This is very interesting. Do you remember the name of the study or have a link you can refer me to?
The obvious question is how and why this happened. Are computer chips being shielded? Did EMP only affect transistors and vacuum tubes and no one realized it? Or have we switched to smaller parts that are less affected by the wavelengths involved?
Buy any such car, then go in and physically remove the antena connecting the smart computer to the wireless world.
You do NOT need to let OnStar or similar capabilities. No need for it at all. Maybe if your car was self-driving and designed to network with other cars you would need such functionality, but the ability to call for help or use wifi or wireless diagnostics is NOT worth making it hackable
Once you do this, your car is as safe from hacking as it needs to be.
It cost a lot of money, destroyed productive individuals lives, led to people pleading guilty to lesser charges even when they were innocent, and most importantly, did not discourage the crime.
Fear of longer prison sentences does not in any way affect the decision to commit a crime.
With regards to online piracy, the people involved generally do not consider it a crime and so do not consider the legal ramifications. It's kind of like if you went to North Korea, you won't be less inclined to give out a bible if they tell you it's 10 years than if they say 1 year in jail.
Say you want to find out if certain candies act as a libido increaser.
You a do a study on 20 different candies. One of them seems to act like a weak form of viagra, at a 95% certainty that it isn't random chance. Except 95% is also known as one in 20 and you tested 20 candies...
If you didn't start out saying you were testing if M&M's were the viagra, you can claim that you have a positive effect. But if you were forced to specify the candy you were testing, you get negative results - and a hint to try another study.
In science this kind of thing happens often - only instead of testing 20 candies, they test one item against 20 different 'cures' (decrease weight, increases sensitivity to insulin, sleep aid, congestion aid, etc. etc.),
The stronger and better a creature, the less need for it to be intelligent.
An octopus developed it's high intelligence as a by product of learning how to use so many arms. But simply because it was more efficient to put the neurons in the arms, it makes it harder to steal those neurons to use for other purposes and allow those arms to vesitgilize, the way homonids vestigialized our jaw muscles, freeing up the skull for brains rather than muscles and bone.
I love how you talk about the minute amount of money going to science - but totally ignore the HUGE amount of money going to the polluters.
1. Politicians on BOTH sides use it as a weapon - but only the GOP makes it a focus. Democrats talk about being pro-environment, while the GOP vilifies the scientist. As for Al Gore - he did what he did after QUITTING politics.
2. The corporations make far more money polluting than they do fighting pollution.
3. The Universities get grant money from both sides - but you only hear about it from the green side because their studies are the one that keeping being proven, while the polluters keep getting negative results.
4. Anyone that thinks the UN needs to be relevant - inside or outside the security council has no idea what they do. It's not just about peace, it's about cooperation, education, etc. etc. etc. The UN doesn't need this issue.
5. You are totally correct that little countries complain about this. You are totally stupid if you think that they aren't telling the truth. The big kids bully the little kids, not the other way around. Calling the little kids whiners says more about you than it does about the little kids.
6. We don't need to justify protectionist policies, the Republicans are more than happy enough to do it for no reason.
It goes on and on and on - only because you refuse to admit there is a real problem. We need research and political limitations to delay it until we have a scientific solution. Yes that means some sacrifice from us today to help our children tomorrow. Only an douche-bag insists on spending their money on a big TV without putting anything into the kids college fund.
Have you ever looked inside a kitchen cabinet? If you fill it with the normal, round plates and glasses, the corners are almost NEVER used.
The only advantage from square architecture is that it maximizes volume... WHEN FILLED WITH EASILY AVAILABLE RECTANGULAR furnishings. But those furnishings themselves waste the corners. No one uses the back left and right corners of a chair. No one can every make full use of the corner piece is a wall to wall bookshelves.
As this pod comes with it's own furnishings, it does not have the major problem that you foolishly overlook in all rectangular housing. The oval shape does not waste a single bit of volume internally. Everything is accessible.
