Personally I just hope she gets what her positive contribution to society warrants.
Positive contributions? If anything, this woman provides fuel to businesses and corporations that are hesitant to have women climb the corporate ladder.
First she sues her former employer, and loses on all counts.
Then she implements the most stupid HR policy I have ever seen: "we don't negotiate with job candidates because men negotiate better than women".
And the final straw was her not-so-brilliant PR move in upsetting her user base.
Not exactly the strong female CEO that Reddit needs. In fact, Ellen Pao is exactly the opposite of Marissa Mayer. Marissa is, so far, pretty successful in leading Yahoo. I don't work for Yahoo or ever have, but I'm a fan of Marissa Mayer. Silicon Valley needs more women like Marissa, and less like Ellen.
Note that their datacenter disciplines are not actually proven to be the best, but boy do they think so.
They are proven to be the best for their specific type of operations. I'm quite sure that their SOPs won't work for the banking or healthcare industry for example.
If Facebook goes down, a bunch of 30 year olds are going to complain (teens use other social media these days, and grandparents won't care and try again later). If the Sutter Health (norcal hospital chain) network/DC goes down, people's health will be affected.
Different operations and requirements, require different budgets and ways of working. For hyperscalers as FB and Google, RAID makes sense. Where RAID in this case is Redundant Amount of Inexpensive Devices.
Depending on the features the ISP needs, there may not be a suitable upgrade yet.
For example half-duplex vrf isn't available on Cisco ASR9K (Cisco's IPV6-and-RFC-compliance-first platform) and on Cisco ASR1K it doesn't support IPV4. As far as I know, ALU BNG also doesn't support IPV6 in HD VRF.
Redback Networks (acquired by Ericsson) supported IPv6 since 2010 on all their SmartEdge series BNGs...
it seems like, since UofP started, a lot more Unis have upped their game for online-classes to get their standard degree.
I hate to spam, but here is something you need to look at if you're looking to get an accredited online degree: www.wgu.edu. Western Governors University is affordable: $3000 per 6 month term, where you can do as many credits as you can. I got my MSc in 18 months, for 9k. Everything was online, except graduation, which was a big party in Utah.
Yes, you are right.14 CFR specifies that the FAA has authority over everything that is man-made and flies.
People are ignoring the rules, or just aren't aware of them. This not evidence that we need more regulations.
The FAA has authority to create rules, but the current set of rules need to be applied to newer technology. In short, the rules are limited to:
restricting operations to 400 feet above the surface;
requiring that the devices give right of way to, and avoid flying near manned aircraft;
and using observers to assist in operations;
What we should have is a set of rules which make a clear distinction between a "drone" and a toy aircraft. For example, I have one of those tiny Hubsan x4 quadcopters. The maximum distance it can fly is 300ft according to the spec, but by then I've already lost it as it is so tiny. A friend of mine has a $2000 GPS-equipped quadcopter with a call-home function. That would probably fit in the not-so-toy specification.
At this time, no skill-test is required to fly a heavy drone. All I'm advocating for is that we get people certified in rules and regulations, and make RC pilots aware of the NOTAM and TFR systems.
No, the FAA should have clear authority in clearing the airspace. The FAA should regulate drones as any other aircraft, and make a clear distinction between a "drone" and an RC toy.
That means that drone operators must comply with FAA rules, check weather briefings and NOTAMs before every flight and stay the F out of a TFR.
I stand by my record. Better part of a decade as the technical lead of a regional Internet Service Provider.
Frequent participant in the North American Network Operators Group. Participant in the Internet Research Task Force's Routing Research Group.
Bill, you should know that peering has nothing to do with CoS (fast lanes). Peering is about two networks agreeing to directly exchange traffic when that makes operational and business sense. When Snake Oil Inc with a/19 and 5000 dsl subs wants to peer with Cogent, I will guarantee you that they will be redirected to the sales department. And justly so.
If you're advocating that unless one peers with everyone who sends a peering request, one is violating "net neutrality", you really need to go back to networking school.
I totally understand your point that refusal to peer can be construed as willingly disrupt the shortest path between two networks, but that is an operational decision left to the owner of the network, and does not imply a lower priority on the network. If the FCC would mandate all networks to have a public and open peering policy, I will guarantee you that they will lose every single lawsuit as the government does not need to dictate how someone routes their traffic.
Peering IS an Internet "fast lane," at least in a coarse sense. Your paying customers have the most favorable data rates in to and out of your network. Next come your reciprocal peers. Finally, you keep the connections you have to pay for at the highest congestion levels in order to minimize your cost.
