If they didn't read it closely enough to figure out the M&M thing, they probably skimmed the important bits.
Yeah, because in years of providing stage and electrical services, the contractors never learned that it was important that the stage not fall down without needing that detail spelled out in a performance contract with a band. Right. Sure.
My God, what carnage there was before Van Halen started demanding brown-free bowls of M&Ms and that their stage not fall down while they were on it.
More likely they skimmed over the bullshit parts of the contract where the performers demanded ridiculous things, or if they didn't skim that part someone said "this is bullshit" and just didn't do it, or the below-minimum-wage intern they gave the M&M job to wasn't up to the critical task.
On the other hand, stage building and electrical work is a union job, and those people tend not to need bullshit contracts from egotistical performers to know how to do their jobs, and they know that if they fail there are going to be lawsuits.
If someone can't get the obvious, glaring things right, they can't be trusted to get the hidden details right, either.
Yeah, because a single clause hidden deep in a contract, that is considered to be the "pinnacle of rock-and-roll excess", is more important than worrying about issues that can actually kill people at worst, and cause significant legal liability issues for the venue. A flunky that is tasked with the stupid task of sorting M&Ms missing one absolutely proves that the electricians and other contractors hired by the venue are incompetent. Van Halen is trying to spin their ego into something important, which is what an ego tends to do.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Of course the savings would be salary PLUS benefits and costs. For normal employees, the usual estimate is the cost of an employee is twice the salary. Even if it is 3 times for this job, then the salary is well north of $200k/year. (One mil divided by 1.4 divided by three.)
And that savings is AFTER spending $1.2 million the first year and ongoing maintenance costs the following ones.
If automation makes this part of forecasting more efficient and less expensive then why are we bitching.
Why are you bitching? I'm not. I'm just pointing out that if they save $1 million a year after installing a $1.2 million machine and it is one FTE of time (ok, 1.4 FTE if you add weekends) then it must be a pretty good paying job -- as opposed to the poorly paying job that the OP claimed.
So while I feel for these low skill employees at NWS,
I think the summary, at least, was pretty explicit in saying it was saving forecaster's time -- and forecasting is not "low skill".
If someone thinks that Mark Zuckerberg will be sending them a notice that they won a magical lottery that they hadn't bought an entry in to begin with, then there is nothing that can be done to solve the real problem. (Hint: the real problem is not that Facebook allows people to use the name Mark Zuckerberg.)
A side-problem is the proliferation of professional services where organizations outsource their tasks like email, timesheets, etc, to, so it truly is becoming impossible to determine what is and is not a phishing attack. My university uses outsourced timesheet entry services, so you have to log in using your university credentials to do your monthly timesheet. They use an outsourced mailing list to send donation requests from the University Foundation. The e-purchasing website is off-site. Even if you personally never buy anything through the e-purchasing site, you get email regarding those purchases that way.
The only way to know a phish these days is because of the poor grammar and spelling. If the scammers ever hire native English speakers to write their phishes, we're all toast.
It seems like they are shooting for 3 FTEs per location,
Eight hours a day is one FTE, not three. I guess if they said they're trying to replace one full time job and two needless supervisors with one machine, someone would have wondered why they needed the extra two people. At $333k/year you're talking about a pretty good paying job, even assuming that the pay is only half the cost of the employee. $150k/year is a good sum. You can see why the union is objecting.
But then, is it REALLY an 8 hour task to prep and launch one of these balloons? Really? Because the robot is getting rid of that job, but it doesn't do the other parts of the process like look at and understand how the data fits into the whole picture, or deal with questions from the local weather users.
There is absolutely a reason for "well established" data to be considered "confidential"
I hope you can provide an example.
Many medical studies' underlying data is confidential.
That example has already been discussed and shown to be incorrect. The PII that you think is being required as supporting medical data is not required. While PII is confidential, the data FROM the study is NOT. Data that says "395 individuals with T2DM participated in a study of... and X had side-effect Y..." is simply not confidential medical data that needs to be kept secret. Now, if they said "DamnOregonian exhibited fainting spells...", that would be, but the fact that "DamnOregonian" was a test subject is completely irrelevant and NOT part of the data necessary to regulate anything, and is NOT part of the "underlying data" that needs to be reviewable.
