So you're saying that a partial solution is worse than having no solution?
As I see it, since people are most often awake and active during daylight hours, being able to operate enough base-load plants to meet nighttime needs coupled with solar to meet daytime needs would be a good way to transition the utility to provide the most efficiently and environmentally produced bulk generation while the consumer-end clean stuff satisfies the remainder.
One of my uncles works on control systems and environmental systems for coal plants. He's had to travel to visit that plant several times. It's truly decrepit and the plant is dangerously lacking in written procedures. Some of that comes from being on Tribal land, so State of Arizona laws do not generally apply. If I remember right it's been a known cause of pollution affecting the Grand Canyon and other parks and monuments too.
That part of the Colorado Plateau is pretty sunny. It does snow from time to time but it's not the kind of climate where the snow just builds up all winter, so it probably would be practical to keep the panels snow-free.
I expect that insurance companies haven't yet truly figured out how to price the insurance they sell for this, and the long-term costs borne by the compromised companies haven't yet been truly realized yet.
If these costs shift back to the company that allowed the breach to happen then perhaps they'll start leaning on the vendors that they source their IT from, to get those vendors to start paying attention to security.
The real "problem" with drive-by-wire is that we've come to expect our electronics technology to be unreliable, because by and large it is unreliable. Why should we expect the powertrain control module in our car to be any different?
Facebook is running out of new users at their current intelligence level. In order to expand (which apparently is what modern business requires, it's not enough to simply remain the same) they have to figure out how to acquire more and more customers, which means lowering the bar further and further.
I still have to wonder how sound their business model is. Have they actually turned a profit yet?
Well, normally the means to set the option isn't intuitive.
That said, what is intuitive is leaving one's headphones plugged in 24/7 or turning the main volume down either through the easily located software option on the taskbar or else on the speakers themselves.
I expect that anyone bitten by this will just leave the sound down/off by default. Given the kinds of prank websites that people used to submit in the past that would scream obscenities via flash animation or some other kind of annoyance, I would find it smart to just have the volume down/off by default in a workplace anyway.
This may be one of those things behind that "sudden acceleration" we've been hearing the past decade, especially among people not quite tip top shape or fit at the moment (especially from tiredness, drink, other impairment).
If I am remembering correctly what I read, for those Toyotas in particular there was a problem in the powertrain module's programming that would not allow the vehicle to be shut off or taken out of gear while the computer sensed acceleration. Coupled with a physical problem with the drive-by-wire sensor that the gas pedal actually is in those vehicles, the pedal would malfunction and cause the car to accelerate and no other input from the driver could override this.
The problem with drive-by-wire is that if something goes wrong it can be very difficult to figure out. Was it code? Was it the pedal? Was it something interfering with the pedal? Was it some kind of communications cross-talk in the wiring? Was some other input being detected like the cruise control? Was that some other thing malfunctioning? Why didn't the signal from the brakes override?
Now consider how tech is going to continue to advance until Tesla and those electric motors puts the power of a Veyron into the hands of anyone who can sign for a car loan but doesn't know that that kind of speed belongs only on the track. A 1979 Toyota Tercel has no business with a modern 5.2 L Flat Plane Crank V8 bolted onto it, particularly because the suspension and steering can't handle the power and the driver of such an abomination is probably a goddam fool, likely to pound down a few six-packs before heading out for Zombie night at Applebees. The only razor-thin silver-lining in the article reported by the OP is they didn't mow down a sidewalk-full of bystanders before the smeared themselves.
If tech advances until torque and horsepower become trivial, we will have to have governors built-in to cars because the road has to be shared and driving like an idiot will become not a matter of a broken leg but something a lot more permanent. On the track or the salt flats, do what you want. On the streets there's a point where basic transportation becomes a suicide machine, and I don't want to share those streets with overpowered idiots.
