toolkit, then there would be One True Toolkit; this would be the most likely thing to drive an actual "Linux desktop revolution". I am not holding my breath.
Strange, I use and code plenty of games using shaders like that, and I run KDE4 in Linux, in both GL composite and regular X11 mode, and have never experienced any crash like you describe. Is it because I use Nvidia drivers or something, or maybe because I happened to have had the luck to only play games that do it right, and had the luck to never code any shaders triggering that? Seems rather unlikely, but I am genuinely curious here.
The closed source drivers have some, but not all, workarounds for the issue. They're basically ports of the Windows drivers, and have the reserve channel because of this. You may in fact be lucky, but I'd have to have a huge amount of information in order to tell you for sure (e.g. are you running a compositing window manager, what card are you using (tells me total channels), potentially instrument the GL pipeline connections to see how many of the available ones are in use, etc.. The crashes normally happen when all the channels get used up and you need to do something driven by an event - and can't because of it.
If you want everything encrypted: Sorry, you can't have that.
Sure you can. All Android versions from Gingerbread (IIRC) forward support full device encryption, using dm-crypt. Of course, it's only as strong as your password, so you have to trade off convenience against security.
Bootloader and initial image. Most CPUs these days are incapable of running encrypted code directly. Also intermediate in memory images, as well as accessible swap for program images, and mappings, unless you knapsack encrypt all the files and programs, and put decryption code in the paging path (Mac OS X/iOS in fact does this, using FairPlay, if you use encrypted images), but the key is global and in a per device UUID encrypted knapsack, so it can be unpacked if you know how it works.
The idea that you can make something secure from something resident on your system without resorting to something like a TPM or the encrypting/decrypting MMU in the XBox 360 is laughable, and it's also been demonstrated to be breakable, at least for the existing implementations on Microsoft and Apple platforms.
Going the other way like Microsoft does is more interesting.
One of the biggest issues with OpenGL is that you can get shaders that won't run in bounded time. You can see this with a number of games in Flash, or natively in OpenGL, when run on a Mac. If the shader doesn't exit, it eats a channel, and there are a limited number of channels, and once they are gone, the renderer, which is also used for the desktop, basically crashes. There are nice system log messages from the video driver about it, but besically everything ends up restarted, which is pretty useless.
FWIW: this accounts for the majority of system instabilities in the card specific portions of both Mac OS X and Linux render pipelines.
DirectX doesn't allow things to run in unbounded time in its OpenGL to DirectX translator; instead, it loop unrolls shaders, and if it can't do that such that they run linearly, and therefore in bounded time, it omits them from the render. So you might not get distance blurring, haze effects, fog effects, rain effect, and so on, but at least the thing doesn't crash, and if the person porting the code to the Windows platform cares about these things, they fix the code so that it'll run using DirectX. Usually, this reduced the perceived "quality" of the final render, but you get at least a crude version of your effect back.
The other thing DirectX does is, in the video driver, keep a reserve channel for sending commands to the video hardware; the common reason for this is in-band signaling to comply with the DirectX 9 requirement that the video hardware be capable of being reset, without rebooting the system, such that a video card hang doesn't necessitate a reboot.
While a DirectX to OpenGL translation layer is a nifty idea (I lobbied very hard for a FreeBSD emulator for Linux, rather than a Linux emulator for FreeBSD so that developers would target FreeBSD rather than Linux as their development platform), I don't think that as long as the OpenGL shader looping issues don't also get addressed at the translation layer that translating from DirectX to OpenGL will be in anyway superior to translating from OpenGL to DirectX.
So basically, it's nice they released this, but the code is of little practical use in the real world, since there are features that will get lost in translation.
The funny part of stolen phones in Europe is that Europeans predominantly use prepaid SIM cards, so what they are really stealing is airtime for when they plug the stolen prepaid SIM in their own phone, and your phone gets sold or just plain thrown in the trash nearby, since most people trash SIMs instead of reloading them, and as long as they are not post-paid SIMs, the fact that the SIM number moves to another IMEI is not something the phone company cares about recording/tracking.
I thought IMEI could not be changed. Is it possible here because on a smartphone everything is software defined?
You can generally do this, if you are super technically inclined, and have the right tools for the phone in question. In almost every case, you have to defeat the security on the baseband firmware, because it's embedded as part of the firmware in what's called a "seczone" (contains security data for the phone, which is cryptographically signed, including the carrier lock and IMEI).
