My experience with charity is that it's either scams (like Goodwill, which is a private for profit company that bills itself a charity) or they're just there to give well to do and wealthy people a balm on their conscience. e.g. they make you feel better without actually doing anything of material value. I know that sounds harsh, but, well, reality is harsh. I've had relatives hit rock bottom with major medical issues and charities gave them $20 gift cards to buy groceries. The Government paid for the medical care that kept them alive and made them healthy again.
My experience with government is that it's either scams (like the IRS, which is a partisan political tool of congress and the president that bills itself an independent and non-partisan entity) or they're just there to give well to do and wealthy people a balm on their conscience. e.g. they make you feel better without actually doing anything of material value because you've paid your taxes so you've done all you need to do to "help the poor". I know that sounds harsh, but, well, reality is harsh.
I just do not get how governmnet screwing up healthcare so badly in the USA could possibly cause people to think, "the solution is more government involvement in healthcare." I will believe the government is serious about fixing healthcare in the USA when they do something about the shortage of primary care providers (a problem which the AMA is actively preventing from being fixed), require price transparency (I mean, by law if I take my car to a mechanic, they have to give me a written estimate and have to obtain my approval to do work that will be higher than the estimate), and let people decide what coverages to buy (if I am young and healthy and all I want is coverage in case of a major accident or cancer diagnosis, etc., that should be my choice).
However, just about everything that the government has done in the healthcare space has been in suport of major corporate players.
That is true for a frightening number of people. However, what I find more frightening is the number of people for whom that is a direct result of personal choice. Granted, I do not have the largest circle of friends, but literally every single person with whom I am acquanted that would suffer severe financial hardship (including the possibility of homelessness) resulting from a job loss, manages to enjoy lots of luxuries. One who I can think of recently bought an expensive motorcycle (on credit, naturally), another goes on a big expensive vacation every year (puts it all on credit cards and takes until about the time of the next year's trip to pay it off), while yet another bought a house far larger and more expensive than they could afford to manage, etc. People like that are by their own choices putting themselves in a bad position.
If you're under 65 we have no safety net whatsoever (and a weak one if you're over 65).
There are actually lots of private charitable organizations out there, including soup kitchens, food pantries, single and family shelters, individual churches, etc. If you think our safety net is lacking, you can always give to one of those organizations or even volunteer yourself.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are agreeing with GP's premise that Facebook is eliminating competition?
To be sure, you are saying that the competition is happy to be eliminated, but that's not the point.
I think you misunderstand. While there are certainly some companies out there that present legitimate competition to Facebook and others, not all of them do. In fact, though I do not have data to back it up, I have talked with enough people on the startup scene that I get the sense that very few startups intend to compete directly with Facebook and others. Their objective from the early on is to fille a niche that is ignored by the big guys or to get acquired. If not for the possibility of getting acquired, it is even likely that they would not have started up. I do not consider that real competition.
Now, where I think the focus should be is on Facebook' and others' leveraged buyouts or hostile takeovers (or those done by their proxies). Those are far more likely to be cases of real competition being stifled.
"From where I sit, it feels like there are new competitors coming up every day, and we buy them up before they can become a serious threat"
You do understand that getting acquired is one of the most popular exit strategies for venture funded start ups, right? It is usually either that or go public and there is lots more paperwork to go public. So, the startup founders go around telling investors that their product would be a natural fit for (pick your favorite megacorp). Then, how do you get (pick your favorite megacorp) to acquire your start up? You appear to them like competition or some sort of threat to their marketshare, because knocking on the front door and asking nicely will not even get you the time of day.
So, while companies like Google and Facebook buying up potential competitors might seem purely evil from one perspective, there is no shortage of start ups throwing themselves at the big companies to get bought. The venture capitalists get their huge returns, the founders make a mint and then either VP jobs at the big company or walk away with bagfuls of cash and start another company, or retire, or whatever.
The average percentage of open source in the codebases of the applications scanned grew from 36% last year to 57%, suggesting...
... that there is an increasing likelihood that the audited code bases contain more code that has received an independent peer review of some sort. Whereas, the remaining proprietary almost certainly has not received independent peer review.
The article itself contains this bit:
... unlike commercial software, where updates are automatically pushed to users, open source has a pull support model, meaning that users are responsible for keeping track of vulnerabilities, fixes, and updates for the open source they use.