You really don't have any idea how automotive history played out. The late seventies to the early nineties are an abberation where there were relatively few powerful production cars. From the thirties onward, the push was for ever increasing amounts of power. In the late sixties we hit the peak with American car manufacturers cramming well over 400hp into cars that had absolutely atrocious handling and road-grip. Take a Plymouth with a 426 Hemi, you had almost 70% of the mass over the front non-drive axle, you had skinny bias-ply tires, you had firm torsion bars because of the mass of the engine. For weight savings on cars like the Roadrunner and GTX you often had antiswaybar-delete, such that the cars really suffered body roll in turns.
Fuel availability problems from the manufactured oil crisis of the mid seventies, coupled with a slow ratcheting of environmental requirements and fuel economy requirements, forced horsepower down. This is certainly partially responsible for the American attempts with turbocharging in the eighties and early nineties and attempting to add power to the small FWD chassis despite initial development as economy cars, and it was only when automakers finally fully embraced symmetrical multiport fuel injection with computer control, multiple stages of catalytic conversion, and high-gear-count transmissions that power, fuel economy, and emissions were all achievable, albeit with cars that are significantly more complex and expensive.
So now in addition to an e-mail client that supports encryption, you need an e-mail repository program that can communicate with the e-mail client in order to archive the now-plaintext e-mail, presumably using yet another protocol to transfer the e-mail from program to program.
$2000/year for cable. $1300/year for starbucks. $1680/year for cell phone ($140/month times twelve). $1000 per year for new electronics (figuring money spent on tablets and phones).
That's basically $3/hour dedicated to this stuff, before accounting for anything like food, lodging, medical care, car, conventional utilities, etc.
I am facing a different problem: "I'm not willing to move there".
We're not exactly in the middle of nowhere, but also we're an about 1.5 hours drive away from the next large city. Don't get it wrong, this ain't backwater nowhere, you have great internet connection and VERY affordable housing around here, and we're paying VERY well. Yet people are not willing to move those 1.5 hours away from where they're living.
Hell, I know people that commute 1.5 hours each way every single day!
It's simple. You have not found a wage/benefits combination that attracts the kinds of workers that you are looking for. It could be that those workers require or like the amenities that the city has and aren't willing to make a three hour round-trip for them. It could be that there's enough work for whatever this class of job is within the city or close to it, such that they do not have to come to you for employment.
As to your commute-time point, a lot of commuters with commutes that long are taking rail or bus. They may be commuting, but they're not wearing themselves out driving three hours a day in addition to being at work eight and a half to nine hours a day. Also, you mention one and a half hours to the city. What does city traffic add to cross the city itself during rush hour? Another half-hour? An hour? Suddenly that commute becomes four to five hours a day, which is just not sustainable.
My commute is fifteen minutes and ten miles. I would have to have one hell of a wage increase in order to justify a longer one.
Generally the borrower is going to be done with the property whether the bank cooperates with the borrower's attempt to short-sale or not. If the property goes into foreclosure then the bank has to spend all of the money required on the foreclosure process and then go through more steps; if the bank is lucky then the borrower remains living in the home doing upkeep until they're given eviction notice when the house goes on the open market again. If the bank is unlucky then either the borrower damages the home prior to losing it, or else the borrower moves out and cuts all ties as soon as possible such that the vacant property isn't being maintained and may even be actively vandalized.
In the first foreclosure scenario the bank manages to sell it for... wait for it... market value, aka, basically the price it would have gone for if it short-sold.
In the second foreclosure scenario the bank has to sell it below market value as the property is now in below average condition for the market that it's in. And good luck trying to get the former borrower to pay for anything. Plus, if the home is sufficiently damaged then they may have to either sell as-is with known faults, which means cash buyers only (and thus really low price) or else they have to spend money to fix it so that another lender will be willing to lend against it.
In short, if the borrower contacts the bank about short-selling a property, it's pretty much always in the bank's interest to entertain the idea.
It's otherwise more expensive to live now than it used to be because people purchase so many more subscription services. Cable TV. Cable Internet. Cell Phone Plan. Netflix. Amazon Prime. People also purchase a lot of expensive toys or appliances too.
