Or, at least my trucker friends were always on about it.
Yeah, except his point is that the economics will kill independent operators, not the government.
I agree with the top-level post: While the MIT proposal makes sense environmentally, it is fundamentally unsafe to retrofit existing trucks and run with giant gas tanks hanging off the sides.
Also agree with rtb61: All-electric vehicles will fundamentally change the industry.
Once electric is more economical than diesel, things are going to change. And this will happen regardless of government intervention---the government can only affect the timing a bit.
Independent trucking will die eventually, but it will happen primarily because of progress in electric vehicle tech. The rate of progress determines whether it takes 5 years or 50.
Most sites provide their file hashes over HTTPS. If I'm going to verify the file on my end anyway, there's no real reason for the site to waste CPU encrypting the entire ISO every time someone downloads it.
Digital signatures and hash verification address the same security concerns with less impact.
It is already difficult enough to migrate data fully. From my experience back-in-the-day, a customer usually couldn't tell you exactly what he wanted or where anything was saved.
And now they will have the fad-chasing, premium-paying customer base feeling entitled to it. May God have mercy on their souls.
many of the hardware drivers necessary in an industrial environment just won't install easily
That's the vendor's problem, not Microsoft's. It is not hard at all to sign up for MSDN and get pre-release access to the OS.
It's especially common in industrial and medical equipment, but that doesn't change the facts: the vendor has cheap, lazy, shitty development practices.
I know we've been complaining forever about the shitty security of Windows, but when they actually tighten shit up, it gets right in the way.
It's impossible to improve security without disrupting some use cases. The best approach is to be as transparent as possible: announce design goals early, provide early access to developers, communicate changes frequently, and test internally as often as possible.
Ultimately, third party developers are responsible for complying with the OS security model. Since closed source software is typical on Windows, there is often a clear legal line that limits who can fix things.
I remember the nightmare that was SELinux back when it first came out. Security headaches are not a uniquely-Windows problem.
Not only is that legally impossible; it's also a a terrible idea.
Microsoft publishes their support lifecycle, and anyone can find out exactly how long their software will be supported. Occasionally they extend it (as was the case with XP), but they are not obligated to do so.
If treating the end of support like a drop-dead date makes their OS an unappealing purchase... then don't buy it.
1. Boeing self-certified that pilots certified in type did not require additional training. (Prior to the recent deregulation, they weren't allowed to self-certify.)
2. Pilots had to break out the manual during an emergency to properly control a system they were not trained to use.
3. The system either did not disengage properly, or else it reengaged automatically, contrary to well-established norms for this aircraft type.
Boeing screwed up, but it also happened because of relaxed oversight. The previous level of oversight seems more appropriate.
Perhaps the FAA Administrator who made these changes should be forced to resign. This administration has had enough turnover that the President should be capable of appointing new leadership quickly.
Animals cannot consent legally, nor can children. The ability to understand a contract or an agreement and its consequences is required for consent. If you want an opinion with greater detail, go bother a lawyer.
If any of the above changes, feel free to reopen the marriage debate.
who 'consent' in the generic sense of the word
Which is why I said legal consent. So what happens when your entire post wants to confuse the definition of consent? It becomes an irrelevant, rambling nothingburger.
a 17 year old boy... his 25 year old teacher
May or may not be statutory rape depending on the state. It's not really relevant to the question of gay marriage though, so it doesn't matter here.
Here is how you test for fairness and equality: Draw the line for legal consent. Whoever is on the "able to consent" side of that line can marry any currently-unmarried person who is also on the "able to consent" side.
I'm pretty sure the studies are trying to demonstrate that their modifications are plausible and undetectable. The idea that you get bad conclusions from bad data... that's not really up for debate.
Basically, you can fool anyone with good fakes, but not everyone can make good fakes. These guys proved they can. And they have an automated tool that can do it
The government recognizes and enforces the agreement, but it is not a party to it.
As far as this, however:
When the people in the US have been asked at the ballot if they wish to be a party to homosexual marriages, they almost always say no, they do not.
That is not true, and it has been untrue for years. I believe the majority support for gay marriage first occurred around 2013. It's been steadily growing for decades. If you truly believe the majority opinion should determine the public policy, then you should accept this particular policy.