That makes me wonder about some things. The article is supposedly about proprietary apps, not proprietary components. If I, as a commercial software developer, license a commercial library for something, the vendor of that library does not "push" updates into my code base. I still have to decide to upgrade (assuming my maintenance contract is current and I have that option).
Also, they don't bother to specify whether their audit accounts for whether the developer is using the code under an open source or a commercial license. For example, Java can be used open source (as in OpenJDK) or via a commercially supported license from Oracle. They also mention license compliance risk, which is yet another red herring. Commercially licensed components also carry a compliance risk with them.
This just seems like yet another article trying to scare engineering and development managers into purchasing the services of audit and compliance outfits. Or, put another way, nothing to see here.
The FAA rubber-stamped those measures Friday. (emphasis added)
"Rubber-stamped" is an idiomatic expression meaning roughly "to approve without review," which is not at all how the FAA works.
I know that it is a bit pedantic but I find that more and more people speak and write using phrases that are not appropriate for the context and it makes communication more difficult than it needs to be.
The funny thing about this to me is that it greatly increases cognitive load of passwords, making the password a little stronger because it enforces say a special character, but across the board makes it VASTLY more likely I will choose the same password across multiple sites because otherwise I cannot remember what I chose and don't want to have to think of a new complex password.
Like many others around here, I use a password manager. So things like every website having a slightly different set of password requirements is nothing more than a minor annoyance to me. However, I can recall before I started using a password manager. It was maddeningly frustrating trying to remember the different policies. One site requires an uppercase, a lowercase, a number, a special character, and a length of 8-20. Another site requires a letter, a number, a special character (but not %, ~, =, or |), and a maximum length 12. Yet another requires an uppercase, a lowercase, does not permit special characters at all, and a minimum length of 12.
With nonsense like that it is impossible, even with a really good mental algorithm for maintaining multiple passwords across multiple sites. If everybody had the same policy, it might work. But as it is, you can basically do one of the following:
Use same 2 or 3 passwords everywhere (you need at least to 2 or 3 in order to have candidates for the varying complexity policies)
for infrequently used sites, don't bother remembering the password and go through the reset process every time
Use a password manager
Only the password manager is remotely secure. The others also do nothing to help with remembering user IDs. You can have your browser remember those and passwords as well. However, that is also a terrible idea for reasons to numerous to list.
Bottom line, with the way things stand today, a password manager is the only viable option for anybody that has even the slightest concern about security.
I wouldn't expect intelligence to factor into strength of passwords.
I agree with you up to here.
Instead, I would expect password strength to correlate to paranoia - people who think it unlikely someone will try to use their account will use a somewhat weak and easy to remember password...
While I don't specifically disagree with you here, perhaps a better correlation can be found by looking at cognitive burden. That is, while some people likely use the paranoia factor to motivate them to use/remember long and complex passwords, I suspect that most people think along the lines of, "I am just not willing to burden my brain with yet another long and complex password for blah blah blah."
That is not to say that cognitive burden is the only determinant, since things like organizational policy (e.g., in a school or business) might set and enforce minimum complexity with which the user must cope. Rather, in the absence of a forced minimum, users will employ the simpleest password they can comfortably get away with. Where comfortable is different for each individual.
Nice. So, supporting the US Constitution and trying to find solutions to problems where those solutions also respect the Constitution is now flamebait? Bravo!
OTOH if I want to have a bit of libtard fun I like to ask my right wing friends/acquaintances if healthcare is a right or not try to make them answer yes or no. After 5-10 minutes of speeches and heming and hawing they'll either say 'no' or admit we ought to have a national healthcare system.
Well, that's easy: no, healthcare is not a right. No hemming and hawing required.
If you read the US Constitution and its amendments the only constitutionally guaranteed access to the labor and/or services of another individual is described in the sixth amendment: the right to assistance of defense counsel. (Some argue that by extension judges and others involved in the justice system as well.)
There is a reason for that. One of the founding ideals of the United States of America is rugged individualism. While the main text of the Constitution is focused on the structure and functioning of the governmnet, the amendments 1-9 are all about protecting indivudual liberties, while the 10th is partially about individual liberties and partially about states' rights.
Now, there is freedom of association in the USA. So if you prefer a collectivist approach to healthcare, you are more than welcome form your own coop, insurance company, charity hospital, or whatever, and get busy with convincing others to join you.