Growing up in the eighties, we had one subscription service beyond basic utilities, and that was the telephone. No cable TV, no Internet access. We had many fewer electric-using appliances, so the electric bill was probably no worse even accounting for the inefficient appliances. My parents did most of the remodelling themselves despite his career in MIS and a decent income. Hobbies we as children were encouraged to persue used inexpensive materials and took a lot of time, like model building. Our toys were generally durable and didn't need more than occasional add-ons from time to time.
Contrast to now where everyone in the family has the cell phone. The Internet bill and cable TV bill are steep. The toys are all electronic and all over a C-note. And people buy $5 coffees daily.
So what I take from the precentages is that people move an average of every four to five years. Obviously some move more often and some move less, so the spread might count for something, but it's not some vast case of decades of immobility.
Actually a short-sale is a thing and if paying whatever costs are necessary for the short-sale is far cheaper than paying the upside-down cost on the mortgage, then the short-sale approach probably makes more sense.
It's not like if you paid $200,000 for a house and you can sell only for $150,000 that you have to pay the bank $50,000. You might have to pay tax against that $50,000, and you might have to be careful about what state you move to as short-sale laws are not consistent across all states, but generally if you short-sell you don't have to pay what the bank loses on the deal, if they lose any due to mortgage insurance.
I was trying to figure out what the hell that statement actually means.
Thinking back to when I was 18-25 I moved six times. Moving out, moving from ghetto apartment to share a house, moving because the landlord needed the house for the next generation to go to college. Moving out of the nice apartment because the landlord was tired of being a landlord in-general and wanted to sell (even offered to sell to me but it wasn't where I wanted to live permanently), moving out of the house I rented with an ex-friend (be careful living with friends), moving out of my folks house that I was caretaker of when they were away for a year, finally ending up in a rental that I had until around 27. The only truly voluntary move was leaving home when I was eighteen, the rest had some degree of forced move, albeit some like renting my parents' house from them while they were away it was expected that I would move out when the time came.
From 25 to 35 I moved twice. Once out of the rental into my fiancee's house a couple weeks prior to getting married, and then five years later when we moved into a bigger house after the housing market crashed and we could get a whole lot of house for the money. Obviously both voluntary, but moving almost literally every five years kind of fits perfectly into that 20% of people moving every year, if everyone moved every five years. Statistically dead even on the line.
Why would people want to move often, especially as one reaches the top of the age range? People tend to acquire more stuff. They tend to find that their friendships are cemented. For women, per the CDC, the average age of first child is 25, and moving with children isn't exactly pleasant for anyone either. For someone to want to move after they've reached a degree of pleasant stability usually means they're able to significantly improve their station (like their career is strong and they can afford to go someplace much nicer) or they're forced to move because of some negative, either problems with work or problems with the neighborhood itself. Moving just for its own sake doesn't generally make a whole lot of sense for most people.
Yeah. I'm already facing this with passwords, and ironically it's home equipment that I have the biggest issues remembering simply because I don't have to reconfigure it often.
Some big automotive enthusiast forums company got breached and set draconian rules for passwords for the users (who themselves did nothing wrong) as a result. twelve characters, mixed case, numbers, and non-letter-number characters, must be changed monthly. Screw that. I don't need to talk about four by fours enough to bother with such a thing on a non-commerce site.
It also has to be supportable. If joe schmoe loses all of his e-mail because of problems with remembering keys or keychain files then not only is he going to stop using it, he's going to continue to have problems with people e-mailing to him with his now-broken public key.
The limit isn't the speed from the switch to the PC, it's the speed from the switch to the router that all of the wired and wireless clients have to share. Or in a home, the speed from the local L3 routing device to the ISP.
It doesn't do you any good to put up dozens of APs and to provide literally hundreds of switchports if you're only uplinking at 1000BaseT. Even 10GBaseT would be a limit in such an environment.
Slashdot Mirror
With apologies to the Wolowitz family...
Yeah, the Swedish Chef video was quite wrong...
So you're saying that a partial solution is worse than having no solution?
