Not there only if you don't price externalities in to energy prices.
Think of it this way, if I produce something and dump super toxic byproducts into a river, it's great for me. I don't pay to handle the toxic byproducts. However, while I save money, the families down stream who all get cancer are much worse off.
So, as a society, we don't allow chemical plants to save money by poisoning others.
Coal plants also have poisonous byproducts, but they are not required to care. They kill people, but they are not charged the true cost.
Solution is to charge everyone the true cost of what they're doing.
I'm a little confused. When there's a story on/. about shining lasers on a cockpit, everyone who's ever looked at a flight simulator starts talking about how distracting it is to not be able to see out your window. Now you are saying they don't need to look out the window?
Logically would this mean I can shine all the lasers I'd like at aircraft?
If that was really true then why does this article exist?
It's clear something is encrypted because you have to have it clear the file system should not overwrite and the markers make it quite clear that it's not just random noise. Even more clear is if you open up a computer you know should be working but it asks for a password to decrypt the hard drive.
Bollocks. The only difference between today and the past is that you can easily see an encrypted file, you can know it's encrypted, surmise it's probably got something juicy, and just be unable to break in.
It has the exact same effect as a lot of low tech stuff. For instance, memorizing a secret note than burning it would also leave no trail for law enforcement to follow. As would a secret conversation a thousand years ago you can't overhear because there was no listening devices around back then.
Therefore, I would suggest that actually finding encrypted files law enforcement cannot break into is actually an improvement.
On the one hand, you can make a huge improvement quickly if you do some very simple things like shaving your neck beard, updating your wardrobe, and turning off the computer and going out to speed dating, singles night, or some place where you are guaranteed to meet women looking for a man. Put simply, you can't hunt for deer in the desert, and if you're not making the chance for yourself then it can't happen, ever.
On the other hand it can also be a lot of hard work. You may need to also start dieting and exercising, and really working on your social skills if it doesn't come naturally. In that case while we may be able to state a principle simply enough, it might require a lot of work. For instance, fit guys with six packs get more women, but to become one you can expect six months in the gym every day eating nothing but protein. Easy to say, hard to implement.
Pick up "gurus" who give you tips tend to fall into the latter category of easy to state but work to implement. For instance, they'll tell you to talk to women. This is true, as you simply cannot ever get anywhere with women if you can't even talk to them. But, some guys get very panicky, and this is a HUGE difficulty for them. The solution for this is to start small, and work up your social skills (maybe by learning to first meet new male friends so you don't feel like you need to set up a date or something).
Are they worth it? Dunno. Some people are able to figure out how to talk to women on our own. But I think if a guru, or a dating for dummies book, or another source helps you, you should take advantage.
Hehe. I think the "alpha" thing is and isn't a myth. You're right there's a certain type of woman that appeals to and some it doesn't.
But at the same time, a lot of it is conditioning. All their lives, women are taught they are sluts if they initiate. So they will go up right next to you in the bar, flash their eyelashes, and hope you start.
So if you are interested in getting with women, you do have to man up and learn to be the one who comes over and starts the conversation. Doesn't have to be fancy, can just be "hi," but as a man you must initiate.
Although this sounds like it is meant to be funny and not insightful, were it a serious comment:
"Getting laid" is a skill like programming, hitting a baseball, playing a musical instrument, or building things. While some people may be born with a natural talent, it is still something you can learn.
The first step is to get a bit more mature. You are not "getting laid" you are making love and if you come across as desperate for sex and only wanting one thing, you will not get anywhere.
The second step is to develop your social skills. As a snarky AC pointed out, that means logging off the computer and going out into the real world and learning to interact with people.
And the third step is to make sure you are desirable to people. No girl wants to mate with a neckbeard. You need to take care of yourself so she thinks you'll take care of her.