You clearly don't understand the internet.
Peering (as opposed to transit) is two private networks deciding that they exchange enough traffic that it justifies the capex and opex of a dedicated network port or dedicated peering session between the two networks.
If large network A already sees small network B through peering with large network C (in which case usually B is a customer of C), there is little reason for A to peer with B unless bi-directional traffic reaches certain levels. Those levels are part of network A's peering policy.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality.
By refusing peering to a third party, you force them to either pay you or suffer degraded data rates through your paid channel. This is throttling.
Total and utter bullshit, and FUD originating from Netflix etc in their "peering dispute" with Comcast. Network B can purchase enough bandwidth from network C. If there is an issue with bandwidth between network B and network A, they will figure it out and add additional ports.
What will be expected maximum throughput over TCP/IP with 5s ping, with 0% packet loss, 0.1% packet loss and 1% packet loss?
Hypothetical question with no real-world application.
1. The guy talks about "5s ping". That means 2500ms latency one-way.
2. You will not find 2500ms latency anywhere in the world. You did not even find that in 1994.
3. Even satellite will provide better than that: ~300ms.
4. Your question lacks an important parameter: bandwidth and server/receiver memory.
As long as you have enough memory, you can store the entire transmission without acking.
Yes, totally agree. Line all of them up against a wall in Utah please.
and fuck the attendant, who is probably complicit in the scheme.
Disagree there. The attendant is most likely a minimum wage working hanging on to a job to make a living. I don't think a lot of people would like to have that job. That worker did not deserve that treatment. The attack was not aimed at the company or even at the fact that a car was being towed, but merely to humiliate someone in a low-income job who is most likely struggling to meet ends (otherwise, why take such a shitty job?). All out of sheer frustration.
Being nicer would probably have helped a lot more. I had a similar experience the other day. A company did something I did not like, in fact, I was more than pissed. I called the company and before a started my rant, I told the person on the other line: "I know you're only picking up the phone so what I'm about to say is nothing personal. BUT I AM PISSED LIKE CRAZY FOR COMPANY XYZ TO DO ABC". She totally understood ("yes sir, I'd be quite upset as well), and fixed the problem on the spot, apologized on behalf of the company and sent an internal note to prevent this from happening again.
I would have threatened to sue the school for the lack of proper information security. If teachers are allowed to use their last name as their password and type it out in front of students then something is severely wrong and it has to be assumed that a data breach has already happened undetected.
Your numbers may be in in the correct ballpark, but they overstate the real numbers. Firstly, I don't think that the full quota was used when the H1-B program started. Secondly, some H1-Bs went home. Others may have gone home for a year or more and come back to the USA on a new H1-B (don't discount this, I did it and I know many others who also did). Finally, many of those former H1-B workers may not work in tech any more
Totally fair comments. My goal was not to say that you are wrong, but to point out that a significant amount of the current tech force may come from oversees. One thing that rarely gets mentioned in the H1-B discussion but should be included is the amount of L1s that are working in the tech industry. For L1s it is more difficult to displace US workers as they are already working for the same company, but with an L1-A it is extremely easy to get a green-card so the chances of actual displacements are higher.
Everyone says they have masses of H1B's, but only 100-150 thousand are issued per year. I actually wonder if many confuse every foreign worker as H1B's? I know where I work people on Slashdot have commented that 30-50% of people here are H1B's when I know for a fact it is actually less than 1%, they seem to label everyone that originated from a foreign country as being in the US on H1B's
According to this source, the H1-B program as it is today started in 1990. Since then, the visa cap fluctuated between 65,000 and 195,000 per year. Let's take an average of 85,000 and we're talking about 85,000 times 25 years which equals 2,125,000. That's 2.1 million.
According to this source. The total number of tech jobs in the U.S. in 2012 was 3,951,730.
So ~50% of tech workers could have come in under the H1-B program which, as you might know, is dual intent and allows for the application of permanent residence.
hey dont worry dude , even if they wher giving me a H-1B on a gold platter i wouldn't take it as it basically would put me in indentured servitude not tbeing able to change employer thus not being able to properly negociate for wage , my employer has me working on assets in the states without having me to cross borders , H-1B is nothing less then modern soft slavery
Trust me, with your writing skills, not a single employer will consider you for a position. There is no space before a comma, and sentences generally do not start with a lowercase character.
Takeoff and landing are easy to the point where a computer can do it. You don't have to have any human interaction at all in those events. Many aircraft are already capable of automatic landing.