If you have a study that you don't want to release the data from because it is "confidential" or "proprietary", that's fine. Don't expect it to be considered when making PUBLIC law. If you don't want people to know that 25% of your test subjects had horrendous side effects from testing with your drug, then keep that data secret -- and don't expect the FDA to approve your drug when you won't tell them that. But don't cry that you have to release data that you don't have to release or pretend that you can't release anything because PII is protected.
You're spreading a whole bunch of bullshit to spin a blatant attempt at discounting the majority of medical studies from regulation consideration.
That claim is bullshit, and you know it. Medical study data is easily reviewable without releasing confidential information. The FDA REQUIRES it, and it is part of many product data sheets. Not only the FDA, but many journals require open access to data used in scientific articles. I have read countless papers that discuss your alleged "confidential medical data" used in numerous studies of various drugs. In fact, there are many papers that do "medical studies" that don't actually collect any data of their own, they use published, public data from other studies (this is called a "meta-study"). None of that data is truly confidential after all. There is no reason for it to be unless you are trying to keep trade secrets, and trade secrets are bad bases for public law.
Lots of people have pointed this fact out, in this and previous discussions on this topic. Ignore it at your peril.
Shame on you, shithead.
I'm sorry, is ad hominem supposed to be acceptable for supporting scientific arguments these days? Shame on you. But, if you can't do more than parrot the nonsense about "confidential medical data" being necessary for regulation, then ad hominem it must be.
This attack on the EPA is perpetuated by supporters of fracking mostly and the science behinds adding lubricants under high pressure causing slippage underground creating earthquakes is pretty well established at this point.
Then there is no reason for this "well established" data to be considered "confidential" or "proprietary", is there? If it is well established and public then this new rule will change nothing at all.
If you look at all the regulations they are repealing right now you'll see it only helps companies pollute more
It's creating scientifically supportable regulation, not overzealous "no pollution is the only acceptable pollution". If you cannot scientifically support a public harm at X ppm of something, then the legal limit should not be 10% of X or lower. And trying to claim that "OMG, some awful corporation is killing us by emitting 1% of X of something into the water" is just dishonest.
You say "pollute more" to pollute the discussion with scare tactics, when the fact is that setting the limits so far below any provable harm levels IS more expensive than performing no cleanup. "Zero" is a lovely but unachievable goal, and casting anything but "zero" as "pollute more" is fear mongering.
If one were to utilize a working key to disassemble a lock and take readings, a six-pin system would require the creation of 36 keys to determine a masterkey.
No. It takes one key per pin to determine all the correct keyings for any lock. I'll leave the process to your imagination, if you have any.
But it that identity is kept confidential at all the study couldn't be used by the EPA if this proposed rule is passed.
That is not true.
the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data
This is not a quote from the EPA, Scott Pruitt, or anyone involved in the process. It's a statement BY A NEWSPAPER that relies on click-through advertising to make a profit. It's hoopla and fearmongering.
First of all, screw "confidential industry data". If it's going to be the basis for a law, it needs to be public, and science needs to be reproducable. If you can't see what it is, you can't even begin to try to reproduce it, and it isn't science.
As for medical data, "confidential medical data" is called PII. Nothing requires that PII be released to make a medical study reproducable.
If you go back to the laws that are behind this, which the newspapers are calling a pet project of Lamar Smith, they don't require "confidential medical data" to be made public. They require the data behind the results of the study to be made public. That does NOT include PII. PII was exempted from the bills the house passed about this. "Joe Smith, aged 34, living at 123 Main Street, who has Type II diabetes was given..." is NOT part of the results, and it is not data that is relevant to the results. "A study of 384 people aged 30 to 40 with T2DM were given..." IS the data that is reportable. This should not be able to be hidden under the guise of "confidential data". There should be enough data so that the study can be reproduced -- and that doesn't require using exactly the same people again, it requires knowing what criteria were used to select them and how many, and what the results were.
The concept is pretty simple. If THE GOVERNMENT, which is supposed to be by, of and for the PEOPLE, is going to LIMIT what people can do based on SCIENCE, then that SCIENCE needs to be reviewable by the PUBLIC from whom the government gets its power. By fiat rule based on secrets is not how government should work.