But that isn't why it's oval. The reason why the external shape is oval is because such a shape is far more storm resistant Wind and rain does not have a single surface to push against. The wind coming directly at the north side pushes the center directly back, but an inch to the left it pushes back and slightly to the right. An inch to the right pushes back and slightly left. The right/left forces meet in an arch, cancelling themselves out. Such a shape can withstand 10 times what a flat surface can withstand. It's called aerodynamics. Notice how planes and cars are round, not boxy. In addition, it withstands flying debris almost as well. Unless a rock happens to hit it directly head on, it is deflected by the oval shape. If you do a minimal amount of research you will discover that round houses are far more storm resistant. This applies even if the shape is merely octagonal, rather than truly round, but spherical/ovoid is the best when it comes to storm resistance.
Finally the door. It is true that the gull wing shape makes it easier to remove in a storm - if it is open. But closed, it makes for a tighter fit.
More importantly, a gull wing door makes the opening wider by the width of the door. It isn't quite as intelligent as a sliding door system, but that has some other problems.
You are correct that the standard rectangular shape is cheaper.
This shape was chosen because while more expensive, it is FAR MORE PRACTICAL. It stands up to a storm better, collects the rain better, conserves heat/cold better, and also is a far more efficient use of space - as long as it is filled with custom designed furnishings (which it comes with).
I am so tired of people saying "you have to enforce it, even for the little things". That is bull crap. Not true at all. Zero tolerance policies cause more problems than they are worth - ALL the time.
One of the worst examples was the kids school that Disney sued. Disney falsely claimed that by giving away or by charging minimal values, it opened them up to law suits from other locations demanding the same treatment. After it happened, Universal gave that school - for free - the use of their characters - Yogi Bear, Scooby Doo, Flintstones, etc. That happened in 1989.
Funny how Universal never ran into any lawsuits demanding the same treatment. Not a single one in all of 26 years.
Zero tolerance parties never make any sense. You do NOT need to enforce a policy for the little things in order to be able to enforce it for the big things. A mere warning is most often more than enough than actual punishment. A letter written to the Day school - offering a $10,000 donation in kind of a license to use the Disney characters would have been more than enough to maintain their copyright. Similarly, a strict warning and perhaps a one day suspension (no pay) would have let this employee off without endangering the "no press" rule's sanctity.
Other examples are very very common. Cops routinely ignore people traveling at 58 mph in a 55 mph zone. Some businesses routinely let people leave early on the day before a three day weekend.
In most cases where someone/some group enforces a rule strictly it's because some shmuck has an agenda to push, not because it enforcing it loosely wouldn't work.
Not true. You are objecting, so it isn't universally tolerated.
Also, short men get paid less, date less, get married later in life - but stay married longer (as in when women finally date them they realize what they were missing and the men don't cheat). When asked about this, people talk about a single study (without any reference to it's validity or checking to see if it was large enough) that says "it's about height during childhood, not height at adult, so it must be that short men don't learn the right skills"
How would women or blacks feel if someone said "women/blacks get paid less because they never learned the social skills white get"? Really short men get paid less than women (of any height) do. Society screws over short men as much as fat people.
Let me get this straight - in the same post you ask me a question and yell at me for not answering? Did you learn how to use the internet today? Or rather did you THINK you learned how to use the internet today?
She did the following:
1) Got 21 billion in funding for the rebuilding of the WTC
2) Improved the US relationship with the Pre-Putin Russia (lasted for 3 years before Putin took over again).
3) Added soldiers to Afganistan, when Biden was against it.
4) Created many of the sanctions against Iran that Obama gave away in the new treaty. Note, the GOP that now loves those sanctions stated they were useless when she proposed them.
When you said "I thought so", you were wrong - again.
You said it is proven. Fine. Name one thing she has done that is against the law - as interpreted by the liberals you hate. Because people on BOTH sides lie in politics which means we can't trust what you claim the law is.
The quite truth the fact that you personally (and TV personalities you like) keep shouting about what the law is does not make it true.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly proven that educated, CONSERVATIVE Republicans disagree with the Conservative TV personalities when it comes to what the US Constitution says.