Most of the work required to rewrite the IMEI is not actually done by people attempting to be able to rewrite the IMEI; instead, the purpose is to be able to rewrite the carrier lock which happens to be in the same area, so if you have the source code for the tools, or know how to use IDA Pro and read and modify assembly language, you can convert the tool.
This is basically true of almost every Samsung baseband chip firmware, since it has a buffer overflow attack that works against the cryptographic signature check, and then - game over. This is how the Sony, Samsung, and original iPhones carrier lock was busted. For other phones, you can buffer overflow the firmware by using a specially designed chip that pretends it's a SIM chip, and buffer overflows the baseband from the other side of things, rather than from application space. It's probably worth my while to not go into too much detail here.
A non-stupid company that wanted to disincentivize that level of hacking on the baseband - said hacking also being an effective means of modifying the radio tables for the SDR (Software Defined Radio) - would put the carrier lock up in application space, rather than putting it in the baseband firmware in the first place. Most companies, Apple included, have been pretty stupid about their carrier lock implementations, though.
So yeah, the tools exist, mostly because of carrier lock, and the implementation details for the carrier lock being in a stupid location that makes the IMEI rewrite an easy opportunistic target.
The fault lies with software developers who blindly rushed features out the door without giving proper thought to the security implications. Microsoft had a really bad habit of this until they made security a significant corporate priority - it's time for Apple to catch up now, as proven by the recent "goto fail" fiasco.
I think it's safe to share blame with the designers of that programming language for this specific example.
I've left plenty of bugs in code because management told me that it had to ship Tuesday.
Hint: decisions like "the code is ready to ship" are not made by engineers, they are made by managers, just like when they launched the Challenger with frozen O rings, over engineering objections.
As to the specific example, it was likely put there on purpose for code signing testing prior to signing keys being available for the engineers writing the code signing code.
Cooling will certainly not be a problem and the geological activity is minimal (if at all present), so earthquakes and tsunamis are out of the question.
Nuclear power is frightening, since the U.S. used it to bomb Japan in 1945, and since nobody seems to know what a becquerel is, or they'd quit using it instead of roentgens. Of course becquerels are more fun, because it makes the absolute number 3.7^10 larger than if it were expressed in curies (also not a unit of radiation exposure).
Managers know that you get diminishing returns on labor hours. But it's still economical to squeeze every last drop, if the employee is exempt from overtime.
Even if they're not. The amount you give an employee as wages/salary is a fraction of what it costs the business to employ them at all.
In truth, there would probably be a lot more people employed if it weren't for employers having to foot the bill for a lot of benefits, and the employees either paid for their own benefits, or the benefits came from the government and were funded by income taxes rather than employment taxes on the employer.
Ironically, most benefits offered to employees are taxed as income these days, even though the original intent of benefits was to make your business a more desirable place to work than your competitors business. Now that these benefits have grown into unfunded government mandates, it's a lot cheaper to hire one person for 6 hours than it is to hire 2 for 30 hours each. Once you get down to 18 hours or less, so that the employment can't be counted as full time, and the mandates are no longer in effect, the employer can afford to hire more people again (and, in fact, it's better for the employer, since they get more work hours per $ when they don't have to pay for the unfunded mandates.
So the U.S. has basically built a tax system that rewards employers for overworking salaried employees and underworking hourly employees.
Honestly, though, it's hard to blame normal users for this. Should a user have to be a computer expert in order to actually use a computer?
Actually, it's very east to blame them. They are using a technology they don't understand in a way which is unsafe.
They shouldn't have to be experts, but on the other hand, if they're not, then they should avoid using unsafe versions of the technology until they either understand them, or safe alternatives are available. The problem here is the technology in question is so damn useful, and has therefore become an ubiquitous part of daily life, without ever getting safety features added to it so that ordinary morons can use it safely.
If we look to the famous slashdot analogy, the first factory car was produced in Czechoslovakia in 1897. But what about vehicle safety?
Stop signs : 1914 Stop lights : 1919 Safety glass : 1924 Windshield wipers : 1925 Turn signals : 1939 Seatbelt : 1950 --- Milestone : 1,000,000 car traffic related deaths First driver's education class required : 1955 Shoulder belts : 1959 Dashboard : 1960 Front lap belts standard equipment : 1964 ABS : 1966 Bumper 5 MPH crash safety requirement : 1972 --- Milestone : Last human on the moon First air bags : 1974 First seatbelt law : 1984 Third brake light : 1986 Rear seat belts : 1987 Passengers get airbags : 1998 Tire pressure sensors : 2008
So cry me a river if it's still a problem in 110 years.