But, keep in mind that a national healthcare system with compulsory participation flies in the face of the principles upon which the Republic was founded. At a minimum for such a thing to be implemented, I think it would require a constitutional amendment. That is how fundamentally it affects the fabric of our society.
Attorney General Madigan has taken the lead in protecting Illinoisâ(TM) air from pollution. On the federal level, Madigan has advocated stronger air emission standards for electric power plants and motor vehicles. At the state level, Madigan continues to fight for a cleaner environment and to hold polluters responsible for their actions. Under her leadership, the Attorney Generalâ(TM)s office successfully litigated the largest Clean Air Act enforcement case in state history, requiring the defendant to spend more than $88 million on pollution reduction projects at its Illinois facilities.
So, I read her position on the matter as roughly equivalent to "I support more federal government regulation so long as it is of a variety that I like." If you think about it, that is about par for the course for liberals and even many who call themselves conservative.
Maybe even discuss different "off-book" topics and give the option of which questions to answer to not penalize absent students, but punish students who are perpetually on their phones and tuned out. "Professor, I should have got an A on this exam, it wasn't in the book..." "Next time, put away the phone."
I teach at the university level (upper level undergraduate course) and I am shocked at the number of students who simply do not show up to class and of those that do show up the number that spend the entire period playing games on their phones or computers.
I personally don't care, as at that level they are grown ups and can make their own decisions. However, I do make sure to tell them several times in the first few lectures that three will be material discussed in lecture and that will appear on the exams even though it is not in the text. Usually by about the third or fourth week of the term I can tell which students will be in A/B/C/F territory for each exam. The tiresome part for me is having to deal with the whiners who think they deserved a better grade. My response to them is always, "I grade very leniently, so if anything, your grade is a rather charitable reflection of the amount effort you put into the course."
Being someone who has a limited ability to multi-task, and recognizing my own limits, I can tell you that the vast majority of people that think they can multi-task greatly overestimate their ability. In fact, the younger they are, the more they tend to overestimate how good they are at multitasking.
One year credit monitoring is a joke. Seriously, in this day and age who still has not frozen there credit? Equifax now offers it for free after their breach and the other two (TransUnion and Experian) are just a few bucks. Depending on what state you live in you might even be able to freeze your credit for free depending on the law there.
And while on the subject, please feel free to discuss non-paying Internships...
Different animal altogether. I work as a programmer and I like to attend hackathons every once in a while for the following reasons (in no particular order):
Meet other programmers outside my normal professional circle
Get to work on/hack on projects substantially different from what I work on day-to-day
Getting the brain moving/heading in a different programming direction for a while makes me a better programmer with the "normal" things I program every day
There are probably other benefits that I do not specifically consider, but the ones above are the big ones for me.
I go to hackathons because I get something out of it, more than they get from me, as it were.
You appear to be employing selective memory. He made the same argument about congress being a roadblock to fixing immigration. He maintained that position. After 3 or so years, when it finally suited him, he declared "I have a phone and a pen" and proceeded to do what he liked.
Now, you could argue whether he was right or wrong to act unilaterally without congress. You can also point to the problem those who supported Obama's actions on immigration face: an executive order by one president can be undone by another president. However, it is patently disingenuous to say that he did not close Guantanamo because congress would not let him.
Had he really wanted to close it, he would have closed it. After all, he really wanted the Affordable Care Act, and that made it through congress. Any failure to close Guantanamo, end rendition, and/or end "enhanced interrogation" is a direct result of a lack of real desire to see it done.
... or very old software that has shown no sign of updates in years.
How is that relevant? I understand if the software has outstanding major bugs or is not feature complete. However, as you point out, the todo list is basically a universal problem that has been around since the beginning of time. So what if some application was last updated 10 years ago if it does the job and is essentially bug free?
I also get it if you really want a nice responsive mobile experience and the only tool you find was "completed" before responsive design was a thing. But, the point still stands: a lack of recent releases does not automatically make a piece of software unsuitable or undesirable. Lack of responsive design would be an example of a missing feature, as opposed to an outright bug.
I would be interested to see what came in your search that you deemed "too old". Assuming that age is the only problem you found with them, I suspect that one or more are actually still quite useful.