In general the statement "pretty much proven " is NEVER true when talking about politics. You want to make that claim, fine - you HAVE to show the proof. Otherwise you come off looking like a partisan idiot that believes everything his own party/people say and disbelieves anything the opponent has.
As for your silly idea that voting a vagina into office has anything to do with it: Palin and Bachmann are not on the ticket, proving your wrong. The only other serious female contender, Carly Fiorina is not in the GOP top 10. That basically shows that you are totally clueless about why people like Clinton. That fact that you think that was 'proven" just indicates you couldn't recognize proof it if came up to you, hit you in the balls then wrote proof on your forehead.
Clinton is on the ticket for 4 four reasons:
1. Her husband was our best President since at least Reagan, if not since Johnson. He presided over the best economy - 8 years without a recession, among other things. Granted, those are things BILL did, not her - but the GOP has successfully painter her as the woman behind the man.
2. The Conservatives hate her and keep attacking her WITHOUT making anything stick. That alone is a great reason to vote for her. I.e. all your 'proof' about her breaking the law is not actually proof, and the unproven accusations that the GOP keeps making instead make her look better and better to the rest of the country.
3. She has a good record of actual accomplishments in the Senate and as Sec. of State.
4. She speaks well, and is known to be cunning. America likes a President that can not only understand things, but that can outwit her opponent.
Honestly, if I wanted a president based on demographics, I would go for someone of Mexican decent. We already know the Democrats are going to win the Black vote by a large margin and the woman vote by a small one. If we can get the Hispanic vote in large quantities, the GOP couldn't beat us. I really smart Hispanic candidate could put Texas into play - and without Texas, the GOP has no chance at all of winning the presidential election.
True - NOW. But this statement was NOT true when she began the process.
Was it an intelligent thing to do? No. But she never broke the law.
Her stupidest action was not breaking a law that hadn't been written yet. Instead, her stupidest action was attempting to maintain her privacy while running for President. ANY attempt to maintain any privacy at all while running for President gets interrupted has "Cover Up". Not reveal your long form birth certificate? Must be something wrong with it. Reveal your tax records only for the last 10 years? What happened 11 years ago?
Not giving the entire set of emails, including the private and personal ones was a moronic move on her part that may end up costing her the Presidency. If she gets elected anyway - still a high probability - she will have to stop trying to keep anything private.
There used to be a popular psychiatric idea that people needed to vent their anger. People were told to yell or even hit pillows. This was pretty much proven wrong.
Venting of - ANY kind - tends to reinforce the issue, not make you feel less angry.
Some people even now state that bottling them up is better. But most state that discussing the issue calmly, preferably with someone whose job it is to keep you calm, works best.
The lack of a state record of every single fingerprint, DNA sample, iris picture, etc. foil more crimes than the lack of a back door on secure phones. Similarly, the lack of cameras inside people's homes foils more crimes than the proposed phone back door.
Security and privacy are opposites. The more we have of one, the less we have of the other. Any mother tempted to look inside their teenager's diary knows this.
The question is not and never has been, could we obtain more security by giving up some privacy.
Instead the question is, what issues are so substantial that an invasion of privacy is required - and how large an invasion would that be.
The proposed invasion of privacy - a back door in every single phones - where like it or not, people keep nude photos, sexy text messages, GPS data, contact information, etc. etc. is HUGE. The proposed security enhancement is minor.
If they claim that the short film is so similar to theirs as to require a DMCA takedown, then by definition, their long film is so similar to the short one that they are in violation of it's copyright.
I would counter sue them right away for the entire profits from Pixel. Whoops, forgot I was talking about the movie business, where they claim no profits (Return of the Jedi officially has 0 profits - and they wonder why people feel fine downloading their movies). Make that for their entire INCOME.
My sister is a lawyer who is semi-famous for defending car accidents, particularly drunk driving cases.
Her industry may not exist in 20 years.
In fact, all traffic based lawsuits may vanish as people find it makes more sense to move to a no-fault insurance system when most cars are driven by computer.
Not equivalent. Traffic deaths have dropped but monetary damages per accident has gone up.