As I see it, since people are most often awake and active during daylight hours, being able to operate enough base-load plants to meet nighttime needs coupled with solar to meet daytime needs would be a good way to transition the utility to provide the most efficiently and environmentally produced bulk generation while the consumer-end clean stuff satisfies the remainder.
One of my uncles works on control systems and environmental systems for coal plants. He's had to travel to visit that plant several times. It's truly decrepit and the plant is dangerously lacking in written procedures. Some of that comes from being on Tribal land, so State of Arizona laws do not generally apply. If I remember right it's been a known cause of pollution affecting the Grand Canyon and other parks and monuments too.
That part of the Colorado Plateau is pretty sunny. It does snow from time to time but it's not the kind of climate where the snow just builds up all winter, so it probably would be practical to keep the panels snow-free.
Then the lawsuit settlement is too low.
I expect that insurance companies haven't yet truly figured out how to price the insurance they sell for this, and the long-term costs borne by the compromised companies haven't yet been truly realized yet.
If these costs shift back to the company that allowed the breach to happen then perhaps they'll start leaning on the vendors that they source their IT from, to get those vendors to start paying attention to security.
The real "problem" with drive-by-wire is that we've come to expect our electronics technology to be unreliable, because by and large it is unreliable. Why should we expect the powertrain control module in our car to be any different?
Facebook is running out of new users at their current intelligence level. In order to expand (which apparently is what modern business requires, it's not enough to simply remain the same) they have to figure out how to acquire more and more customers, which means lowering the bar further and further.
I still have to wonder how sound their business model is. Have they actually turned a profit yet?
Well, normally the means to set the option isn't intuitive.
That said, what is intuitive is leaving one's headphones plugged in 24/7 or turning the main volume down either through the easily located software option on the taskbar or else on the speakers themselves.
I expect that anyone bitten by this will just leave the sound down/off by default. Given the kinds of prank websites that people used to submit in the past that would scream obscenities via flash animation or some other kind of annoyance, I would find it smart to just have the volume down/off by default in a workplace anyway.
This may be one of those things behind that "sudden acceleration" we've been hearing the past decade, especially among people not quite tip top shape or fit at the moment (especially from tiredness, drink, other impairment).
If I am remembering correctly what I read, for those Toyotas in particular there was a problem in the powertrain module's programming that would not allow the vehicle to be shut off or taken out of gear while the computer sensed acceleration. Coupled with a physical problem with the drive-by-wire sensor that the gas pedal actually is in those vehicles, the pedal would malfunction and cause the car to accelerate and no other input from the driver could override this.
The problem with drive-by-wire is that if something goes wrong it can be very difficult to figure out. Was it code? Was it the pedal? Was it something interfering with the pedal? Was it some kind of communications cross-talk in the wiring? Was some other input being detected like the cruise control? Was that some other thing malfunctioning? Why didn't the signal from the brakes override?
Now consider how tech is going to continue to advance until Tesla and those electric motors puts the power of a Veyron into the hands of anyone who can sign for a car loan but doesn't know that that kind of speed belongs only on the track. A 1979 Toyota Tercel has no business with a modern 5.2 L Flat Plane Crank V8 bolted onto it, particularly because the suspension and steering can't handle the power and the driver of such an abomination is probably a goddam fool, likely to pound down a few six-packs before heading out for Zombie night at Applebees. The only razor-thin silver-lining in the article reported by the OP is they didn't mow down a sidewalk-full of bystanders before the smeared themselves.
If tech advances until torque and horsepower become trivial, we will have to have governors built-in to cars because the road has to be shared and driving like an idiot will become not a matter of a broken leg but something a lot more permanent. On the track or the salt flats, do what you want. On the streets there's a point where basic transportation becomes a suicide machine, and I don't want to share those streets with overpowered idiots.
You really don't have any idea how automotive history played out. The late seventies to the early nineties are an abberation where there were relatively few powerful production cars. From the thirties onward, the push was for ever increasing amounts of power. In the late sixties we hit the peak with American car manufacturers cramming well over 400hp into cars that had absolutely atrocious handling and road-grip. Take a Plymouth with a 426 Hemi, you had almost 70% of the mass over the front non-drive axle, you had skinny bias-ply tires, you had firm torsion bars because of the mass of the engine. For weight savings on cars like the Roadrunner and GTX you often had antiswaybar-delete, such that the cars really suffered body roll in turns.