That's exactly what the crew of Asiana thought when they landed at SFO:)
You will still need a pilot who understands aviation in case the computer fails.
In-person back-and-forth interaction with the teacher is faster than online interaction. But one advantage of online over in-person is that you can ask questions any time, not just during the teacher's office hours.
In an ed2go.com class, you can discuss the homework online, but not the test questions. You can post your code online, and the teacher (and sometimes a student) will tell you what your mistake was. I've taken lots of classes from them. I was happy with most (not all) of my class's teachers.
I graduated from Western Governors University last year and got my master's degree. Everything was online, with the exception of the graduation party.
Teachers were just a phone call or e-mail away. And because they did not have to attend any classes either, they were usually *always* available. Some of them even in the weekends (since that's when most people study, next to their daytime jobs) until the late hours.
I did a two year program in less than 18 months. Try that with your traditional on-campus university.
Stay in Europe, and you won't be paying US taxes effectively, due to the foreign tax credits. Yes, you'll have to file a tax return every year, but that's not extremely difficult, especially if you don't have to pay any taxes. Taxes are significantly higher in most of Europe.
I faced a more or less similar choice a few years ago. Me and the misses were in the U.S. on a non-immigrant visa, and my wife was about to deliver. We could have chosen to deliver outside of the U.S. and avoid U.S. citizenship for my daughter. We chose to give birth in the U.S. so out little peanut would have dual (actually triple) citizenship. She will always be free to work in both the E.U. as well as the U.S. without any immigrant processing. She can choose to attend U.S. college, or European.
We reckoned that the simple fact that she would have to file a tax return every year would be an acceptable cost of all the benefits.
Harrison is such a badass that he survived the crash and was awake and alert when he was taken to hospital.
Looking at the pictures, he glided the aircraft to an open field and landed without the landing gear. This picture shows the cockpit intact, as well as the skidmarks from the belly-first landing.
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. If the aircraft is still serviceable afterwards, it was an excellent landing.
You're just trying to impress everyone with you knowledge by pulling a regulation out of your hat.
Yes, this actually got me laid last night. Ain't that cool?
You actually need a damned compelling reason to exercise 91.3(b), which is why 91.3(c) exists. If you have been denied access to Class B / C / D (yep, they can deny you access), your engine quits, and you go gliding into the primary when you could have easily glided to a perfectly good airport, even a nice soft grassy field, outside the Class B for no reason other than you thought you could do whatever you want under 91.3(b)...you're fucked. In fact, even if that was the only reasonable option (other runway was too short, covered in clouds, mountainous terrain with no fields, whatever), you still better hope to hell no one can ever possibly blame you for the engine failure.
It's not that black and white. First of all, once I utter the words "I declare an emergency", or just squawk 7700, not a single controller will deny me class B clearance. They're trained to deal with the emergency first, handle the rest later.
Second, if I mess up in flight, that does not mean I deserve a death sentence by ATC denying me the best possible option to get out of my emergency. A very good example of this would be a VFR pilot flying into IMC. It is his own fault for getting in that situation, but ATC will do their best to help him out.
Yes, you may need to explain yourself to the FAA. But I rather be in the hot seat in front of the FAA than have my wife and kids say their last farewells.
You cannot exercise 91.3(b) if the emergency is your fault. If you forgot to switch tanks, cannot show that you were properly performing maintenance (like changing the oil), the FBO where you rented the airplane didn't do a 100 hour, whatever...you're fucked.
Total utter bullshit. You can exercise 91.3(b) at any time if the safety of the flight requires you to do so. Feel free to cite the rule that provides an exception for self-induced emergencies.
That does not say that you can do whatever the fuck you want. It means that the accountability comes afterwards, in the sense of "we have a number for you to call", once you're safely on the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll just gas up and fly my own jumbo jet
Private aircraft are still subject to governmental inspection.
Personally I just hope she gets what her positive contribution to society warrants.
Positive contributions? If anything, this woman provides fuel to businesses and corporations that are hesitant to have women climb the corporate ladder.
First she sues her former employer, and loses on all counts.
Then she implements the most stupid HR policy I have ever seen: "we don't negotiate with job candidates because men negotiate better than women".
And the final straw was her not-so-brilliant PR move in upsetting her user base.
Not exactly the strong female CEO that Reddit needs. In fact, Ellen Pao is exactly the opposite of Marissa Mayer. Marissa is, so far, pretty successful in leading Yahoo. I don't work for Yahoo or ever have, but I'm a fan of Marissa Mayer. Silicon Valley needs more women like Marissa, and less like Ellen.