One of the major reasons traffic deaths went down is we redesigned cars so that instead of being able to withstand a crash without injury to the car, they absorb the crash in a 'crush zone', meaning the car itself takes the damage instead of a person.
In addition, the value of cars has risen over that time, as we put in a lot more features on them. So damages went up
Slashdot Mirror
The obvious question is how and why this happened. Are computer chips being shielded? Did EMP only affect transistors and vacuum tubes and no one realized it? Or have we switched to smaller parts that are less affected by the wavelengths involved?
You do NOT need to let OnStar or similar capabilities. No need for it at all. Maybe if your car was self-driving and designed to network with other cars you would need such functionality, but the ability to call for help or use wifi or wireless diagnostics is NOT worth making it hackable
Once you do this, your car is as safe from hacking as it needs to be.
No way this is as cheap as a paperback, nor as long lasting as an acid-free book.
No one would buy this to read.
It's just a publicity stunt - and one not worth hearing about.
Fear of longer prison sentences does not in any way affect the decision to commit a crime.
With regards to online piracy, the people involved generally do not consider it a crime and so do not consider the legal ramifications. It's kind of like if you went to North Korea, you won't be less inclined to give out a bible if they tell you it's 10 years than if they say 1 year in jail.
Say you want to find out if certain candies act as a libido increaser.
You a do a study on 20 different candies. One of them seems to act like a weak form of viagra, at a 95% certainty that it isn't random chance. Except 95% is also known as one in 20 and you tested 20 candies...
If you didn't start out saying you were testing if M&M's were the viagra, you can claim that you have a positive effect. But if you were forced to specify the candy you were testing, you get negative results - and a hint to try another study.
In science this kind of thing happens often - only instead of testing 20 candies, they test one item against 20 different 'cures' (decrease weight, increases sensitivity to insulin, sleep aid, congestion aid, etc. etc.),
Thanks. Apparently, he thinks clean skin means cool ...and stupid.
An octopus developed it's high intelligence as a by product of learning how to use so many arms. But simply because it was more efficient to put the neurons in the arms, it makes it harder to steal those neurons to use for other purposes and allow those arms to vesitgilize, the way homonids vestigialized our jaw muscles, freeing up the skull for brains rather than muscles and bone.
I don't speak British - is spotty some kind of mean insult? Or does he just mean unreliable as in a spotty paint job.
Where space is limited - such as on a long vacation.
Where the book is really big and heavy.
But when there are diagrams/maps in a book, the ebooks fail miserably.
When I want to read in the tub, ebooks fail.
When I want something that can fit in my pants pocket, ebooks fail - but paperbacks deliver.
When I want to borrow/lend a book, ebooks make it too much trouble, but a paperback is easy.
When I want to throw a book in a backpack, paperback wins.
1. Politicians on BOTH sides use it as a weapon - but only the GOP makes it a focus. Democrats talk about being pro-environment, while the GOP vilifies the scientist. As for Al Gore - he did what he did after QUITTING politics.
2. The corporations make far more money polluting than they do fighting pollution.
3. The Universities get grant money from both sides - but you only hear about it from the green side because their studies are the one that keeping being proven, while the polluters keep getting negative results.
4. Anyone that thinks the UN needs to be relevant - inside or outside the security council has no idea what they do. It's not just about peace, it's about cooperation, education, etc. etc. etc. The UN doesn't need this issue.
5. You are totally correct that little countries complain about this. You are totally stupid if you think that they aren't telling the truth. The big kids bully the little kids, not the other way around. Calling the little kids whiners says more about you than it does about the little kids.
6. We don't need to justify protectionist policies, the Republicans are more than happy enough to do it for no reason.
It goes on and on and on - only because you refuse to admit there is a real problem. We need research and political limitations to delay it until we have a scientific solution. Yes that means some sacrifice from us today to help our children tomorrow. Only an douche-bag insists on spending their money on a big TV without putting anything into the kids college fund.
My doctor doesn't, he uses an electronic device. Not sure what it is called.