Care to explain why its ridiculous while two chicks marrying each other is not?
I'm not the original AC, but this is easy enough to answer that I'll step in.
Marriage is a legal agreement, and it requires legal consent. Legal consent generally requires an adult of sound mind.
Thus, an equitable society will allow marriage between a man and a woman, two women, or two men. Marriage of children, animals, and objects is not sensible because none of them can provide legal consent.
So, if you're looking for a clear line---here it is. On the other hand, if you're just trying to justify your bigotry... don't bother. No justification will make it less repulsive.
When users petition management for things that shouldn't be allowed---and occasionally get them---then it is quite reasonable to blame both them and management.
The people who are supposed to make things better blaming the victims they failed to help and protect.
If users won't follow a particular security guideline, we have a choice. Either we need a security service costing $XXXXX to prevent The Bad Thing from happening, or we need to block functionality A, B, and C which the company paid $YYYYY to deploy.
If management refuses to enforce the security guidelines and refuses to pay for mitigating measures, then failure is assured. I work in an environment that values security now, but I haven't forgotten how some organizations operate.
If you want to cut a project's delivery time in half, you almost always need to write a huge check.
So doing this means one of two things: 1. A big check is authorized by leaders of the nominally small-government political party. 2. NASA drops a number of other projects that are far more useful.
There is no point in sending a government tourist to the moon in 2019. Unless we are planning to establish long-term facilities or learning something important, the moon is a waste of resources. I see no indication of either benefit from the article.
Normally, I would disagree with the following quote:
The ranking Democrats say paper ballots are "basic necessities" for a reliable voting system, but the companies still produce machines that don't produce paper results.
But if these vendors can't even patch their systems, I don't trust them to implement an auditable system that guarantees privacy based on a solid understanding of modern crypto.
If there was an obligation to make that material easily (though not necessarily freely) available, I think that's all we'd need.
Right-to-repair laws include exactly this. I would like to see it universal rather than only applicable to tractors.
In general, RTR laws include three provisions: availability of documentation, availability of parts (to anyone, not just vendor shops), and a rule against "lock out".
In this particular case, John Deere is well known for firmware lockouts that prevent new parts from working until they are authorized.
And don't let the corps BS you on this one either: US warranty laws ALREADY allow them to void warranties due to improper modifications. They are already protected from bad workmanship, and the issue is 100% distraction.
So, obviously, curbing emissions is clearly the best approach to arresting climate change. Lowering emissions is Plan A.
But what is wrong with creating a Plan B? Or a complementary project that enhances Plan A?
That study is basically a detailed look at some technologies that might help. It wouldn't implement them; it wouldn't change anything. The purpose of that study is nothing more than to understand our options.
This decision is asinine, but I wouldn't expect anything else from a denialist administration.
all applicable state and federal taxes must be paid too.
Most states exempt business-to-business transactions from sales tax. There is no federal tax on advertising services either, so there are no direct tax liabilities.
It will shift around their profits, but the accountants and tax lawyers are there to make sure that the profits don't disappear. Or to exploit tax regulations, if the situation allows, for more profits.
It's not completely free to them, even on their own platforms.
It may not be technically entirely free, but it's scarcely more a rounding error on their P&L.
Somewhat agree. I believe that the 40+ push-up group is a proxy for people who are very physically active.
It is relatively easy for a sedentary person to develop a treadmill habit. With minimal effort, it is possible to build up an hours-long treadmill endurance. Treadmill is the fast food of exercises.
On the other hand, doing a lot of push-ups requires significant upper body strength. Building and maintaining strength is hard work; it reflects a dedicated fitness program or regular physical labor.
If the analysis could control for overall physical activity (duration+intensity), I would expect that to be the lead indicator rather than push-up count.
In the Discussion section, they do mention earlier studies correlate physical strength with cardiovascular health. So it seems they are aware of the complexities (no surprise there), and this article mainly confirms that counting push-ups is a quick and easy proxy measurement for overall strength.
You are willfully ignorant, and it is clear you never even read the article.