As long a you don't intend to get work from it, there are tons of alternatives for learning the information that would be contained in the course.
Typically speaking, just doing the necessary coursework, as Scott Young did, isn't enough to make you employable, even if you do it in a context in which you end up with a degree. It's a good part of it, though, since it certifies that you would be able to use the same words to communicate about algorithms, etc., when talking to peers, which is something you probably wouldn't be able to do otherwise. A lot of the communications in any technical field takes place in a higher bandwidth shorthand, or jargon, which lets you communicate a lot of information in a short amount of time.
Consider, for example, if you don't speak portuguese, your teaching credential and experience, valid though it may be in an English speaking country, won't transfer over directly to being able to teach even your top subject to a non-English speaking class.
, you get about 25% of your salary back through not paying income taxes
What state do you live in? State income taxes are on the order of 5%, not 25%. And according to my friends in Texas, you end up paying for it in different ways there - property taxes etc.
California. We passed prop 30, which institutes a retroactive income tax back to Jan 1 2012, payable in April 2014 for the 2012/2013 tax years.
Compare this with the income necessary to purchase a home in the Bay Area, *assuming* you have a 15-20% down payment saved: $115,510.06; if you make less than that, congratulations, you're a renter. Source: http://blog.sfgate.com/pender/...
I'd happily pay $3,500 out of pocket for 5 lights to get safer streets in my immediate neighborhood.
But then you would have to take on any liability lawsuits privately if the poles ever fell and caused damage to vehicle/ property/ injury. And cost of their eventual safe removal.
They already have the poles with light fixtures on them, they just don't pay to power them. The only difference here is which fixture housing the bolts go through.
Unless you are talking about insurance on injury to the workers performing the installation in place of the city workers when the city had the option of underbidding the labor contract? In that case, like the city, the company performing the installation has its own insurance, which is part of the cost of the work.
How do we prevent Facebook from pressuring the officer, or his superiors, to abuse his power? E.g., force protestors off the sidewalk, or stop legal filming. Remember that, in addition to money, there is political credibility on the line here; if this situation goes sour, the representatives who allow it stand to have their political careers suffer.
I think we have to do it using the same techniques we use to prevent those same actions by state police on Occupy Wall Street protestors and Tea Party protestors, and protestors at large financial and banking summits, and the same way we prevent people protesting politicians like Gorge Bush and Barack Obama from being relegated to so-called "Free Speech Zones".
Which is to say, we disobey the illegal orders, get arrested, and fight the legality of the actions in court. They we file civil lawsuits against the guilty parties for recompense.
Slashdot Mirror
Right around the time you become immune to cancer and hit-n-run car accidents, probably.
Obviously you think that insurance is something you only get if you already have a problem, not as "insurance" against going broke if something unforeseen happens. Perhaps when you're a grown-up you'll realize that not everything in your life is planned. Or maybe nothing will ever go wrong for you ever, because you're "young and healthy."
Alternately, since they can no longer deny coverage based on a preexisitng condition, why doesn't he just only buy the insurance the day before he goes into the doctor because he's feeling lousy, or the day after the preexisting cancer is diagnosed?
In reality, the only reasonable solution is actually a single payer system, potentially with a private insurance option on top of that, if you want to pay to jump the wait list when you have something that's not life threatening (or, like in the UK, they won't fix do a knee replacement because your job description is programming, and you don't need your knee to function optimally if your job involves sitting on your ass).
Of course, that would mean this TARP III bailout for the insurance companies would mean they fail because we've disintermediated healthcare, and thrown out the profit-taking middlemen whose only purpose in life is to deny claims because something got coded wrong by a clerk.
There is little movement of working to help for the greater good of society. It's how much can I get and how quickly can I get it?
The greater good of society?
I will be happy to work towards that as soon as our elected officials choose to lead by example.
I believe this is the argument Microsoft used at its antitrust trial.
The judge didn't buy it.
Once you have a lead position in something, it's very hard for a competitor to displace you without you being nothing more than an "also ran".
If nothing else, when someone becomes an actual threat, you have enough of a bankroll to litigate them out of business.
Linus is an expert at kernels. I wouldn't pay much notice over his opinions on UI toolkits. He'd probably be against anything C++.