At that point in time - the conditions were not so draconian as today. This was when a man could disagree with a woman without it being sufficient grounds for dismissal.
It wasn't that. It was you were challenging someone whose job depends on her teaching you about your significant shortcomings, and who has the backing of the management to do that. She being she didn't matter. Find anyone whose job title is "Diversity this" or "Office of Cultural that" and the result is the same. The job they have exists because you are -ist of some kind, even if you don' t know it. In fact, their job is more important if you don't know it, and you saying you aren't is just evidence you are. You need more classes the more you don't accept your flaws.
I'm signed up for "Social Justice Education Initiative" here -- two four hour sessions, which we get bribed to attend with "a delicious lunch" (their words). I get to learn about how my being here is oppressing someone who isn't and such stuff. I'm hoping someone does have the nerve to ask such questions; the last class I had ended with someone FROM one of those "cherished" other cultures asking what was so obviously correct about the one the facilitator was pushing.
There those who say they cherish all cultures but only some parts of them, and point to parents not accepting the bad behaviour of their cherished children as an example. The difference is that a culture is defined by what it does and believes; a child is not defined by their bad behavior, or at least, isn't supposed to be. You can love the child and hate the behaviour, but you cannot cherish a culture and hate the beliefs that create it. Doing the latter is like saying that you cherish the Jewish culture because you like matzo ball soup. It's patently insulting.
And someone made a comment about adopting parts of a culture. That's called "cultural appropriation" and it's currently a Very Bad Thing. It used to be that nobody cared if the owner of a Mexican restaurant was Mexican; today, if you try to "appropriate" Mexican culture by serving Mexican food you are boycotted and forced to apologize. That happened in our fair town not long ago.
Facebook is grimly determined to keep flinging this crap in my face.
You want a social media site where you can send whatever you want to your friends but they can't share their thoughts with you unless you approve of them.
Why are you on Facebook AT ALL? It's not Facebook's fault, you're the one staring into the end of the firehose and wanting it to never emit any water. It's like someone who complains about the danger of being run over by a train. Just step off the tracks and the problem is solved.
the dominant purpose of the flight attendants is facilitate people flying places!
The dominant purpose of flight attendants is to manage critical incidents so that fewer people are injured and likely to sue the airline for wrongful death or injury. A second-level purpose is to facilitate the airline in remaining efficient in operations, which is not the same as facilitating the people. (An example of the difference? If helping you get settled means the aircraft pushes back late, you lose. Sit down and strap in, we'll deal with it later, if at all.)
If flight attendants were not necessary for safety, there would not be flight attendants. They add weight to the flight and cost money in benefits and management.
That's like claiming that a toy surprise is a reason for obesity because it is a key ingredient in happy meals. Or cardboard. Or lettuce. It's not the beef itself, it's the other stuff, and the amounts.
so never? meat and milk substitutes still suck arse, only vegans and vegetarians or the ignorant make the claims that it tastes almost as good.
Taste is learned. E.g., Vegemite, Marmite, Spam, Escargot, Haggis. History is filled with substitutes that replace the original after the people who grew up with the originals die and the tasteless youngsters take over. They learn to like the substitute and the original then tastes funny. And sometimes it doesn't take a generation -- personal tastes can change.
Anybody that eats quality meat or milk products just about throws up at the bland garbage being produced as substitutes.
And yet there are lots of people who order tofu or other soy crap because they prefer it. Tastes change. Often, tastes change because convenience or price trumps taste. Who in their right mind would prefer Sunny Delight over real orange juice, and just what is in that hot dog?
- there is no "this is blatantly illegal" option.
Similarly, after all the furor over fake news, you would have thought there was a way to report fake news for review and taking down.
If they allowed either one, then it would quickly be abused by people who think "I don't agree" means the news is fake, or "I don't think you can do that" means "that is blatantly illegal".
We see that on/. somewhat, where a lot of "troll" or "flamebait" moderation happens because someone doesn't like what was said, not because it was an actual troll or flamebait. It's kept in check here because of metamoderation, and mod points aren't handed out like candy, but if everyone could "moderate" on/. at any time they wanted, it would be a serious issue. That's what would happen if everyone can report ads as "illegal" or "fake news".