In the article, they explain that the retreat of the glacier and the sinking of the surface are explained by the interior melting. The landscape is changing, and it stands to reason that something is causing these changes. Thanks to ground penetrating radar, we know what.
If you believe the void within the glacier was there the entire time, then you have to explain why the glacier is only retreating now and why the surface has just started sinking. So, I guess I'll be waiting for your publication.
We cannot reverse what was done. If the scientists unwittingly used data from forced transplants, they are neither guilty nor complicit. If they knowingly violated ethical guidelines, they can be censured or blacklisted.
We have two choices: whether or not we use this data in the future now that we know about its provenance, and whether or not we use the knowledge that was gained earlier.
I believe that this call for retraction is an overstep and a mistake. Censure the scientists who knowingly benefited from organ harvesting, but do not purge this knowledge from the scientific record (which is essentially what a retraction does). Pushing science and medicine backwards has a cost as well, and that cost ultimately falls on everyone.
There is little need for more defensible data. It is well established that humans cannot multitask very effectively, and generally all tasks suffer in performance while multitasking. Using a smart phone while learning in class is a rather clear subset of the general phenomenon.
That said, it could be useful to know how strongly academic performance is affected. All tasks are not affected equally, so there are still some unknown elements.
But such details are not necessary to support a general claim along the lines of: Learning should improve if we ban smart phones from classrooms when they are not relevant to planned lessons.
Smart phones are part of adult life now, and they are increasingly part of a professional toolkit. I believe that schools should start to impress upon children the polite and productive uses of smart phones if possible, which implies there is a time and a place for them to be in the classroom.
Slashdot Mirror
When a major corporation cares more about civil rights than law enforcement, that points to serious problems.
I tend to assume that "bad cops" are just isolated incidents that get a lot of attention, but this may force me to reconsider my assumptions.
Or, at least my trucker friends were always on about it.
Yeah, except his point is that the economics will kill independent operators, not the government.
I agree with the top-level post: While the MIT proposal makes sense environmentally, it is fundamentally unsafe to retrofit existing trucks and run with giant gas tanks hanging off the sides.
Also agree with rtb61: All-electric vehicles will fundamentally change the industry.
Once electric is more economical than diesel, things are going to change. And this will happen regardless of government intervention---the government can only affect the timing a bit.
Independent trucking will die eventually, but it will happen primarily because of progress in electric vehicle tech. The rate of progress determines whether it takes 5 years or 50.
At least the government is capable of making good decisions from time to time.
Amazon and Microsoft are leaders in the cloud industry for a reason.
I'd pity anyone who got stuck with Oracle's service.
Most sites provide their file hashes over HTTPS. If I'm going to verify the file on my end anyway, there's no real reason for the site to waste CPU encrypting the entire ISO every time someone downloads it.
Digital signatures and hash verification address the same security concerns with less impact.
It is already difficult enough to migrate data fully. From my experience back-in-the-day, a customer usually couldn't tell you exactly what he wanted or where anything was saved.
And now they will have the fad-chasing, premium-paying customer base feeling entitled to it. May God have mercy on their souls.
many of the hardware drivers necessary in an industrial environment just won't install easily
That's the vendor's problem, not Microsoft's. It is not hard at all to sign up for MSDN and get pre-release access to the OS.
It's especially common in industrial and medical equipment, but that doesn't change the facts: the vendor has cheap, lazy, shitty development practices.
I know we've been complaining forever about the shitty security of Windows, but when they actually tighten shit up, it gets right in the way.
It's impossible to improve security without disrupting some use cases. The best approach is to be as transparent as possible: announce design goals early, provide early access to developers, communicate changes frequently, and test internally as often as possible.
Ultimately, third party developers are responsible for complying with the OS security model. Since closed source software is typical on Windows, there is often a clear legal line that limits who can fix things.
I remember the nightmare that was SELinux back when it first came out. Security headaches are not a uniquely-Windows problem.
Not only is that legally impossible; it's also a a terrible idea.
Microsoft publishes their support lifecycle, and anyone can find out exactly how long their software will be supported. Occasionally they extend it (as was the case with XP), but they are not obligated to do so.
If treating the end of support like a drop-dead date makes their OS an unappealing purchase... then don't buy it.