There are many books / courses / resources on this (so called PUA). Try Richard La Ruina's The Natural. He is a bit less skeevy than some of the others who focus in just on how you get your twig wet and actually focuses in on how you need to help yourself.
The problem is the leverage. Whatever your employer puts in your contract you're basically bound to accept, if most employers do. Same with the terms of your credit card agreements, and all the other little fine print you are legally bound to.
The solution is for our legislature to make it illegal to force people into agreements that put them at a massive disadvantage.
The problem is morons don't remove themselves from the gene pool. They cause accidents that remove others from the gene pool, strengthening the concentration of morons in an already shallow pool
...is they try to fix human behavior via engineering, but people can't really be engineered.
For example, in my home town we had a roundabout from hell. Five highways came into a loop via offramps. Literally once a week there would be an accident and once a month it was a fatal one.
So some brilliant traffic engineers tried to solve the problem by creating off ramps for each other highway. At highway A you could choose to offramp to highway B, C, or D. But the "offramps" used the roundabout, which now had concrete dividers about curb height. The mayor, the local press, and local government kept trumpeting how many lives this would save.
Well, turns out the only thing more dangerous then five highways going into a giant roundabout is five highways going into a roundabout with concrete dividers to slalom around. Accidents became a daily occurrence and fatalities went up.
As it turns out, people are stupid. Sure, if you are new to town and take the time to slow down to read the sign, and drive carefully, you can figure out where you're going. But people zip in at highway speeds, apply the brakes quickly, and try to swerve over.
The problem is not one of engineering, but one of behavior. Modifying the behavior (via police enforcement) would be more effective then a fancy solution.
Specious argument. When you break a $100 bill at the grocery store, and the change is less than $20, do you tell the cashier to keep it because in terms of your net salary per year it's "rounding error"?
Money is a limited resource, and no matter how much a company makes, I can almost guarantee you there was some one who didn't get the budget they wanted due to scarcity of resources.
Additionally, energy efficient lighting savings keep adding up. It's not like cisco will just save $151 mio. They'll save it year over year, which may turn out to be an additional few billion to their bottom line.
He's referring to the fact that because perl coding styles can be so person specific, something programmed in Perl that is mission critical may give a ton of leverage to a programmer you'd rather oust.
Just walk through any major city. I'd say the majority of tourists have giant cameras around their necks, and you can always spot some trying to take "artsy" shots from weird angles.
Additionally, just about everyone I know who is not a serious amateur photographer like me (and some who are) looks at the pictures I've taken and ask for advice and tips.
Photography has become a very mainstream hobby but software is either for n00bs or pros, with no gradual scale. If Apple could make the "Microsoft Word" of photo software, it'd be another feather in their cap.
Don't get me wrong. America has this really annoying tendency to arm "freedom fighters" who turn around and become our enemies. Or to support horrible dictatorships in order to maintain influence in a region / country.
However, you don't see travel to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or Syria banned, do you? (Although it might not be the best idea). And they're more recently at fault then the Castro regime.
Actually, a lot of people just go through an intermediary country. Book a flight to Mexico City, then from Mexico City to Cuba. The Cuban customs will even give you the "stamp" on a piece of paper they staple on your passport. After you leave you can rip it out and the US government never needs know.
Why you would do this when visas are still available is beyond me, but people do do it.
Castro nearly started a global nuclear war. That's why Kennedy had the embargo instituted in the first place, and until Castro is 100% gone the US will never open up to them.
Some people buy fancy cameras and never take them off of program mode.
Others will eventually learn to do things like adjust shutter speed, f stop, iso, etc.
But everyone I talk to wants to be a "photographer" and wants to know how to fiddle with a cameras settings. Same as every guitarist I know, whether or not they can play well, wants to be able to play songs well.
With a camera, or a guitar, you can buy a decent model that will take you all the way (until you get really high end).
With photo software, you don't have that option.
If Apple did the Photos app thing right, they would be able to keep the advanced features and provide a seamless path from n00b to pro.