The mitigation strategy is for the satellite operator, not the general public.
So there is no mitigation strategy for the consumers of satellite TV to deal with this alleged horrific security vulnerability. That's kind of the point. Someone else already pointed out the questionable idea of upgrading the OS for a satellite in orbit, I was just pointing to a different absurdity.
Also, it's not security through obscurity when someone makes a hypothetical attack vector.
No, in this case it is called "science fiction". Suspend your disbelief when reading this fictional account of how satellites are built and run and see how horrible the results could be! Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!
I was referencing the argument that we should not share security vulnerabilities....
Yes, I know. One reason you gave is because the consumer could create a mitigation strategy if they know about vulnerabilities. In this case, "go underground" isn't a viable strategy, but then, it is a completely fictional vulnerability to start with.
Hey, if satellites used consumer grade routers of a certain vintage and variety, they could be powned and told to crash into your house because you chased your next door neighbor's dog out of your backyard. He's a HAM! He's got ANTENNAS! He can point them at SATELLITES! He can TRANSMIT stuff you don' t understand! Are you worried? Will you stop chasing your neighbor's dog out of your backyard? Will you "go underground" to avoid the problem?
reread the thread, dumbass.
You needed to stoop to personal insult, it appears. Too bad.
GPS already is known to have government confusers installed...
Paranoia is strong in this one.
Selective availability was turned off a very long time ago (May, 2000), because so many services had come to depend on GPS. It doesn't lie to you, it provides an answer with reduced accuracy.
This was deployed in Massachusetts during the ABC News' Bob Woodruff bomb scares.
Bob Woodruff was injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2006, not Massachusetts, which had nothing to do with GPS at all. SA is not applied to a state, it is a system-wide (global) effect of a small dithering of the data stream.
The reason SA was turned off is because it is very easy to bypass the degradation, either via differential or real-time kinematic GPS systems. There are now national DGPS networks, and wide-area augmentation systems (WAAS) for high precision GPS output.
Of course there are methods to jam GPS, and the military OF COURSE has access to systems to do that, but they can't "turn off" GPS for the "state of Massachusetts", and they certainly wouldn't do that to people in the state of Massachusetts to protect journalists from IEDs in Iraq.
Fourth, it allows consumers to implement mitigation strategies and test them, while a solution is being formulated.
What is your proposed "mitigation strategy" to having a multi-ton, faster than sound communication satellite smashed onto the top of your head?
Is it "security by obscurity" when someone creates hypothetical methods of hacking into a system that they have zero knowledge about, and then announces how insecure those systems are?
If our GPS satellites are that easily hacked (to say nothing of them running on Win95 - seriously?) then we'd deserve that.
If ours are that easily hacked, then you can bet that the Russian's GLONASS and China's BDS are not, nor will the EU Galileo (here) be so easy. Modern GPSs compare results and know when to throw out an SV when it gives stupid answers. If you have a GPS, then update to GNSS and be safe. It costs more than a tinfoil hat, but you can sleep peacefully knowing that your location will be well known.
Breaking news: give hackers unlimited access to 25 voting machines and they will hack into all of them. Bruce Schenier's latest submission to Risks Digest warns of the impending disaster... which could only be worse if Russia dropped a few HBO satellites on major US polling places during the next election!
But to jam e.g. GPS, you need to jam the area where the victims are,
To jam a GPS receiver, you need to provide a signal to the receiver.
You CAN jam the uplink to the GPS satellite so it does not get the relevant ephemeris data (corrections to its and other SV's locations and timing), BUT... the GPS satellites are LEO and will move out of range of your jammer very quickly, and there are other in the visible constellation that can provide the same data.
Jamming the uplink just isn't a very productive thing to do. Jamming the downlink, however, can cause issues for regional users. The military was doing some testing on this not long ago, which was announced to the aviation community through a NOTAM.
Slashdot Mirror
If they didn't read it closely enough to figure out the M&M thing, they probably skimmed the important bits.
Yeah, because in years of providing stage and electrical services, the contractors never learned that it was important that the stage not fall down without needing that detail spelled out in a performance contract with a band. Right. Sure.