So, to summarize:
1. Boeing self-certified that pilots certified in type did not require additional training. (Prior to the recent deregulation, they weren't allowed to self-certify.)
2. Pilots had to break out the manual during an emergency to properly control a system they were not trained to use.
3. The system either did not disengage properly, or else it reengaged automatically, contrary to well-established norms for this aircraft type.
Boeing screwed up, but it also happened because of relaxed oversight. The previous level of oversight seems more appropriate.
Perhaps the FAA Administrator who made these changes should be forced to resign. This administration has had enough turnover that the President should be capable of appointing new leadership quickly.
how is said govt going to block access to a sat network?
Internet access requires two-way comms. They should be capable of locating any terrestrial transmitter that can reach orbital receivers.
Even focused directional antennae are detectable when you can put planes or satellites overhead.
There is no need for electronic disruption. They can simply find and arrest the users.
Animals cannot consent legally, nor can children. The ability to understand a contract or an agreement and its consequences is required for consent. If you want an opinion with greater detail, go bother a lawyer.
If any of the above changes, feel free to reopen the marriage debate.
who 'consent' in the generic sense of the word
Which is why I said legal consent. So what happens when your entire post wants to confuse the definition of consent? It becomes an irrelevant, rambling nothingburger.
a 17 year old boy... his 25 year old teacher
May or may not be statutory rape depending on the state. It's not really relevant to the question of gay marriage though, so it doesn't matter here.
Here is how you test for fairness and equality: Draw the line for legal consent. Whoever is on the "able to consent" side of that line can marry any currently-unmarried person who is also on the "able to consent" side.
I'm pretty sure the studies are trying to demonstrate that their modifications are plausible and undetectable. The idea that you get bad conclusions from bad data... that's not really up for debate.
Basically, you can fool anyone with good fakes, but not everyone can make good fakes. These guys proved they can. And they have an automated tool that can do it
The government recognizes and enforces the agreement, but it is not a party to it.
As far as this, however:
When the people in the US have been asked at the ballot if they wish to be a party to homosexual marriages, they almost always say no, they do not.
That is not true, and it has been untrue for years. I believe the majority support for gay marriage first occurred around 2013. It's been steadily growing for decades. If you truly believe the majority opinion should determine the public policy, then you should accept this particular policy.
Care to explain why its ridiculous while two chicks marrying each other is not?
I'm not the original AC, but this is easy enough to answer that I'll step in.
Marriage is a legal agreement, and it requires legal consent. Legal consent generally requires an adult of sound mind.
Thus, an equitable society will allow marriage between a man and a woman, two women, or two men. Marriage of children, animals, and objects is not sensible because none of them can provide legal consent.
So, if you're looking for a clear line---here it is. On the other hand, if you're just trying to justify your bigotry... don't bother. No justification will make it less repulsive.
It's just cheap-shot victim blaming.
When users petition management for things that shouldn't be allowed---and occasionally get them---then it is quite reasonable to blame both them and management.
The people who are supposed to make things better blaming the victims they failed to help and protect.
If users won't follow a particular security guideline, we have a choice. Either we need a security service costing $XXXXX to prevent The Bad Thing from happening, or we need to block functionality A, B, and C which the company paid $YYYYY to deploy.
If management refuses to enforce the security guidelines and refuses to pay for mitigating measures, then failure is assured. I work in an environment that values security now, but I haven't forgotten how some organizations operate.
If you want to cut a project's delivery time in half, you almost always need to write a huge check.
So doing this means one of two things:
1. A big check is authorized by leaders of the nominally small-government political party.
2. NASA drops a number of other projects that are far more useful.
There is no point in sending a government tourist to the moon in 2019. Unless we are planning to establish long-term facilities or learning something important, the moon is a waste of resources. I see no indication of either benefit from the article.
Normally, I would disagree with the following quote:
The ranking Democrats say paper ballots are "basic necessities" for a reliable voting system, but the companies still produce machines that don't produce paper results.
But if these vendors can't even patch their systems, I don't trust them to implement an auditable system that guarantees privacy based on a solid understanding of modern crypto.
So, sadly, paper ballots seem necessary in 2019.