Let's let the consumers be the judge of what's a danger to themselves. People who try to go around making laws and rules for someone else's good tend to do a spectacularly poor job of it and generally cause just as much harm as good, even in the case where they're well-meaning instead of clearly under some ulterior motives as is the case here.
I totally 100% agree with you. However, I feel it necessary to point out that the logic being used by these industry trade groups boils down to "these are dangerous things which must be kept out of the wrong hands."
Coincidentally, or not coincidentally depending on how conspiracy-minded you are, that is the same argument used by gun control advocates.
Now the merits of the position can certainly be argued as to how they pertain to both smart electronics and also firearms. However, I would consider anyone that supports right-to-repair and gun control, or who opposes both, to be engaging in some sort of congnitive dissonance. People can either choose for themselves or they cannot.
Everything you say is true. However, anybody with a quality liberal arts education can see the value in those things. Besides, not long ago Greek, Latin, and Classics were considered requirements. Today they are not.
I would argue that anyone proposing making computer science a hard requirement should have to explain how computer science contributes to a broad-based liberal arts education. For reference, here is a quote from Dijkstra on the topic:
As a result, the topic became â" primarily in the USA â" prematurely known as âcomputer scienceâ(TM) â" which, actually, is like referring to surgery as âknife scienceâ(TM) â" and it was firmly implanted in peopleâ(TM)s minds that computing science is about machines and their peripheral equipment.
That is not to say that it wouldn't be handy to have courses on computing and computer programming. However, many high schools also have courses in automotive maintenance, wood shop, welding, and other trades. None of those are anywhere close to being considered hard requirements for high school graduation, despite the fact that nearly every person in the use drives an automobile on a daily basis, for example. The flavor computer science being advocated by the College Board is closer to automotive maintenance than it is to a core liberal arts subject.
"It's literally like logging into your account and then stepping away from the keyboard and letting the attacker sit down," Scott Helme, a security researcher who reviewed the bug report, told Motherboard in an online chat.
Someone please give this gentleman a pat on the back for correct use of the word "literally."
Note: I am not being sarcastic or pedantic. It is just that it such an oft misused word that it is nice to see it used correctly.
I would like to say "ignore them at your peril," but the reality is more like "ignore them at the perial of the rest of humanity." I am pretty sure that they will put in some sort of special code so that the robots never fight back against a Boston Dynamics employee.
Ok, I'm going to need someone to explain this to me. (posting anonymously cuz I hate admitting I'm an idiot)
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
speaker
n 1: someone who expresses in language; someone who talks
(especially someone who delivers a public speech or someone
especially garrulous); "the speaker at commencement"; "an
utterer of useful maxims" [syn: {speaker}, {talker},
{utterer}, {verbalizer}, {verbaliser}]
"Smart speaker" -> someone who speaks publicly and is also intelligent. Neil deGrass Tyson is wellknown for both his intelligence and for his public speaking.
I know that the headline was asking about the new gadgets for the home, but I was feeling snarky and decided to take advantage of the word sense ambiguity to be a little bit funny.
What's so controversial about having a policy that says you need to not be jerks to each other?
It is more than the policy. It is one thing to say "here are some guidelines, some dos and dont's, now everybody act like a grown up" and another thing entirely to form a goon squad (the "committee") to act as enforcers. My hope is that this will not devolve to the point of what is going in the Rust community (just look at some of the comments posted here everytime a rust-related story pops up) and does not end up as an end unto itself.
Personally, I would favor a code of conduct that just reads "Be excellent to each other, dude!"
Remember when you said "the judge should rule on the 'right' thing instead of on the letter of the law and the facts of the matter?" This is the result.
The last decade has seen an amazing number of cases of judges exceeding their authority, ignoring precedent/case law (that is their prerogative, though), and ignoring the laws as written (that is the part that is most troubling). Conservatives derisively refer to judges that do that sort of thing as "activist judges", progressives applaud those judges for "doing the right thing", and the result is at some point the judicial branch will no longer respect its role as a co-equal branch of government and instead think it is superior to the others.
If you applauded the national injunctions against the Trump travel ban last year (regardless of how you feel about the travel ban, there is practically no question at all the executive gets to decide who enters the country and who gets kept out based on current immigration law and judges acting the way they did subverted both the legislature and the executive), then this ridiculous ruling that something that amounts to quoting someone else is copyright infringement is what you get.