Fuel availability problems from the manufactured oil crisis of the mid seventies, coupled with a slow ratcheting of environmental requirements and fuel economy requirements, forced horsepower down. This is certainly partially responsible for the American attempts with turbocharging in the eighties and early nineties and attempting to add power to the small FWD chassis despite initial development as economy cars, and it was only when automakers finally fully embraced symmetrical multiport fuel injection with computer control, multiple stages of catalytic conversion, and high-gear-count transmissions that power, fuel economy, and emissions were all achievable, albeit with cars that are significantly more complex and expensive.
So now in addition to an e-mail client that supports encryption, you need an e-mail repository program that can communicate with the e-mail client in order to archive the now-plaintext e-mail, presumably using yet another protocol to transfer the e-mail from program to program.
About that whole secession thing...
$2000/year for cable. $1300/year for starbucks. $1680/year for cell phone ($140/month times twelve). $1000 per year for new electronics (figuring money spent on tablets and phones).
That's basically $3/hour dedicated to this stuff, before accounting for anything like food, lodging, medical care, car, conventional utilities, etc.
I am facing a different problem: "I'm not willing to move there".
We're not exactly in the middle of nowhere, but also we're an about 1.5 hours drive away from the next large city. Don't get it wrong, this ain't backwater nowhere, you have great internet connection and VERY affordable housing around here, and we're paying VERY well. Yet people are not willing to move those 1.5 hours away from where they're living.
Hell, I know people that commute 1.5 hours each way every single day!
It's simple. You have not found a wage/benefits combination that attracts the kinds of workers that you are looking for. It could be that those workers require or like the amenities that the city has and aren't willing to make a three hour round-trip for them. It could be that there's enough work for whatever this class of job is within the city or close to it, such that they do not have to come to you for employment.
As to your commute-time point, a lot of commuters with commutes that long are taking rail or bus. They may be commuting, but they're not wearing themselves out driving three hours a day in addition to being at work eight and a half to nine hours a day. Also, you mention one and a half hours to the city. What does city traffic add to cross the city itself during rush hour? Another half-hour? An hour? Suddenly that commute becomes four to five hours a day, which is just not sustainable.
My commute is fifteen minutes and ten miles. I would have to have one hell of a wage increase in order to justify a longer one.
Why does that have anything to do with SJWs?
It may be anecdotal, but most SJWs seem to live in the suburbs. After all, where else can they stay in their mother's basement?
Generally the borrower is going to be done with the property whether the bank cooperates with the borrower's attempt to short-sale or not. If the property goes into foreclosure then the bank has to spend all of the money required on the foreclosure process and then go through more steps; if the bank is lucky then the borrower remains living in the home doing upkeep until they're given eviction notice when the house goes on the open market again. If the bank is unlucky then either the borrower damages the home prior to losing it, or else the borrower moves out and cuts all ties as soon as possible such that the vacant property isn't being maintained and may even be actively vandalized.
... wait for it ... market value, aka, basically the price it would have gone for if it short-sold.
In the first foreclosure scenario the bank manages to sell it for
In the second foreclosure scenario the bank has to sell it below market value as the property is now in below average condition for the market that it's in. And good luck trying to get the former borrower to pay for anything. Plus, if the home is sufficiently damaged then they may have to either sell as-is with known faults, which means cash buyers only (and thus really low price) or else they have to spend money to fix it so that another lender will be willing to lend against it.
In short, if the borrower contacts the bank about short-selling a property, it's pretty much always in the bank's interest to entertain the idea.
Not all roommates are terrible. Some roommates are terrible. Others are fine.
House prices always rise faster than wages.
It's otherwise more expensive to live now than it used to be because people purchase so many more subscription services. Cable TV. Cable Internet. Cell Phone Plan. Netflix. Amazon Prime. People also purchase a lot of expensive toys or appliances too.