My God, what carnage there was before Van Halen started demanding brown-free bowls of M&Ms and that their stage not fall down while they were on it.
More likely they skimmed over the bullshit parts of the contract where the performers demanded ridiculous things, or if they didn't skim that part someone said "this is bullshit" and just didn't do it, or the below-minimum-wage intern they gave the M&M job to wasn't up to the critical task.
On the other hand, stage building and electrical work is a union job, and those people tend not to need bullshit contracts from egotistical performers to know how to do their jobs, and they know that if they fail there are going to be lawsuits.
If someone can't get the obvious, glaring things right, they can't be trusted to get the hidden details right, either.
Yeah, because a single clause hidden deep in a contract, that is considered to be the "pinnacle of rock-and-roll excess", is more important than worrying about issues that can actually kill people at worst, and cause significant legal liability issues for the venue. A flunky that is tasked with the stupid task of sorting M&Ms missing one absolutely proves that the electricians and other contractors hired by the venue are incompetent. Van Halen is trying to spin their ego into something important, which is what an ego tends to do.
The $1M a year isn't paid to the employee.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Of course the savings would be salary PLUS benefits and costs. For normal employees, the usual estimate is the cost of an employee is twice the salary. Even if it is 3 times for this job, then the salary is well north of $200k/year. (One mil divided by 1.4 divided by three.)
And that savings is AFTER spending $1.2 million the first year and ongoing maintenance costs the following ones.
If automation makes this part of forecasting more efficient and less expensive then why are we bitching.
Why are you bitching? I'm not. I'm just pointing out that if they save $1 million a year after installing a $1.2 million machine and it is one FTE of time (ok, 1.4 FTE if you add weekends) then it must be a pretty good paying job -- as opposed to the poorly paying job that the OP claimed.
So while I feel for these low skill employees at NWS,
I think the summary, at least, was pretty explicit in saying it was saving forecaster's time -- and forecasting is not "low skill".
A side-problem is the proliferation of professional services where organizations outsource their tasks like email, timesheets, etc, to, so it truly is becoming impossible to determine what is and is not a phishing attack. My university uses outsourced timesheet entry services, so you have to log in using your university credentials to do your monthly timesheet. They use an outsourced mailing list to send donation requests from the University Foundation. The e-purchasing website is off-site. Even if you personally never buy anything through the e-purchasing site, you get email regarding those purchases that way.
The only way to know a phish these days is because of the poor grammar and spelling. If the scammers ever hire native English speakers to write their phishes, we're all toast.
Unions: "We demand that these people get to keep their boring-ass, poorly paying jobs
If NWS is saving a million a year by getting rid of an employee, then it isn't a poorly paying job.
It seems like they are shooting for 3 FTEs per location,
Eight hours a day is one FTE, not three. I guess if they said they're trying to replace one full time job and two needless supervisors with one machine, someone would have wondered why they needed the extra two people. At $333k/year you're talking about a pretty good paying job, even assuming that the pay is only half the cost of the employee. $150k/year is a good sum. You can see why the union is objecting.
But then, is it REALLY an 8 hour task to prep and launch one of these balloons? Really? Because the robot is getting rid of that job, but it doesn't do the other parts of the process like look at and understand how the data fits into the whole picture, or deal with questions from the local weather users.
There is absolutely a reason for "well established" data to be considered "confidential"
I hope you can provide an example.
Many medical studies' underlying data is confidential.
That example has already been discussed and shown to be incorrect. The PII that you think is being required as supporting medical data is not required. While PII is confidential, the data FROM the study is NOT. Data that says "395 individuals with T2DM participated in a study of ... and X had side-effect Y..." is simply not confidential medical data that needs to be kept secret. Now, if they said "DamnOregonian exhibited fainting spells...", that would be, but the fact that "DamnOregonian" was a test subject is completely irrelevant and NOT part of the data necessary to regulate anything, and is NOT part of the "underlying data" that needs to be reviewable.
If you have a study that you don't want to release the data from because it is "confidential" or "proprietary", that's fine. Don't expect it to be considered when making PUBLIC law. If you don't want people to know that 25% of your test subjects had horrendous side effects from testing with your drug, then keep that data secret -- and don't expect the FDA to approve your drug when you won't tell them that. But don't cry that you have to release data that you don't have to release or pretend that you can't release anything because PII is protected.