So, in summary, if you cheered when judges were ignoring laws you did not like, then don't be surprised when they start ignoring laws that when ignored make you a criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience with charity is that it's either scams (like Goodwill, which is a private for profit company that bills itself a charity) or they're just there to give well to do and wealthy people a balm on their conscience. e.g. they make you feel better without actually doing anything of material value. I know that sounds harsh, but, well, reality is harsh. I've had relatives hit rock bottom with major medical issues and charities gave them $20 gift cards to buy groceries. The Government paid for the medical care that kept them alive and made them healthy again.
My experience with government is that it's either scams (like the IRS, which is a partisan political tool of congress and the president that bills itself an independent and non-partisan entity) or they're just there to give well to do and wealthy people a balm on their conscience. e.g. they make you feel better without actually doing anything of material value because you've paid your taxes so you've done all you need to do to "help the poor". I know that sounds harsh, but, well, reality is harsh.
I just do not get how governmnet screwing up healthcare so badly in the USA could possibly cause people to think, "the solution is more government involvement in healthcare." I will believe the government is serious about fixing healthcare in the USA when they do something about the shortage of primary care providers (a problem which the AMA is actively preventing from being fixed), require price transparency (I mean, by law if I take my car to a mechanic, they have to give me a written estimate and have to obtain my approval to do work that will be higher than the estimate), and let people decide what coverages to buy (if I am young and healthy and all I want is coverage in case of a major accident or cancer diagnosis, etc., that should be my choice).
However, just about everything that the government has done in the healthcare space has been in suport of major corporate players.
you're one job loss away from homelessness.
That is true for a frightening number of people. However, what I find more frightening is the number of people for whom that is a direct result of personal choice. Granted, I do not have the largest circle of friends, but literally every single person with whom I am acquanted that would suffer severe financial hardship (including the possibility of homelessness) resulting from a job loss, manages to enjoy lots of luxuries. One who I can think of recently bought an expensive motorcycle (on credit, naturally), another goes on a big expensive vacation every year (puts it all on credit cards and takes until about the time of the next year's trip to pay it off), while yet another bought a house far larger and more expensive than they could afford to manage, etc. People like that are by their own choices putting themselves in a bad position.
If you're under 65 we have no safety net whatsoever (and a weak one if you're over 65).
There are actually lots of private charitable organizations out there, including soup kitchens, food pantries, single and family shelters, individual churches, etc. If you think our safety net is lacking, you can always give to one of those organizations or even volunteer yourself.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are agreeing with GP's premise that Facebook is eliminating competition?
To be sure, you are saying that the competition is happy to be eliminated, but that's not the point.
I think you misunderstand. While there are certainly some companies out there that present legitimate competition to Facebook and others, not all of them do. In fact, though I do not have data to back it up, I have talked with enough people on the startup scene that I get the sense that very few startups intend to compete directly with Facebook and others. Their objective from the early on is to fille a niche that is ignored by the big guys or to get acquired. If not for the possibility of getting acquired, it is even likely that they would not have started up. I do not consider that real competition.
Now, where I think the focus should be is on Facebook' and others' leveraged buyouts or hostile takeovers (or those done by their proxies). Those are far more likely to be cases of real competition being stifled.
"From where I sit, it feels like there are new competitors coming up every day, and we buy them up before they can become a serious threat"
You do understand that getting acquired is one of the most popular exit strategies for venture funded start ups, right? It is usually either that or go public and there is lots more paperwork to go public. So, the startup founders go around telling investors that their product would be a natural fit for (pick your favorite megacorp). Then, how do you get (pick your favorite megacorp) to acquire your start up? You appear to them like competition or some sort of threat to their marketshare, because knocking on the front door and asking nicely will not even get you the time of day.
So, while companies like Google and Facebook buying up potential competitors might seem purely evil from one perspective, there is no shortage of start ups throwing themselves at the big companies to get bought. The venture capitalists get their huge returns, the founders make a mint and then either VP jobs at the big company or walk away with bagfuls of cash and start another company, or retire, or whatever.
The average percentage of open source in the codebases of the applications scanned grew from 36% last year to 57%, suggesting ...
... that there is an increasing likelihood that the audited code bases contain more code that has received an independent peer review of some sort. Whereas, the remaining proprietary almost certainly has not received independent peer review.