The only advantage from square architecture is that it maximizes volume ... WHEN FILLED WITH EASILY AVAILABLE RECTANGULAR furnishings. But those furnishings themselves waste the corners. No one uses the back left and right corners of a chair. No one can every make full use of the corner piece is a wall to wall bookshelves.
As this pod comes with it's own furnishings, it does not have the major problem that you foolishly overlook in all rectangular housing. The oval shape does not waste a single bit of volume internally. Everything is accessible.
But that isn't why it's oval. The reason why the external shape is oval is because such a shape is far more storm resistant Wind and rain does not have a single surface to push against. The wind coming directly at the north side pushes the center directly back, but an inch to the left it pushes back and slightly to the right. An inch to the right pushes back and slightly left. The right/left forces meet in an arch, cancelling themselves out. Such a shape can withstand 10 times what a flat surface can withstand. It's called aerodynamics. Notice how planes and cars are round, not boxy. In addition, it withstands flying debris almost as well. Unless a rock happens to hit it directly head on, it is deflected by the oval shape. If you do a minimal amount of research you will discover that round houses are far more storm resistant. This applies even if the shape is merely octagonal, rather than truly round, but spherical/ovoid is the best when it comes to storm resistance.
Finally the door. It is true that the gull wing shape makes it easier to remove in a storm - if it is open. But closed, it makes for a tighter fit.
More importantly, a gull wing door makes the opening wider by the width of the door. It isn't quite as intelligent as a sliding door system, but that has some other problems.
You are correct that the standard rectangular shape is cheaper.
This shape was chosen because while more expensive, it is FAR MORE PRACTICAL. It stands up to a storm better, collects the rain better, conserves heat/cold better, and also is a far more efficient use of space - as long as it is filled with custom designed furnishings (which it comes with).
One of the worst examples was the kids school that Disney sued. Disney falsely claimed that by giving away or by charging minimal values, it opened them up to law suits from other locations demanding the same treatment. After it happened, Universal gave that school - for free - the use of their characters - Yogi Bear, Scooby Doo, Flintstones, etc. That happened in 1989.
Funny how Universal never ran into any lawsuits demanding the same treatment. Not a single one in all of 26 years.
Zero tolerance parties never make any sense. You do NOT need to enforce a policy for the little things in order to be able to enforce it for the big things. A mere warning is most often more than enough than actual punishment. A letter written to the Day school - offering a $10,000 donation in kind of a license to use the Disney characters would have been more than enough to maintain their copyright. Similarly, a strict warning and perhaps a one day suspension (no pay) would have let this employee off without endangering the "no press" rule's sanctity.
Other examples are very very common. Cops routinely ignore people traveling at 58 mph in a 55 mph zone. Some businesses routinely let people leave early on the day before a three day weekend.
In most cases where someone/some group enforces a rule strictly it's because some shmuck has an agenda to push, not because it enforcing it loosely wouldn't work.
Also, short men get paid less, date less, get married later in life - but stay married longer (as in when women finally date them they realize what they were missing and the men don't cheat). When asked about this, people talk about a single study (without any reference to it's validity or checking to see if it was large enough) that says "it's about height during childhood, not height at adult, so it must be that short men don't learn the right skills"
How would women or blacks feel if someone said "women/blacks get paid less because they never learned the social skills white get"? Really short men get paid less than women (of any height) do. Society screws over short men as much as fat people.
The Nepal Airlines once sacrificed a goat to appease a Hindu God. But like this story, it says more about Nepal than it does about Airlines.
Other airlines will no doubt ignore Uzbekistan, just as we ignore Nepal Airlines.
She did the following:
1) Got 21 billion in funding for the rebuilding of the WTC
2) Improved the US relationship with the Pre-Putin Russia (lasted for 3 years before Putin took over again).
3) Added soldiers to Afganistan, when Biden was against it.
4) Created many of the sanctions against Iran that Obama gave away in the new treaty. Note, the GOP that now loves those sanctions stated they were useless when she proposed them.
When you said "I thought so", you were wrong - again.
The quite truth the fact that you personally (and TV personalities you like) keep shouting about what the law is does not make it true.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly proven that educated, CONSERVATIVE Republicans disagree with the Conservative TV personalities when it comes to what the US Constitution says.