Yeah but that's the thing. Everyone I've met who has a digital camera thinks they're a photographer, and hell, they WANT to be a photographer.
But right now, you either use a dumbed down program like iPhoto, or a program like Lightroom / Aperture where you can use things like content aware fill, or any of the other magic goodies Adobe / Apple comes up with.
I could see Apple, as a game changer, pull in all sorts of advanced features under one single umbrella. That way, you don't have to buy crazy expensive programs, and you can grow with your program. It'd work out quite brilliantly for Apple if they can pull it off.
Or Apple will push out their zero cost competitor. What would really stop Apple from stripping the best features from Aperture and putting them into iPhoto? TFA suggests that Aperture is being replaced, not discontinued.
There is an interesting question of economics as to what is the true price of something. For instance, when a coal fired plant charges $x for electricity, it also causes health problems for the residents down wind, increases CO2 levels, and a spate of other issues. So the real "price" is paid not by the people burning the coal for electricity, but by society.
It's the same thing for cars. Cars pollute and enough cars can make a city's air unbreathable. They also can create quality of life issues. Which would you rather live in? An area with jam packed highways where you can't walk anywhere or somewhere walkable with nature. Mass transit also works most efficiently when it is used by the most people.
So in this case, it makes sense to say cars should reflect the actual cost to society, and to encourage mass transit use.
This is not so surprising. In his book Freakonomics, Stephen Levitt used econometric techniques (statistics for economists) to show that the most dangerous mode of transportation was not flying, driving, or riding a bicycle, it was walking while drunk.
Fact is, drunk people tend to do stupid things, like walking out in the middle of the road without looking.
Why is it 1 in 10? Well, accidental death in 22-64 year olds is not particularly common. And natural causes, even less so.
Slashdot Mirror
Not there only if you don't price externalities in to energy prices.
Think of it this way, if I produce something and dump super toxic byproducts into a river, it's great for me. I don't pay to handle the toxic byproducts. However, while I save money, the families down stream who all get cancer are much worse off.
So, as a society, we don't allow chemical plants to save money by poisoning others.
Coal plants also have poisonous byproducts, but they are not required to care. They kill people, but they are not charged the true cost.
Solution is to charge everyone the true cost of what they're doing.
I'm a little confused. When there's a story on /. about shining lasers on a cockpit, everyone who's ever looked at a flight simulator starts talking about how distracting it is to not be able to see out your window. Now you are saying they don't need to look out the window?
Logically would this mean I can shine all the lasers I'd like at aircraft?
If that was really true then why does this article exist?
It's clear something is encrypted because you have to have it clear the file system should not overwrite and the markers make it quite clear that it's not just random noise. Even more clear is if you open up a computer you know should be working but it asks for a password to decrypt the hard drive.
Bollocks. The only difference between today and the past is that you can easily see an encrypted file, you can know it's encrypted, surmise it's probably got something juicy, and just be unable to break in.
It has the exact same effect as a lot of low tech stuff. For instance, memorizing a secret note than burning it would also leave no trail for law enforcement to follow. As would a secret conversation a thousand years ago you can't overhear because there was no listening devices around back then.
Therefore, I would suggest that actually finding encrypted files law enforcement cannot break into is actually an improvement.
It is and it isn't simple steps.
On the one hand, you can make a huge improvement quickly if you do some very simple things like shaving your neck beard, updating your wardrobe, and turning off the computer and going out to speed dating, singles night, or some place where you are guaranteed to meet women looking for a man. Put simply, you can't hunt for deer in the desert, and if you're not making the chance for yourself then it can't happen, ever.
On the other hand it can also be a lot of hard work. You may need to also start dieting and exercising, and really working on your social skills if it doesn't come naturally. In that case while we may be able to state a principle simply enough, it might require a lot of work. For instance, fit guys with six packs get more women, but to become one you can expect six months in the gym every day eating nothing but protein. Easy to say, hard to implement.