Growing up in the eighties, we had one subscription service beyond basic utilities, and that was the telephone. No cable TV, no Internet access. We had many fewer electric-using appliances, so the electric bill was probably no worse even accounting for the inefficient appliances. My parents did most of the remodelling themselves despite his career in MIS and a decent income. Hobbies we as children were encouraged to persue used inexpensive materials and took a lot of time, like model building. Our toys were generally durable and didn't need more than occasional add-ons from time to time.
Contrast to now where everyone in the family has the cell phone. The Internet bill and cable TV bill are steep. The toys are all electronic and all over a C-note. And people buy $5 coffees daily.
So what I take from the precentages is that people move an average of every four to five years. Obviously some move more often and some move less, so the spread might count for something, but it's not some vast case of decades of immobility.
Actually a short-sale is a thing and if paying whatever costs are necessary for the short-sale is far cheaper than paying the upside-down cost on the mortgage, then the short-sale approach probably makes more sense.
It's not like if you paid $200,000 for a house and you can sell only for $150,000 that you have to pay the bank $50,000. You might have to pay tax against that $50,000, and you might have to be careful about what state you move to as short-sale laws are not consistent across all states, but generally if you short-sell you don't have to pay what the bank loses on the deal, if they lose any due to mortgage insurance.
I was trying to figure out what the hell that statement actually means.
Thinking back to when I was 18-25 I moved six times. Moving out, moving from ghetto apartment to share a house, moving because the landlord needed the house for the next generation to go to college. Moving out of the nice apartment because the landlord was tired of being a landlord in-general and wanted to sell (even offered to sell to me but it wasn't where I wanted to live permanently), moving out of the house I rented with an ex-friend (be careful living with friends), moving out of my folks house that I was caretaker of when they were away for a year, finally ending up in a rental that I had until around 27. The only truly voluntary move was leaving home when I was eighteen, the rest had some degree of forced move, albeit some like renting my parents' house from them while they were away it was expected that I would move out when the time came.
From 25 to 35 I moved twice. Once out of the rental into my fiancee's house a couple weeks prior to getting married, and then five years later when we moved into a bigger house after the housing market crashed and we could get a whole lot of house for the money. Obviously both voluntary, but moving almost literally every five years kind of fits perfectly into that 20% of people moving every year, if everyone moved every five years. Statistically dead even on the line.
Why would people want to move often, especially as one reaches the top of the age range? People tend to acquire more stuff. They tend to find that their friendships are cemented. For women, per the CDC, the average age of first child is 25, and moving with children isn't exactly pleasant for anyone either. For someone to want to move after they've reached a degree of pleasant stability usually means they're able to significantly improve their station (like their career is strong and they can afford to go someplace much nicer) or they're forced to move because of some negative, either problems with work or problems with the neighborhood itself. Moving just for its own sake doesn't generally make a whole lot of sense for most people.
Yeah. I'm already facing this with passwords, and ironically it's home equipment that I have the biggest issues remembering simply because I don't have to reconfigure it often.
Some big automotive enthusiast forums company got breached and set draconian rules for passwords for the users (who themselves did nothing wrong) as a result. twelve characters, mixed case, numbers, and non-letter-number characters, must be changed monthly. Screw that. I don't need to talk about four by fours enough to bother with such a thing on a non-commerce site.
It also has to be supportable. If joe schmoe loses all of his e-mail because of problems with remembering keys or keychain files then not only is he going to stop using it, he's going to continue to have problems with people e-mailing to him with his now-broken public key.
The limit isn't the speed from the switch to the PC, it's the speed from the switch to the router that all of the wired and wireless clients have to share. Or in a home, the speed from the local L3 routing device to the ISP.
It doesn't do you any good to put up dozens of APs and to provide literally hundreds of switchports if you're only uplinking at 1000BaseT. Even 10GBaseT would be a limit in such an environment.
Having tested my cablemodem speeds, I could still get away with 802.11g and not see any noticeable bottleneck at the wireless.