Note that their datacenter disciplines are not actually proven to be the best, but boy do they think so.
They are proven to be the best for their specific type of operations. I'm quite sure that their SOPs won't work for the banking or healthcare industry for example.
If Facebook goes down, a bunch of 30 year olds are going to complain (teens use other social media these days, and grandparents won't care and try again later). If the Sutter Health (norcal hospital chain) network/DC goes down, people's health will be affected.
Different operations and requirements, require different budgets and ways of working. For hyperscalers as FB and Google, RAID makes sense. Where RAID in this case is Redundant Amount of Inexpensive Devices.
Depending on the features the ISP needs, there may not be a suitable upgrade yet. For example half-duplex vrf isn't available on Cisco ASR9K (Cisco's IPV6-and-RFC-compliance-first platform) and on Cisco ASR1K it doesn't support IPV4. As far as I know, ALU BNG also doesn't support IPV6 in HD VRF.
Redback Networks (acquired by Ericsson) supported IPv6 since 2010 on all their SmartEdge series BNGs...
it seems like, since UofP started, a lot more Unis have upped their game for online-classes to get their standard degree.
I hate to spam, but here is something you need to look at if you're looking to get an accredited online degree: www.wgu.edu. Western Governors University is affordable: $3000 per 6 month term, where you can do as many credits as you can. I got my MSc in 18 months, for 9k. Everything was online, except graduation, which was a big party in Utah.
5 Stars, strongly recommend.
The FAA already has that authority.
Yes, you are right.14 CFR specifies that the FAA has authority over everything that is man-made and flies.
People are ignoring the rules, or just aren't aware of them. This not evidence that we need more regulations.
The FAA has authority to create rules, but the current set of rules need to be applied to newer technology. In short, the rules are limited to:
restricting operations to 400 feet above the surface; requiring that the devices give right of way to, and avoid flying near manned aircraft; and using observers to assist in operations;
(source: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...)
What we should have is a set of rules which make a clear distinction between a "drone" and a toy aircraft. For example, I have one of those tiny Hubsan x4 quadcopters. The maximum distance it can fly is 300ft according to the spec, but by then I've already lost it as it is so tiny. A friend of mine has a $2000 GPS-equipped quadcopter with a call-home function. That would probably fit in the not-so-toy specification.
At this time, no skill-test is required to fly a heavy drone. All I'm advocating for is that we get people certified in rules and regulations, and make RC pilots aware of the NOTAM and TFR systems.
Let them clear the airspace.
No, the FAA should have clear authority in clearing the airspace. The FAA should regulate drones as any other aircraft, and make a clear distinction between a "drone" and an RC toy.
That means that drone operators must comply with FAA rules, check weather briefings and NOTAMs before every flight and stay the F out of a TFR.
I stand by my record. Better part of a decade as the technical lead of a regional Internet Service Provider. Frequent participant in the North American Network Operators Group. Participant in the Internet Research Task Force's Routing Research Group.
Bill, you should know that peering has nothing to do with CoS (fast lanes). Peering is about two networks agreeing to directly exchange traffic when that makes operational and business sense. When Snake Oil Inc with a /19 and 5000 dsl subs wants to peer with Cogent, I will guarantee you that they will be redirected to the sales department. And justly so.
If you're advocating that unless one peers with everyone who sends a peering request, one is violating "net neutrality", you really need to go back to networking school.
I totally understand your point that refusal to peer can be construed as willingly disrupt the shortest path between two networks, but that is an operational decision left to the owner of the network, and does not imply a lower priority on the network. If the FCC would mandate all networks to have a public and open peering policy, I will guarantee you that they will lose every single lawsuit as the government does not need to dictate how someone routes their traffic.
Sabri
JNCIE-M #261, JNCIE-SP #261, JNCSP-SP, ECE-IPN #2, ECP-FB
Peering IS an Internet "fast lane," at least in a coarse sense. Your paying customers have the most favorable data rates in to and out of your network. Next come your reciprocal peers. Finally, you keep the connections you have to pay for at the highest congestion levels in order to minimize your cost.
You clearly don't understand the internet.
Peering (as opposed to transit) is two private networks deciding that they exchange enough traffic that it justifies the capex and opex of a dedicated network port or dedicated peering session between the two networks.
If large network A already sees small network B through peering with large network C (in which case usually B is a customer of C), there is little reason for A to peer with B unless bi-directional traffic reaches certain levels. Those levels are part of network A's peering policy.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality.