According to the article, it varied from $500k-$3m.
Depending on the size of the company, that could range from a slap on the wrist to bankruptcy.
Maybe we need to report fines in relation to gross revenue or net operating income...
If there was an obligation to make that material easily (though not necessarily freely) available, I think that's all we'd need.
Right-to-repair laws include exactly this. I would like to see it universal rather than only applicable to tractors.
In general, RTR laws include three provisions: availability of documentation, availability of parts (to anyone, not just vendor shops), and a rule against "lock out".
In this particular case, John Deere is well known for firmware lockouts that prevent new parts from working until they are authorized.
And don't let the corps BS you on this one either: US warranty laws ALREADY allow them to void warranties due to improper modifications. They are already protected from bad workmanship, and the issue is 100% distraction.
So, obviously, curbing emissions is clearly the best approach to arresting climate change. Lowering emissions is Plan A.
But what is wrong with creating a Plan B? Or a complementary project that enhances Plan A?
That study is basically a detailed look at some technologies that might help. It wouldn't implement them; it wouldn't change anything. The purpose of that study is nothing more than to understand our options.
This decision is asinine, but I wouldn't expect anything else from a denialist administration.
all applicable state and federal taxes must be paid too.
Most states exempt business-to-business transactions from sales tax. There is no federal tax on advertising services either, so there are no direct tax liabilities.
It will shift around their profits, but the accountants and tax lawyers are there to make sure that the profits don't disappear. Or to exploit tax regulations, if the situation allows, for more profits.
It's not completely free to them, even on their own platforms.
It may not be technically entirely free, but it's scarcely more a rounding error on their P&L.
Somewhat agree. I believe that the 40+ push-up group is a proxy for people who are very physically active.
It is relatively easy for a sedentary person to develop a treadmill habit. With minimal effort, it is possible to build up an hours-long treadmill endurance. Treadmill is the fast food of exercises.
On the other hand, doing a lot of push-ups requires significant upper body strength. Building and maintaining strength is hard work; it reflects a dedicated fitness program or regular physical labor.
If the analysis could control for overall physical activity (duration+intensity), I would expect that to be the lead indicator rather than push-up count.
In the Discussion section, they do mention earlier studies correlate physical strength with cardiovascular health. So it seems they are aware of the complexities (no surprise there), and this article mainly confirms that counting push-ups is a quick and easy proxy measurement for overall strength.
You are willfully ignorant, and it is clear you never even read the article.
In the article, they explain that the retreat of the glacier and the sinking of the surface are explained by the interior melting. The landscape is changing, and it stands to reason that something is causing these changes. Thanks to ground penetrating radar, we know what.
If you believe the void within the glacier was there the entire time, then you have to explain why the glacier is only retreating now and why the surface has just started sinking. So, I guess I'll be waiting for your publication.
We cannot reverse what was done. If the scientists unwittingly used data from forced transplants, they are neither guilty nor complicit. If they knowingly violated ethical guidelines, they can be censured or blacklisted.
We have two choices: whether or not we use this data in the future now that we know about its provenance, and whether or not we use the knowledge that was gained earlier.
I believe that this call for retraction is an overstep and a mistake. Censure the scientists who knowingly benefited from organ harvesting, but do not purge this knowledge from the scientific record (which is essentially what a retraction does). Pushing science and medicine backwards has a cost as well, and that cost ultimately falls on everyone.
There is little need for more defensible data. It is well established that humans cannot multitask very effectively, and generally all tasks suffer in performance while multitasking. Using a smart phone while learning in class is a rather clear subset of the general phenomenon.
That said, it could be useful to know how strongly academic performance is affected. All tasks are not affected equally, so there are still some unknown elements.
But such details are not necessary to support a general claim along the lines of: Learning should improve if we ban smart phones from classrooms when they are not relevant to planned lessons.
Smart phones are part of adult life now, and they are increasingly part of a professional toolkit. I believe that schools should start to impress upon children the polite and productive uses of smart phones if possible, which implies there is a time and a place for them to be in the classroom.
Those fleas have sucked enough of my personal data. They already know (or can guess) where I shop. They don't need specifics.