It doesn't matter if *you* personnaly pay attention, it matters whether he's respected enough to play 800 pound gorilla. Also, it doesn't really matter who "wins" as the selected GUI, what matters is that *one* does.
If Linus would just endorse a toolkit, then there would be One True Toolkit; this would be the most likely thing to drive an actual "Linux desktop revolution". I am not holding my breath.
And that's why he won't. The whole point is to avoid homogeneity, because homogeneity strangles progress and provides a single target for the spread of malware.
I was more concerned with a single target for the spread of commercial applications. Malware is only really a big issue once you make yourself a target by having a large user base. Being a target of malware would be a *good* thing for Linux, since it would indicate a higher market share.
AFAIKT Aura is a more than just a UI Toolkit, it's a complete Window Manager. A replacement for Gnome (wow! I hope that takes off!) Apparently it's been running on the Chromebooks. Here is Linus' take on the topic.
If Linus would just endorse a toolkit, then there would be One True Toolkit; this would be the most likely thing to drive an actual "Linux desktop revolution". I am not holding my breath.
Strange, I use and code plenty of games using shaders like that, and I run KDE4 in Linux, in both GL composite and regular X11 mode, and have never experienced any crash like you describe. Is it because I use Nvidia drivers or something, or maybe because I happened to have had the luck to only play games that do it right, and had the luck to never code any shaders triggering that? Seems rather unlikely, but I am genuinely curious here.
The closed source drivers have some, but not all, workarounds for the issue. They're basically ports of the Windows drivers, and have the reserve channel because of this. You may in fact be lucky, but I'd have to have a huge amount of information in order to tell you for sure (e.g. are you running a compositing window manager, what card are you using (tells me total channels), potentially instrument the GL pipeline connections to see how many of the available ones are in use, etc.. The crashes normally happen when all the channels get used up and you need to do something driven by an event - and can't because of it.
The ARRL actually gives grants for this.
http://www.arrl.org/the-arrl-f...
So does FEMA, including to schools.
https://www.citizencorps.fema....
Although getting involved in something statewide might be biting off more than you can chew.
http://www.emergencymgmt.com/s...
Personally, I love password rules.
The more complex the rules, the smaller my brute force search space, since I can just not look for passwords which don't meet the rules.
If you want everything encrypted: Sorry, you can't have that.
Sure you can. All Android versions from Gingerbread (IIRC) forward support full device encryption, using dm-crypt. Of course, it's only as strong as your password, so you have to trade off convenience against security.
Bootloader and initial image. Most CPUs these days are incapable of running encrypted code directly. Also intermediate in memory images, as well as accessible swap for program images, and mappings, unless you knapsack encrypt all the files and programs, and put decryption code in the paging path (Mac OS X/iOS in fact does this, using FairPlay, if you use encrypted images), but the key is global and in a per device UUID encrypted knapsack, so it can be unpacked if you know how it works.
The idea that you can make something secure from something resident on your system without resorting to something like a TPM or the encrypting/decrypting MMU in the XBox 360 is laughable, and it's also been demonstrated to be breakable, at least for the existing implementations on Microsoft and Apple platforms.
Going the other way like Microsoft does is more interesting.
One of the biggest issues with OpenGL is that you can get shaders that won't run in bounded time. You can see this with a number of games in Flash, or natively in OpenGL, when run on a Mac. If the shader doesn't exit, it eats a channel, and there are a limited number of channels, and once they are gone, the renderer, which is also used for the desktop, basically crashes. There are nice system log messages from the video driver about it, but besically everything ends up restarted, which is pretty useless.
FWIW: this accounts for the majority of system instabilities in the card specific portions of both Mac OS X and Linux render pipelines.
DirectX doesn't allow things to run in unbounded time in its OpenGL to DirectX translator; instead, it loop unrolls shaders, and if it can't do that such that they run linearly, and therefore in bounded time, it omits them from the render. So you might not get distance blurring, haze effects, fog effects, rain effect, and so on, but at least the thing doesn't crash, and if the person porting the code to the Windows platform cares about these things, they fix the code so that it'll run using DirectX. Usually, this reduced the perceived "quality" of the final render, but you get at least a crude version of your effect back.
The other thing DirectX does is, in the video driver, keep a reserve channel for sending commands to the video hardware; the common reason for this is in-band signaling to comply with the DirectX 9 requirement that the video hardware be capable of being reset, without rebooting the system, such that a video card hang doesn't necessitate a reboot.