The article itself contains this bit:
... unlike commercial software, where updates are automatically pushed to users, open source has a pull support model, meaning that users are responsible for keeping track of vulnerabilities, fixes, and updates for the open source they use.
That makes me wonder about some things. The article is supposedly about proprietary apps, not proprietary components. If I, as a commercial software developer, license a commercial library for something, the vendor of that library does not "push" updates into my code base. I still have to decide to upgrade (assuming my maintenance contract is current and I have that option).
Also, they don't bother to specify whether their audit accounts for whether the developer is using the code under an open source or a commercial license. For example, Java can be used open source (as in OpenJDK) or via a commercially supported license from Oracle. They also mention license compliance risk, which is yet another red herring. Commercially licensed components also carry a compliance risk with them.
This just seems like yet another article trying to scare engineering and development managers into purchasing the services of audit and compliance outfits. Or, put another way, nothing to see here.
The FAA rubber-stamped those measures Friday. (emphasis added)
"Rubber-stamped" is an idiomatic expression meaning roughly "to approve without review," which is not at all how the FAA works.
I know that it is a bit pedantic but I find that more and more people speak and write using phrases that are not appropriate for the context and it makes communication more difficult than it needs to be.
The funny thing about this to me is that it greatly increases cognitive load of passwords, making the password a little stronger because it enforces say a special character, but across the board makes it VASTLY more likely I will choose the same password across multiple sites because otherwise I cannot remember what I chose and don't want to have to think of a new complex password.
Like many others around here, I use a password manager. So things like every website having a slightly different set of password requirements is nothing more than a minor annoyance to me. However, I can recall before I started using a password manager. It was maddeningly frustrating trying to remember the different policies. One site requires an uppercase, a lowercase, a number, a special character, and a length of 8-20. Another site requires a letter, a number, a special character (but not %, ~, =, or |), and a maximum length 12. Yet another requires an uppercase, a lowercase, does not permit special characters at all, and a minimum length of 12.
With nonsense like that it is impossible, even with a really good mental algorithm for maintaining multiple passwords across multiple sites. If everybody had the same policy, it might work. But as it is, you can basically do one of the following:
Only the password manager is remotely secure. The others also do nothing to help with remembering user IDs. You can have your browser remember those and passwords as well. However, that is also a terrible idea for reasons to numerous to list.
Bottom line, with the way things stand today, a password manager is the only viable option for anybody that has even the slightest concern about security.
I wouldn't expect intelligence to factor into strength of passwords.
I agree with you up to here.
Instead, I would expect password strength to correlate to paranoia - people who think it unlikely someone will try to use their account will use a somewhat weak and easy to remember password...
While I don't specifically disagree with you here, perhaps a better correlation can be found by looking at cognitive burden. That is, while some people likely use the paranoia factor to motivate them to use/remember long and complex passwords, I suspect that most people think along the lines of, "I am just not willing to burden my brain with yet another long and complex password for blah blah blah."
That is not to say that cognitive burden is the only determinant, since things like organizational policy (e.g., in a school or business) might set and enforce minimum complexity with which the user must cope. Rather, in the absence of a forced minimum, users will employ the simpleest password they can comfortably get away with. Where comfortable is different for each individual.
Nice. So, supporting the US Constitution and trying to find solutions to problems where those solutions also respect the Constitution is now flamebait? Bravo!
OTOH if I want to have a bit of libtard fun I like to ask my right wing friends/acquaintances if healthcare is a right or not try to make them answer yes or no. After 5-10 minutes of speeches and heming and hawing they'll either say 'no' or admit we ought to have a national healthcare system.
Well, that's easy: no, healthcare is not a right. No hemming and hawing required.
If you read the US Constitution and its amendments the only constitutionally guaranteed access to the labor and/or services of another individual is described in the sixth amendment: the right to assistance of defense counsel. (Some argue that by extension judges and others involved in the justice system as well.)
There is a reason for that. One of the founding ideals of the United States of America is rugged individualism. While the main text of the Constitution is focused on the structure and functioning of the governmnet, the amendments 1-9 are all about protecting indivudual liberties, while the 10th is partially about individual liberties and partially about states' rights.