By refusing peering to a third party, you force them to either pay you or suffer degraded data rates through your paid channel. This is throttling.
Total and utter bullshit, and FUD originating from Netflix etc in their "peering dispute" with Comcast. Network B can purchase enough bandwidth from network C. If there is an issue with bandwidth between network B and network A, they will figure it out and add additional ports.
... on Slashdot. What more is there to say.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
they sent it to GitHub
So, stop using GitHub and post it on your own blog.
What will be expected maximum throughput over TCP/IP with 5s ping, with 0% packet loss, 0.1% packet loss and 1% packet loss?
Hypothetical question with no real-world application.
1. The guy talks about "5s ping". That means 2500ms latency one-way.
2. You will not find 2500ms latency anywhere in the world. You did not even find that in 1994.
3. Even satellite will provide better than that: ~300ms.
4. Your question lacks an important parameter: bandwidth and server/receiver memory.
As long as you have enough memory, you can store the entire transmission without acking.
Fuck them
Yes, totally agree. Line all of them up against a wall in Utah please.
and fuck the attendant, who is probably complicit in the scheme.
Disagree there. The attendant is most likely a minimum wage working hanging on to a job to make a living. I don't think a lot of people would like to have that job. That worker did not deserve that treatment. The attack was not aimed at the company or even at the fact that a car was being towed, but merely to humiliate someone in a low-income job who is most likely struggling to meet ends (otherwise, why take such a shitty job?). All out of sheer frustration.
Being nicer would probably have helped a lot more. I had a similar experience the other day. A company did something I did not like, in fact, I was more than pissed. I called the company and before a started my rant, I told the person on the other line: "I know you're only picking up the phone so what I'm about to say is nothing personal. BUT I AM PISSED LIKE CRAZY FOR COMPANY XYZ TO DO ABC". She totally understood ("yes sir, I'd be quite upset as well), and fixed the problem on the spot, apologized on behalf of the company and sent an internal note to prevent this from happening again.
This kid's parents aren't too bright either
I agree, but for a different reason.
I would have threatened to sue the school for the lack of proper information security. If teachers are allowed to use their last name as their password and type it out in front of students then something is severely wrong and it has to be assumed that a data breach has already happened undetected.
Your numbers may be in in the correct ballpark, but they overstate the real numbers. Firstly, I don't think that the full quota was used when the H1-B program started. Secondly, some H1-Bs went home. Others may have gone home for a year or more and come back to the USA on a new H1-B (don't discount this, I did it and I know many others who also did). Finally, many of those former H1-B workers may not work in tech any more
Totally fair comments. My goal was not to say that you are wrong, but to point out that a significant amount of the current tech force may come from oversees. One thing that rarely gets mentioned in the H1-B discussion but should be included is the amount of L1s that are working in the tech industry. For L1s it is more difficult to displace US workers as they are already working for the same company, but with an L1-A it is extremely easy to get a green-card so the chances of actual displacements are higher.
This is exactly the problem with most Americans.
I'm not American.
You simply judge people based on their "Grammar" and write them off!
Yes. If someone is unable to properly write English, I write them off indeed.
Care to think that English might not be everyone's mother tongue?
Yes. In fact, it is not mine either. But at least I scored 115 points on the TOEFL-IBT.
How many languages do you know anyway, for you to judge anyone else's speaking/writing ability?
Four, to be exact. English is one of them.
Jesus!
I'm sorry, I do not believe in imaginary friends.
Everyone says they have masses of H1B's, but only 100-150 thousand are issued per year. I actually wonder if many confuse every foreign worker as H1B's? I know where I work people on Slashdot have commented that 30-50% of people here are H1B's when I know for a fact it is actually less than 1%, they seem to label everyone that originated from a foreign country as being in the US on H1B's
According to this source, the H1-B program as it is today started in 1990. Since then, the visa cap fluctuated between 65,000 and 195,000 per year. Let's take an average of 85,000 and we're talking about 85,000 times 25 years which equals 2,125,000. That's 2.1 million.
According to this source. The total number of tech jobs in the U.S. in 2012 was 3,951,730.
So ~50% of tech workers could have come in under the H1-B program which, as you might know, is dual intent and allows for the application of permanent residence.
hey dont worry dude , even if they wher giving me a H-1B on a gold platter i wouldn't take it as it basically would put me in indentured servitude not tbeing able to change employer thus not being able to properly negociate for wage , my employer has me working on assets in the states without having me to cross borders , H-1B is nothing less then modern soft slavery
Trust me, with your writing skills, not a single employer will consider you for a position. There is no space before a comma, and sentences generally do not start with a lowercase character.