Pick up "gurus" who give you tips tend to fall into the latter category of easy to state but work to implement. For instance, they'll tell you to talk to women. This is true, as you simply cannot ever get anywhere with women if you can't even talk to them. But, some guys get very panicky, and this is a HUGE difficulty for them. The solution for this is to start small, and work up your social skills (maybe by learning to first meet new male friends so you don't feel like you need to set up a date or something).
Are they worth it? Dunno. Some people are able to figure out how to talk to women on our own. But I think if a guru, or a dating for dummies book, or another source helps you, you should take advantage.
Hehe. I think the "alpha" thing is and isn't a myth. You're right there's a certain type of woman that appeals to and some it doesn't.
But at the same time, a lot of it is conditioning. All their lives, women are taught they are sluts if they initiate. So they will go up right next to you in the bar, flash their eyelashes, and hope you start.
So if you are interested in getting with women, you do have to man up and learn to be the one who comes over and starts the conversation. Doesn't have to be fancy, can just be "hi," but as a man you must initiate.
Although this sounds like it is meant to be funny and not insightful, were it a serious comment:
"Getting laid" is a skill like programming, hitting a baseball, playing a musical instrument, or building things. While some people may be born with a natural talent, it is still something you can learn.
The first step is to get a bit more mature. You are not "getting laid" you are making love and if you come across as desperate for sex and only wanting one thing, you will not get anywhere.
The second step is to develop your social skills. As a snarky AC pointed out, that means logging off the computer and going out into the real world and learning to interact with people.
And the third step is to make sure you are desirable to people. No girl wants to mate with a neckbeard. You need to take care of yourself so she thinks you'll take care of her.
There are many books / courses / resources on this (so called PUA). Try Richard La Ruina's The Natural. He is a bit less skeevy than some of the others who focus in just on how you get your twig wet and actually focuses in on how you need to help yourself.
Part of the problem is the appearance of legality. If it's unenforceable, but you think it's enforceable, you will act as if it's valid
The problem is the leverage. Whatever your employer puts in your contract you're basically bound to accept, if most employers do. Same with the terms of your credit card agreements, and all the other little fine print you are legally bound to.
The solution is for our legislature to make it illegal to force people into agreements that put them at a massive disadvantage.
In many jurisdictions that is the only way a non-compete is enforceable. For instance, in the EU this is the ONLY legal way to have a non-compete.
The problem is morons don't remove themselves from the gene pool. They cause accidents that remove others from the gene pool, strengthening the concentration of morons in an already shallow pool
...is they try to fix human behavior via engineering, but people can't really be engineered.
For example, in my home town we had a roundabout from hell. Five highways came into a loop via offramps. Literally once a week there would be an accident and once a month it was a fatal one.
So some brilliant traffic engineers tried to solve the problem by creating off ramps for each other highway. At highway A you could choose to offramp to highway B, C, or D. But the "offramps" used the roundabout, which now had concrete dividers about curb height. The mayor, the local press, and local government kept trumpeting how many lives this would save.
Well, turns out the only thing more dangerous then five highways going into a giant roundabout is five highways going into a roundabout with concrete dividers to slalom around. Accidents became a daily occurrence and fatalities went up.
As it turns out, people are stupid. Sure, if you are new to town and take the time to slow down to read the sign, and drive carefully, you can figure out where you're going. But people zip in at highway speeds, apply the brakes quickly, and try to swerve over.
The problem is not one of engineering, but one of behavior. Modifying the behavior (via police enforcement) would be more effective then a fancy solution.
Specious argument. When you break a $100 bill at the grocery store, and the change is less than $20, do you tell the cashier to keep it because in terms of your net salary per year it's "rounding error"?
Money is a limited resource, and no matter how much a company makes, I can almost guarantee you there was some one who didn't get the budget they wanted due to scarcity of resources.