While a DirectX to OpenGL translation layer is a nifty idea (I lobbied very hard for a FreeBSD emulator for Linux, rather than a Linux emulator for FreeBSD so that developers would target FreeBSD rather than Linux as their development platform), I don't think that as long as the OpenGL shader looping issues don't also get addressed at the translation layer that translating from DirectX to OpenGL will be in anyway superior to translating from OpenGL to DirectX.
So basically, it's nice they released this, but the code is of little practical use in the real world, since there are features that will get lost in translation.
The funny part of stolen phones in Europe is that Europeans predominantly use prepaid SIM cards, so what they are really stealing is airtime for when they plug the stolen prepaid SIM in their own phone, and your phone gets sold or just plain thrown in the trash nearby, since most people trash SIMs instead of reloading them, and as long as they are not post-paid SIMs, the fact that the SIM number moves to another IMEI is not something the phone company cares about recording/tracking.
I thought IMEI could not be changed. Is it possible here because on a smartphone everything is software defined?
You can generally do this, if you are super technically inclined, and have the right tools for the phone in question. In almost every case, you have to defeat the security on the baseband firmware, because it's embedded as part of the firmware in what's called a "seczone" (contains security data for the phone, which is cryptographically signed, including the carrier lock and IMEI).
Most of the work required to rewrite the IMEI is not actually done by people attempting to be able to rewrite the IMEI; instead, the purpose is to be able to rewrite the carrier lock which happens to be in the same area, so if you have the source code for the tools, or know how to use IDA Pro and read and modify assembly language, you can convert the tool.
This is basically true of almost every Samsung baseband chip firmware, since it has a buffer overflow attack that works against the cryptographic signature check, and then - game over. This is how the Sony, Samsung, and original iPhones carrier lock was busted. For other phones, you can buffer overflow the firmware by using a specially designed chip that pretends it's a SIM chip, and buffer overflows the baseband from the other side of things, rather than from application space. It's probably worth my while to not go into too much detail here.
A non-stupid company that wanted to disincentivize that level of hacking on the baseband - said hacking also being an effective means of modifying the radio tables for the SDR (Software Defined Radio) - would put the carrier lock up in application space, rather than putting it in the baseband firmware in the first place. Most companies, Apple included, have been pretty stupid about their carrier lock implementations, though.
So yeah, the tools exist, mostly because of carrier lock, and the implementation details for the carrier lock being in a stupid location that makes the IMEI rewrite an easy opportunistic target.
Buy a "Hello Kitty" wrist strap for the gun. :D
The fault lies with software developers who blindly rushed features out the door without giving proper thought to the security implications. Microsoft had a really bad habit of this until they made security a significant corporate priority - it's time for Apple to catch up now, as proven by the recent "goto fail" fiasco.
I think it's safe to share blame with the designers of that programming language for this specific example.
I've left plenty of bugs in code because management told me that it had to ship Tuesday.
Hint: decisions like "the code is ready to ship" are not made by engineers, they are made by managers, just like when they launched the Challenger with frozen O rings, over engineering objections.
As to the specific example, it was likely put there on purpose for code signing testing prior to signing keys being available for the engineers writing the code signing code.
Unfortunate when the thieves cut your hand off to get the phone though.
sPh
They could always cut your hand off anyway.
Buy a "Hello Kitty" wrist strap. That way you can prevent your phone from being stolen in the first place.
If you want everything encrypted: Sorry, you can't have that.
Cooling will certainly not be a problem and the geological activity is minimal (if at all present), so earthquakes and tsunamis are out of the question.
Nuclear power is frightening, since the U.S. used it to bomb Japan in 1945, and since nobody seems to know what a becquerel is, or they'd quit using it instead of roentgens. Of course becquerels are more fun, because it makes the absolute number 3.7^10 larger than if it were expressed in curies (also not a unit of radiation exposure).
Whee! http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/...
Like Fawn Hall in 1986? Ollie North's secretary, who printed out his emails so she could shred them?
Managers know that you get diminishing returns on labor hours. But it's still economical to squeeze every last drop, if the employee is exempt from overtime.
Even if they're not. The amount you give an employee as wages/salary is a fraction of what it costs the business to employ them at all.
In truth, there would probably be a lot more people employed if it weren't for employers having to foot the bill for a lot of benefits, and the employees either paid for their own benefits, or the benefits came from the government and were funded by income taxes rather than employment taxes on the employer.