Now, there is freedom of association in the USA. So if you prefer a collectivist approach to healthcare, you are more than welcome form your own coop, insurance company, charity hospital, or whatever, and get busy with convincing others to join you.
But, keep in mind that a national healthcare system with compulsory participation flies in the face of the principles upon which the Republic was founded. At a minimum for such a thing to be implemented, I think it would require a constitutional amendment. That is how fundamentally it affects the fabric of our society.
However, she also has been a strong proponent of federal involvement in the environment:
Attorney General Madigan has taken the lead in protecting Illinoisâ(TM) air from pollution. On the federal level, Madigan has advocated stronger air emission standards for electric power plants and motor vehicles. At the state level, Madigan continues to fight for a cleaner environment and to hold polluters responsible for their actions. Under her leadership, the Attorney Generalâ(TM)s office successfully litigated the largest Clean Air Act enforcement case in state history, requiring the defendant to spend more than $88 million on pollution reduction projects at its Illinois facilities.
So, I read her position on the matter as roughly equivalent to "I support more federal government regulation so long as it is of a variety that I like." If you think about it, that is about par for the course for liberals and even many who call themselves conservative.
Maybe even discuss different "off-book" topics and give the option of which questions to answer to not penalize absent students, but punish students who are perpetually on their phones and tuned out. "Professor, I should have got an A on this exam, it wasn't in the book..." "Next time, put away the phone."
I teach at the university level (upper level undergraduate course) and I am shocked at the number of students who simply do not show up to class and of those that do show up the number that spend the entire period playing games on their phones or computers.
I personally don't care, as at that level they are grown ups and can make their own decisions. However, I do make sure to tell them several times in the first few lectures that three will be material discussed in lecture and that will appear on the exams even though it is not in the text. Usually by about the third or fourth week of the term I can tell which students will be in A/B/C/F territory for each exam. The tiresome part for me is having to deal with the whiners who think they deserved a better grade. My response to them is always, "I grade very leniently, so if anything, your grade is a rather charitable reflection of the amount effort you put into the course."
Being someone who has a limited ability to multi-task, and recognizing my own limits, I can tell you that the vast majority of people that think they can multi-task greatly overestimate their ability. In fact, the younger they are, the more they tend to overestimate how good they are at multitasking.
Yes, please... Let's start with the NES Classic.
One year credit monitoring is a joke. Seriously, in this day and age who still has not frozen there credit? Equifax now offers it for free after their breach and the other two (TransUnion and Experian) are just a few bucks. Depending on what state you live in you might even be able to freeze your credit for free depending on the law there.
And while on the subject, please feel free to discuss non-paying Internships...
Different animal altogether. I work as a programmer and I like to attend hackathons every once in a while for the following reasons (in no particular order):
There are probably other benefits that I do not specifically consider, but the ones above are the big ones for me.
I go to hackathons because I get something out of it, more than they get from me, as it were.
He tried and congress would not let him.
You appear to be employing selective memory. He made the same argument about congress being a roadblock to fixing immigration. He maintained that position. After 3 or so years, when it finally suited him, he declared "I have a phone and a pen" and proceeded to do what he liked.
Now, you could argue whether he was right or wrong to act unilaterally without congress. You can also point to the problem those who supported Obama's actions on immigration face: an executive order by one president can be undone by another president. However, it is patently disingenuous to say that he did not close Guantanamo because congress would not let him.
Had he really wanted to close it, he would have closed it. After all, he really wanted the Affordable Care Act, and that made it through congress. Any failure to close Guantanamo, end rendition, and/or end "enhanced interrogation" is a direct result of a lack of real desire to see it done.
... or very old software that has shown no sign of updates in years.
How is that relevant? I understand if the software has outstanding major bugs or is not feature complete. However, as you point out, the todo list is basically a universal problem that has been around since the beginning of time. So what if some application was last updated 10 years ago if it does the job and is essentially bug free?
I also get it if you really want a nice responsive mobile experience and the only tool you find was "completed" before responsive design was a thing. But, the point still stands: a lack of recent releases does not automatically make a piece of software unsuitable or undesirable. Lack of responsive design would be an example of a missing feature, as opposed to an outright bug.
I would be interested to see what came in your search that you deemed "too old". Assuming that age is the only problem you found with them, I suspect that one or more are actually still quite useful.