Additionally, energy efficient lighting savings keep adding up. It's not like cisco will just save $151 mio. They'll save it year over year, which may turn out to be an additional few billion to their bottom line.
He's referring to the fact that because perl coding styles can be so person specific, something programmed in Perl that is mission critical may give a ton of leverage to a programmer you'd rather oust.
That may very well be true
Just walk through any major city. I'd say the majority of tourists have giant cameras around their necks, and you can always spot some trying to take "artsy" shots from weird angles.
Additionally, just about everyone I know who is not a serious amateur photographer like me (and some who are) looks at the pictures I've taken and ask for advice and tips.
Photography has become a very mainstream hobby but software is either for n00bs or pros, with no gradual scale. If Apple could make the "Microsoft Word" of photo software, it'd be another feather in their cap.
Don't get me wrong. America has this really annoying tendency to arm "freedom fighters" who turn around and become our enemies. Or to support horrible dictatorships in order to maintain influence in a region / country.
However, you don't see travel to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or Syria banned, do you? (Although it might not be the best idea). And they're more recently at fault then the Castro regime.
Actually, a lot of people just go through an intermediary country. Book a flight to Mexico City, then from Mexico City to Cuba. The Cuban customs will even give you the "stamp" on a piece of paper they staple on your passport. After you leave you can rip it out and the US government never needs know.
Why you would do this when visas are still available is beyond me, but people do do it.
Bollocks.
Castro nearly started a global nuclear war. That's why Kennedy had the embargo instituted in the first place, and until Castro is 100% gone the US will never open up to them.
OK but look at most DSLRs.
Some people buy fancy cameras and never take them off of program mode.
Others will eventually learn to do things like adjust shutter speed, f stop, iso, etc.
But everyone I talk to wants to be a "photographer" and wants to know how to fiddle with a cameras settings. Same as every guitarist I know, whether or not they can play well, wants to be able to play songs well.
With a camera, or a guitar, you can buy a decent model that will take you all the way (until you get really high end).
With photo software, you don't have that option.
If Apple did the Photos app thing right, they would be able to keep the advanced features and provide a seamless path from n00b to pro.
Yeah but that's the thing. Everyone I've met who has a digital camera thinks they're a photographer, and hell, they WANT to be a photographer.
But right now, you either use a dumbed down program like iPhoto, or a program like Lightroom / Aperture where you can use things like content aware fill, or any of the other magic goodies Adobe / Apple comes up with.
I could see Apple, as a game changer, pull in all sorts of advanced features under one single umbrella. That way, you don't have to buy crazy expensive programs, and you can grow with your program. It'd work out quite brilliantly for Apple if they can pull it off.
Or Apple will push out their zero cost competitor. What would really stop Apple from stripping the best features from Aperture and putting them into iPhoto? TFA suggests that Aperture is being replaced, not discontinued.
There is an interesting question of economics as to what is the true price of something. For instance, when a coal fired plant charges $x for electricity, it also causes health problems for the residents down wind, increases CO2 levels, and a spate of other issues. So the real "price" is paid not by the people burning the coal for electricity, but by society.
It's the same thing for cars. Cars pollute and enough cars can make a city's air unbreathable. They also can create quality of life issues. Which would you rather live in? An area with jam packed highways where you can't walk anywhere or somewhere walkable with nature. Mass transit also works most efficiently when it is used by the most people.
So in this case, it makes sense to say cars should reflect the actual cost to society, and to encourage mass transit use.
This is not so surprising. In his book Freakonomics, Stephen Levitt used econometric techniques (statistics for economists) to show that the most dangerous mode of transportation was not flying, driving, or riding a bicycle, it was walking while drunk.
Fact is, drunk people tend to do stupid things, like walking out in the middle of the road without looking.
Why is it 1 in 10? Well, accidental death in 22-64 year olds is not particularly common. And natural causes, even less so.
Very valid point.