James Bond, Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc etc ;) All mostly filmed in the UK.
Ah yes, the UK. Where they kill the one goose that lays golden eggs. I believe his name was Clarkson.
Bring
Back
Clarkson.
Takeoff and landing are easy to the point where a computer can do it. You don't have to have any human interaction at all in those events. Many aircraft are already capable of automatic landing.
That's exactly what the crew of Asiana thought when they landed at SFO :)
You will still need a pilot who understands aviation in case the computer fails.
In-person back-and-forth interaction with the teacher is faster than online interaction. But one advantage of online over in-person is that you can ask questions any time, not just during the teacher's office hours.
In an ed2go.com class, you can discuss the homework online, but not the test questions. You can post your code online, and the teacher (and sometimes a student) will tell you what your mistake was. I've taken lots of classes from them. I was happy with most (not all) of my class's teachers.
I graduated from Western Governors University last year and got my master's degree. Everything was online, with the exception of the graduation party.
Teachers were just a phone call or e-mail away. And because they did not have to attend any classes either, they were usually *always* available. Some of them even in the weekends (since that's when most people study, next to their daytime jobs) until the late hours.
I did a two year program in less than 18 months. Try that with your traditional on-campus university.
move to sweden. Have fun with that 75% tax.
This. Exactly This.
Stay in Europe, and you won't be paying US taxes effectively, due to the foreign tax credits. Yes, you'll have to file a tax return every year, but that's not extremely difficult, especially if you don't have to pay any taxes. Taxes are significantly higher in most of Europe.
I faced a more or less similar choice a few years ago. Me and the misses were in the U.S. on a non-immigrant visa, and my wife was about to deliver. We could have chosen to deliver outside of the U.S. and avoid U.S. citizenship for my daughter. We chose to give birth in the U.S. so out little peanut would have dual (actually triple) citizenship. She will always be free to work in both the E.U. as well as the U.S. without any immigrant processing. She can choose to attend U.S. college, or European.
We reckoned that the simple fact that she would have to file a tax return every year would be an acceptable cost of all the benefits.
Harrison is such a badass that he survived the crash and was awake and alert when he was taken to hospital.
Looking at the pictures, he glided the aircraft to an open field and landed without the landing gear. This picture shows the cockpit intact, as well as the skidmarks from the belly-first landing.
:)
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. If the aircraft is still serviceable afterwards, it was an excellent landing.
This was definitely a good landing
once you no longer want to provide me with bed, food, room, TV, and other amenities that I wouldn't get in Russia :)
You mean amenities like Bubba who wants you to toss his salad?
You're just trying to impress everyone with you knowledge by pulling a regulation out of your hat.
Yes, this actually got me laid last night. Ain't that cool?
You actually need a damned compelling reason to exercise 91.3(b), which is why 91.3(c) exists. If you have been denied access to Class B / C / D (yep, they can deny you access), your engine quits, and you go gliding into the primary when you could have easily glided to a perfectly good airport, even a nice soft grassy field, outside the Class B for no reason other than you thought you could do whatever you want under 91.3(b)...you're fucked. In fact, even if that was the only reasonable option (other runway was too short, covered in clouds, mountainous terrain with no fields, whatever), you still better hope to hell no one can ever possibly blame you for the engine failure.
It's not that black and white. First of all, once I utter the words "I declare an emergency", or just squawk 7700, not a single controller will deny me class B clearance. They're trained to deal with the emergency first, handle the rest later.
Second, if I mess up in flight, that does not mean I deserve a death sentence by ATC denying me the best possible option to get out of my emergency. A very good example of this would be a VFR pilot flying into IMC. It is his own fault for getting in that situation, but ATC will do their best to help him out.
Yes, you may need to explain yourself to the FAA. But I rather be in the hot seat in front of the FAA than have my wife and kids say their last farewells.
You cannot exercise 91.3(b) if the emergency is your fault. If you forgot to switch tanks, cannot show that you were properly performing maintenance (like changing the oil), the FBO where you rented the airplane didn't do a 100 hour, whatever...you're fucked.
Total utter bullshit. You can exercise 91.3(b) at any time if the safety of the flight requires you to do so. Feel free to cite the rule that provides an exception for self-induced emergencies.
That does not say that you can do whatever the fuck you want. It means that the accountability comes afterwards, in the sense of "we have a number for you to call", once you're safely on the ground.