In general the statement "pretty much proven " is NEVER true when talking about politics. You want to make that claim, fine - you HAVE to show the proof. Otherwise you come off looking like a partisan idiot that believes everything his own party/people say and disbelieves anything the opponent has.
As for your silly idea that voting a vagina into office has anything to do with it: Palin and Bachmann are not on the ticket, proving your wrong. The only other serious female contender, Carly Fiorina is not in the GOP top 10. That basically shows that you are totally clueless about why people like Clinton. That fact that you think that was 'proven" just indicates you couldn't recognize proof it if came up to you, hit you in the balls then wrote proof on your forehead.
Clinton is on the ticket for 4 four reasons:
1. Her husband was our best President since at least Reagan, if not since Johnson. He presided over the best economy - 8 years without a recession, among other things. Granted, those are things BILL did, not her - but the GOP has successfully painter her as the woman behind the man.
2. The Conservatives hate her and keep attacking her WITHOUT making anything stick. That alone is a great reason to vote for her. I.e. all your 'proof' about her breaking the law is not actually proof, and the unproven accusations that the GOP keeps making instead make her look better and better to the rest of the country.
3. She has a good record of actual accomplishments in the Senate and as Sec. of State.
4. She speaks well, and is known to be cunning. America likes a President that can not only understand things, but that can outwit her opponent.
Honestly, if I wanted a president based on demographics, I would go for someone of Mexican decent. We already know the Democrats are going to win the Black vote by a large margin and the woman vote by a small one. If we can get the Hispanic vote in large quantities, the GOP couldn't beat us. I really smart Hispanic candidate could put Texas into play - and without Texas, the GOP has no chance at all of winning the presidential election.
Was it an intelligent thing to do? No. But she never broke the law.
Her stupidest action was not breaking a law that hadn't been written yet. Instead, her stupidest action was attempting to maintain her privacy while running for President. ANY attempt to maintain any privacy at all while running for President gets interrupted has "Cover Up". Not reveal your long form birth certificate? Must be something wrong with it. Reveal your tax records only for the last 10 years? What happened 11 years ago?
Not giving the entire set of emails, including the private and personal ones was a moronic move on her part that may end up costing her the Presidency. If she gets elected anyway - still a high probability - she will have to stop trying to keep anything private.
Venting of - ANY kind - tends to reinforce the issue, not make you feel less angry.
Some people even now state that bottling them up is better. But most state that discussing the issue calmly, preferably with someone whose job it is to keep you calm, works best.
Security and privacy are opposites. The more we have of one, the less we have of the other. Any mother tempted to look inside their teenager's diary knows this.
The question is not and never has been, could we obtain more security by giving up some privacy.
Instead the question is, what issues are so substantial that an invasion of privacy is required - and how large an invasion would that be.
The proposed invasion of privacy - a back door in every single phones - where like it or not, people keep nude photos, sexy text messages, GPS data, contact information, etc. etc. is HUGE. The proposed security enhancement is minor.
If they claim that the short film is so similar to theirs as to require a DMCA takedown, then by definition, their long film is so similar to the short one that they are in violation of it's copyright.
I would counter sue them right away for the entire profits from Pixel. Whoops, forgot I was talking about the movie business, where they claim no profits (Return of the Jedi officially has 0 profits - and they wonder why people feel fine downloading their movies). Make that for their entire INCOME.
Sarcasm does not show very well on the internet.
Her industry may not exist in 20 years.
In fact, all traffic based lawsuits may vanish as people find it makes more sense to move to a no-fault insurance system when most cars are driven by computer.
One of the major reasons traffic deaths went down is we redesigned cars so that instead of being able to withstand a crash without injury to the car, they absorb the crash in a 'crush zone', meaning the car itself takes the damage instead of a person.
In addition, the value of cars has risen over that time, as we put in a lot more features on them. So damages went up
I am thinking $340 thousand to test it seems reasonable. After all, when I test a $3.40 cable, they easily spend 34 thousand to test it.