You're spreading a whole bunch of bullshit to spin a blatant attempt at discounting the majority of medical studies from regulation consideration.
That claim is bullshit, and you know it. Medical study data is easily reviewable without releasing confidential information. The FDA REQUIRES it, and it is part of many product data sheets. Not only the FDA, but many journals require open access to data used in scientific articles. I have read countless papers that discuss your alleged "confidential medical data" used in numerous studies of various drugs. In fact, there are many papers that do "medical studies" that don't actually collect any data of their own, they use published, public data from other studies (this is called a "meta-study"). None of that data is truly confidential after all. There is no reason for it to be unless you are trying to keep trade secrets, and trade secrets are bad bases for public law.
Lots of people have pointed this fact out, in this and previous discussions on this topic. Ignore it at your peril.
Shame on you, shithead.
I'm sorry, is ad hominem supposed to be acceptable for supporting scientific arguments these days? Shame on you. But, if you can't do more than parrot the nonsense about "confidential medical data" being necessary for regulation, then ad hominem it must be.
This attack on the EPA is perpetuated by supporters of fracking mostly and the science behinds adding lubricants under high pressure causing slippage underground creating earthquakes is pretty well established at this point.
Then there is no reason for this "well established" data to be considered "confidential" or "proprietary", is there? If it is well established and public then this new rule will change nothing at all.
If you look at all the regulations they are repealing right now you'll see it only helps companies pollute more
It's creating scientifically supportable regulation, not overzealous "no pollution is the only acceptable pollution". If you cannot scientifically support a public harm at X ppm of something, then the legal limit should not be 10% of X or lower. And trying to claim that "OMG, some awful corporation is killing us by emitting 1% of X of something into the water" is just dishonest.
You say "pollute more" to pollute the discussion with scare tactics, when the fact is that setting the limits so far below any provable harm levels IS more expensive than performing no cleanup. "Zero" is a lovely but unachievable goal, and casting anything but "zero" as "pollute more" is fear mongering.
If one were to utilize a working key to disassemble a lock and take readings, a six-pin system would require the creation of 36 keys to determine a masterkey.
No. It takes one key per pin to determine all the correct keyings for any lock. I'll leave the process to your imagination, if you have any.
But it that identity is kept confidential at all the study couldn't be used by the EPA if this proposed rule is passed.
That is not true.
the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data
This is not a quote from the EPA, Scott Pruitt, or anyone involved in the process. It's a statement BY A NEWSPAPER that relies on click-through advertising to make a profit. It's hoopla and fearmongering.
First of all, screw "confidential industry data". If it's going to be the basis for a law, it needs to be public, and science needs to be reproducable. If you can't see what it is, you can't even begin to try to reproduce it, and it isn't science.
As for medical data, "confidential medical data" is called PII. Nothing requires that PII be released to make a medical study reproducable.
If you go back to the laws that are behind this, which the newspapers are calling a pet project of Lamar Smith, they don't require "confidential medical data" to be made public. They require the data behind the results of the study to be made public. That does NOT include PII. PII was exempted from the bills the house passed about this. "Joe Smith, aged 34, living at 123 Main Street, who has Type II diabetes was given ..." is NOT part of the results, and it is not data that is relevant to the results. "A study of 384 people aged 30 to 40 with T2DM were given ..." IS the data that is reportable. This should not be able to be hidden under the guise of "confidential data". There should be enough data so that the study can be reproduced -- and that doesn't require using exactly the same people again, it requires knowing what criteria were used to select them and how many, and what the results were.
The concept is pretty simple. If THE GOVERNMENT, which is supposed to be by, of and for the PEOPLE, is going to LIMIT what people can do based on SCIENCE, then that SCIENCE needs to be reviewable by the PUBLIC from whom the government gets its power. By fiat rule based on secrets is not how government should work.
A small, flat metal object with fancy serrations along one edge. You insert it into a slot that has a mechanism that matches...
This! Because making a master one of these would be impossible.