Let's let the consumers be the judge of what's a danger to themselves. People who try to go around making laws and rules for someone else's good tend to do a spectacularly poor job of it and generally cause just as much harm as good, even in the case where they're well-meaning instead of clearly under some ulterior motives as is the case here.
I totally 100% agree with you. However, I feel it necessary to point out that the logic being used by these industry trade groups boils down to "these are dangerous things which must be kept out of the wrong hands."
Coincidentally, or not coincidentally depending on how conspiracy-minded you are, that is the same argument used by gun control advocates.
Now the merits of the position can certainly be argued as to how they pertain to both smart electronics and also firearms. However, I would consider anyone that supports right-to-repair and gun control, or who opposes both, to be engaging in some sort of congnitive dissonance. People can either choose for themselves or they cannot.
Everything you say is true. However, anybody with a quality liberal arts education can see the value in those things. Besides, not long ago Greek, Latin, and Classics were considered requirements. Today they are not.
I would argue that anyone proposing making computer science a hard requirement should have to explain how computer science contributes to a broad-based liberal arts education. For reference, here is a quote from Dijkstra on the topic:
That is not to say that it wouldn't be handy to have courses on computing and computer programming. However, many high schools also have courses in automotive maintenance, wood shop, welding, and other trades. None of those are anywhere close to being considered hard requirements for high school graduation, despite the fact that nearly every person in the use drives an automobile on a daily basis, for example. The flavor computer science being advocated by the College Board is closer to automotive maintenance than it is to a core liberal arts subject.
"It's literally like logging into your account and then stepping away from the keyboard and letting the attacker sit down," Scott Helme, a security researcher who reviewed the bug report, told Motherboard in an online chat.
Someone please give this gentleman a pat on the back for correct use of the word "literally."
Note: I am not being sarcastic or pedantic. It is just that it such an oft misused word that it is nice to see it used correctly.
But teaching robots to fight back against humans may might end up harming us.
This is precisely why we have the Three Laws of Robotics.
I would like to say "ignore them at your peril," but the reality is more like "ignore them at the perial of the rest of humanity." I am pretty sure that they will put in some sort of special code so that the robots never fight back against a Boston Dynamics employee.
Ok, I'm going to need someone to explain this to me. (posting anonymously cuz I hate admitting I'm an idiot)
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]: speaker n 1: someone who expresses in language; someone who talks (especially someone who delivers a public speech or someone especially garrulous); "the speaker at commencement"; "an utterer of useful maxims" [syn: {speaker}, {talker}, {utterer}, {verbalizer}, {verbaliser}]
"Smart speaker" -> someone who speaks publicly and is also intelligent. Neil deGrass Tyson is wellknown for both his intelligence and for his public speaking.
I know that the headline was asking about the new gadgets for the home, but I was feeling snarky and decided to take advantage of the word sense ambiguity to be a little bit funny.
Personally, I am a fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
What's so controversial about having a policy that says you need to not be jerks to each other?
It is more than the policy. It is one thing to say "here are some guidelines, some dos and dont's, now everybody act like a grown up" and another thing entirely to form a goon squad (the "committee") to act as enforcers. My hope is that this will not devolve to the point of what is going in the Rust community (just look at some of the comments posted here everytime a rust-related story pops up) and does not end up as an end unto itself.
Personally, I would favor a code of conduct that just reads "Be excellent to each other, dude!"
Remember when you said "the judge should rule on the 'right' thing instead of on the letter of the law and the facts of the matter?" This is the result.
The last decade has seen an amazing number of cases of judges exceeding their authority, ignoring precedent/case law (that is their prerogative, though), and ignoring the laws as written (that is the part that is most troubling). Conservatives derisively refer to judges that do that sort of thing as "activist judges", progressives applaud those judges for "doing the right thing", and the result is at some point the judicial branch will no longer respect its role as a co-equal branch of government and instead think it is superior to the others.
If you applauded the national injunctions against the Trump travel ban last year (regardless of how you feel about the travel ban, there is practically no question at all the executive gets to decide who enters the country and who gets kept out based on current immigration law and judges acting the way they did subverted both the legislature and the executive), then this ridiculous ruling that something that amounts to quoting someone else is copyright infringement is what you get.
So, in summary, if you cheered when judges were ignoring laws you did not like, then don't be surprised when they start ignoring laws that when ignored make you a criminal.