Ironically, most benefits offered to employees are taxed as income these days, even though the original intent of benefits was to make your business a more desirable place to work than your competitors business. Now that these benefits have grown into unfunded government mandates, it's a lot cheaper to hire one person for 6 hours than it is to hire 2 for 30 hours each. Once you get down to 18 hours or less, so that the employment can't be counted as full time, and the mandates are no longer in effect, the employer can afford to hire more people again (and, in fact, it's better for the employer, since they get more work hours per $ when they don't have to pay for the unfunded mandates.
So the U.S. has basically built a tax system that rewards employers for overworking salaried employees and underworking hourly employees.
Honestly, though, it's hard to blame normal users for this. Should a user have to be a computer expert in order to actually use a computer?
Actually, it's very east to blame them. They are using a technology they don't understand in a way which is unsafe.
They shouldn't have to be experts, but on the other hand, if they're not, then they should avoid using unsafe versions of the technology until they either understand them, or safe alternatives are available. The problem here is the technology in question is so damn useful, and has therefore become an ubiquitous part of daily life, without ever getting safety features added to it so that ordinary morons can use it safely.
If we look to the famous slashdot analogy, the first factory car was produced in Czechoslovakia in 1897. But what about vehicle safety?
Stop signs : 1914
Stop lights : 1919
Safety glass : 1924
Windshield wipers : 1925
Turn signals : 1939
Seatbelt : 1950
--- Milestone : 1,000,000 car traffic related deaths
First driver's education class required : 1955
Shoulder belts : 1959
Dashboard : 1960
Front lap belts standard equipment : 1964
ABS : 1966
Bumper 5 MPH crash safety requirement : 1972
--- Milestone : Last human on the moon
First air bags : 1974
First seatbelt law : 1984
Third brake light : 1986
Rear seat belts : 1987
Passengers get airbags : 1998
Tire pressure sensors : 2008
So cry me a river if it's still a problem in 110 years.
As long a you don't intend to get work from it, there are tons of alternatives for learning the information that would be contained in the course.
Typically speaking, just doing the necessary coursework, as Scott Young did, isn't enough to make you employable, even if you do it in a context in which you end up with a degree. It's a good part of it, though, since it certifies that you would be able to use the same words to communicate about algorithms, etc., when talking to peers, which is something you probably wouldn't be able to do otherwise. A lot of the communications in any technical field takes place in a higher bandwidth shorthand, or jargon, which lets you communicate a lot of information in a short amount of time.
Consider, for example, if you don't speak portuguese, your teaching credential and experience, valid though it may be in an English speaking country, won't transfer over directly to being able to teach even your top subject to a non-English speaking class.
, you get about 25% of your salary back through not paying income taxes
What state do you live in? State income taxes are on the order of 5%, not 25%. And according to my friends in Texas, you end up paying for it in different ways there - property taxes etc.
California. We passed prop 30, which institutes a retroactive income tax back to Jan 1 2012, payable in April 2014 for the 2012/2013 tax years.
Compare this with the income necessary to purchase a home in the Bay Area, *assuming* you have a 15-20% down payment saved: $115,510.06; if you make less than that, congratulations, you're a renter. Source: http://blog.sfgate.com/pender/...
I'd happily pay $3,500 out of pocket for 5 lights to get safer streets in my immediate neighborhood.
But then you would have to take on any liability lawsuits privately if the poles ever fell and caused damage to vehicle/ property/ injury. And cost of their eventual safe removal.
They already have the poles with light fixtures on them, they just don't pay to power them. The only difference here is which fixture housing the bolts go through.
Unless you are talking about insurance on injury to the workers performing the installation in place of the city workers when the city had the option of underbidding the labor contract? In that case, like the city, the company performing the installation has its own insurance, which is part of the cost of the work.
How do we prevent Facebook from pressuring the officer, or his superiors, to abuse his power? E.g., force protestors off the sidewalk, or stop legal filming. Remember that, in addition to money, there is political credibility on the line here; if this situation goes sour, the representatives who allow it stand to have their political careers suffer.
I think we have to do it using the same techniques we use to prevent those same actions by state police on Occupy Wall Street protestors and Tea Party protestors, and protestors at large financial and banking summits, and the same way we prevent people protesting politicians like Gorge Bush and Barack Obama from being relegated to so-called "Free Speech Zones".
Which is to say, we disobey the illegal orders, get arrested, and fight the legality of the actions in court. They we file civil lawsuits against the guilty parties for recompense.