Hint: it takes one valid key and a handful of blanks to figure out the master key.
At that point in time - the conditions were not so draconian as today. This was when a man could disagree with a woman without it being sufficient grounds for dismissal.
It wasn't that. It was you were challenging someone whose job depends on her teaching you about your significant shortcomings, and who has the backing of the management to do that. She being she didn't matter. Find anyone whose job title is "Diversity this" or "Office of Cultural that" and the result is the same. The job they have exists because you are -ist of some kind, even if you don' t know it. In fact, their job is more important if you don't know it, and you saying you aren't is just evidence you are. You need more classes the more you don't accept your flaws.
I'm signed up for "Social Justice Education Initiative" here -- two four hour sessions, which we get bribed to attend with "a delicious lunch" (their words). I get to learn about how my being here is oppressing someone who isn't and such stuff. I'm hoping someone does have the nerve to ask such questions; the last class I had ended with someone FROM one of those "cherished" other cultures asking what was so obviously correct about the one the facilitator was pushing.
There those who say they cherish all cultures but only some parts of them, and point to parents not accepting the bad behaviour of their cherished children as an example. The difference is that a culture is defined by what it does and believes; a child is not defined by their bad behavior, or at least, isn't supposed to be. You can love the child and hate the behaviour, but you cannot cherish a culture and hate the beliefs that create it. Doing the latter is like saying that you cherish the Jewish culture because you like matzo ball soup. It's patently insulting.
And someone made a comment about adopting parts of a culture. That's called "cultural appropriation" and it's currently a Very Bad Thing. It used to be that nobody cared if the owner of a Mexican restaurant was Mexican; today, if you try to "appropriate" Mexican culture by serving Mexican food you are boycotted and forced to apologize. That happened in our fair town not long ago.
Facebook is grimly determined to keep flinging this crap in my face.
You want a social media site where you can send whatever you want to your friends but they can't share their thoughts with you unless you approve of them.
Why are you on Facebook AT ALL? It's not Facebook's fault, you're the one staring into the end of the firehose and wanting it to never emit any water. It's like someone who complains about the danger of being run over by a train. Just step off the tracks and the problem is solved.
the dominant purpose of the flight attendants is facilitate people flying places!
The dominant purpose of flight attendants is to manage critical incidents so that fewer people are injured and likely to sue the airline for wrongful death or injury. A second-level purpose is to facilitate the airline in remaining efficient in operations, which is not the same as facilitating the people. (An example of the difference? If helping you get settled means the aircraft pushes back late, you lose. Sit down and strap in, we'll deal with it later, if at all.)
If flight attendants were not necessary for safety, there would not be flight attendants. They add weight to the flight and cost money in benefits and management.
It's a key ingredient in many fast food meals.
That's like claiming that a toy surprise is a reason for obesity because it is a key ingredient in happy meals. Or cardboard. Or lettuce. It's not the beef itself, it's the other stuff, and the amounts.
so never? meat and milk substitutes still suck arse, only vegans and vegetarians or the ignorant make the claims that it tastes almost as good.
Taste is learned. E.g., Vegemite, Marmite, Spam, Escargot, Haggis. History is filled with substitutes that replace the original after the people who grew up with the originals die and the tasteless youngsters take over. They learn to like the substitute and the original then tastes funny. And sometimes it doesn't take a generation -- personal tastes can change.
Anybody that eats quality meat or milk products just about throws up at the bland garbage being produced as substitutes.
And yet there are lots of people who order tofu or other soy crap because they prefer it. Tastes change. Often, tastes change because convenience or price trumps taste. Who in their right mind would prefer Sunny Delight over real orange juice, and just what is in that hot dog?
In related news, Dean Jerry is seeking work as an advertising spokesman ... and for some unknown reason is highly popular in France.
- there is no "this is blatantly illegal" option. Similarly, after all the furor over fake news, you would have thought there was a way to report fake news for review and taking down.
If they allowed either one, then it would quickly be abused by people who think "I don't agree" means the news is fake, or "I don't think you can do that" means "that is blatantly illegal".
We see that on /. somewhat, where a lot of "troll" or "flamebait" moderation happens because someone doesn't like what was said, not because it was an actual troll or flamebait. It's kept in check here because of metamoderation, and mod points aren't handed out like candy, but if everyone could "moderate" on /. at any time they wanted, it would be a serious issue. That's what would happen if everyone can report ads as "illegal" or "fake news".
The mitigation strategy is for the satellite operator, not the general public.
So there is no mitigation strategy for the consumers of satellite TV to deal with this alleged horrific security vulnerability. That's kind of the point. Someone else already pointed out the questionable idea of upgrading the OS for a satellite in orbit, I was just pointing to a different absurdity.
Also, it's not security through obscurity when someone makes a hypothetical attack vector.
No, in this case it is called "science fiction". Suspend your disbelief when reading this fictional account of how satellites are built and run and see how horrible the results could be! Be afraid! Be very, very afraid!
I was referencing the argument that we should not share security vulnerabilities....
Yes, I know. One reason you gave is because the consumer could create a mitigation strategy if they know about vulnerabilities. In this case, "go underground" isn't a viable strategy, but then, it is a completely fictional vulnerability to start with.
Hey, if satellites used consumer grade routers of a certain vintage and variety, they could be powned and told to crash into your house because you chased your next door neighbor's dog out of your backyard. He's a HAM! He's got ANTENNAS! He can point them at SATELLITES! He can TRANSMIT stuff you don' t understand! Are you worried? Will you stop chasing your neighbor's dog out of your backyard? Will you "go underground" to avoid the problem?
reread the thread, dumbass.
You needed to stoop to personal insult, it appears. Too bad.
GPS already is known to have government confusers installed...
Paranoia is strong in this one. Selective availability was turned off a very long time ago (May, 2000), because so many services had come to depend on GPS. It doesn't lie to you, it provides an answer with reduced accuracy.
This was deployed in Massachusetts during the ABC News' Bob Woodruff bomb scares.
Bob Woodruff was injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2006, not Massachusetts, which had nothing to do with GPS at all. SA is not applied to a state, it is a system-wide (global) effect of a small dithering of the data stream.
The reason SA was turned off is because it is very easy to bypass the degradation, either via differential or real-time kinematic GPS systems. There are now national DGPS networks, and wide-area augmentation systems (WAAS) for high precision GPS output.
Of course there are methods to jam GPS, and the military OF COURSE has access to systems to do that, but they can't "turn off" GPS for the "state of Massachusetts", and they certainly wouldn't do that to people in the state of Massachusetts to protect journalists from IEDs in Iraq.
MEO, LEO, the point is that they aren't sitting still waiting for people to point an antenna at them to jam them.
Fourth, it allows consumers to implement mitigation strategies and test them, while a solution is being formulated.
What is your proposed "mitigation strategy" to having a multi-ton, faster than sound communication satellite smashed onto the top of your head?
Is it "security by obscurity" when someone creates hypothetical methods of hacking into a system that they have zero knowledge about, and then announces how insecure those systems are?
If our GPS satellites are that easily hacked (to say nothing of them running on Win95 - seriously?) then we'd deserve that.
If ours are that easily hacked, then you can bet that the Russian's GLONASS and China's BDS are not, nor will the EU Galileo (here) be so easy. Modern GPSs compare results and know when to throw out an SV when it gives stupid answers. If you have a GPS, then update to GNSS and be safe. It costs more than a tinfoil hat, but you can sleep peacefully knowing that your location will be well known.
Breaking news: give hackers unlimited access to 25 voting machines and they will hack into all of them. Bruce Schenier's latest submission to Risks Digest warns of the impending disaster ... which could only be worse if Russia dropped a few HBO satellites on major US polling places during the next election!
But to jam e.g. GPS, you need to jam the area where the victims are,
To jam a GPS receiver, you need to provide a signal to the receiver.
You CAN jam the uplink to the GPS satellite so it does not get the relevant ephemeris data (corrections to its and other SV's locations and timing), BUT ... the GPS satellites are LEO and will move out of range of your jammer very quickly, and there are other in the visible constellation that can provide the same data.
Jamming the uplink just isn't a very productive thing to do. Jamming the downlink, however, can cause issues for regional users. The military was doing some testing on this not long ago, which was announced to the aviation community through a NOTAM.