Exactly why don't cars have an option that tells you what idiot lights are lit and what they mean?
Because why settle for selling a car when you can sell a car yet keep the vic-customer paying over and over and over again for maintenance?
The only thing better than planned obsolescence is planned obsolescence where you don't actually have to manufacture a new item, but just reset a counter on the old one.
But they would have been better off if THEY had been legally able to carry a gun (not all of his victims were children, some of them were people whose job it was to keep those children safe).
Not every country crumbles and surrenders its core values the second it runs into a terrorist. Breivik failed to accomplish anything beyond killing people and now rots in jail, nothing but a sad footnote on history, and children's summer camps still don't have armed guards "just in case". Compare that to Osama and his pretty much complete victory over the US.
Banning guns will not work in our culture. Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. Remember, with a modest amount of care, guns can last centuries. "Attrition" just isn't an option.
Banning guns in the US will not work because US citizens want to have guns and will oppose such motions. It has nothing to do with the amount of guns (because if a gun is used when banned, it's confiscated, and if it's not, it's not a problem), but about attitudes about them. Which are also what cause the gun violence problem: cars are accessible to pretty much everyone, and any dumbass can take one through a crowd on a sidewalk and easily kill more people than even the most elite sniper, and things like the GTA series ensure this is public knowledge - yet car massacres don't happen (or at least aren't reported).
Every American has access to what's basically guided artillery, yet they use relatively ineffective handguns for their murder sprees. Why? Why do guns get associated with violence while cars do not, despite being potentially far more lethal? Answer that question, and you can start making progress about understanding and perhaps stopping gun violence.
In other words, it's time to forget about politicians and call in the psychologists.
So a glass of water with ice cubes in it weighs more then a glass of water without ice?
...You do realize that Antarctica is a continent, not an ocean, right?
Hmm.. do you know where I could get a scale precise enough to measure this effect on small scale so I can compare it with a larger glass of water called an Ocean?
I swear, we need a gom jabbar test for politicians.
It's been tried. The SS, for example, prided themselves on their ability to carry on unpleasant "necessities". So did the Soviet Bolsheviks. Both kept on finding new victims in part precisely because it let them keep on exalting on their "transcendental" toughness. Do you really want to ensure every single politician has a similar self-image of an unflappable ubermensch immune to normal human emotions?
And of course that's ignoring all the trouble things like retributive justice and idiots defending their "honor" cause. Not to mention the occasional Slashdot post that advocates manned spaceflight because we could apparently start a Mars colony right this momement if we were macho enough. I swear, this idiotic cult of toughness will never die.
So is he? We're pretty much at World War III: Internet Edition nowadays. Even if you don't agree with a particular hactivist, one might still argue that they're Afghans and the NSA and other Acronym Evils are the Soviet Union.
Anybody who thinks that it is one nation's job to guard another nation's Western ideals has abandoned those ideals long ago.
So which nation is it which has made most noise about US being the leader of the free world? Clearly, the bad press US gets for falling short of that image rests square on the shoulders of whatever land came up with that "land of the free" -propaganda. I think it was called Ame-something.
I found it fascinating when Obama made these claims -- that he was going to review and fix the entire NSA program any day now and that Snowden just forced him to do it in a rush instead of carefully.
On the good side, he can now skip right to closing Guantanamo Bay.
Another solicitor for Freenet. This is a major kiddie porn network. They are always looking for more disk space.
We can take for given that any anonymous, censorship-resistant network will contain objectionable material of any imaginable kind. That is unavoidable; you cannot design a computer algorithm that protects good content from being censored by bad people yet lets good people censor bad content. Not even a fully sapient AI could do this, since it might simply disagree with you on what is or is not bad. So, you need to make a choice: either pedophiles are anonymous or no one is. You need to decide what is a bigger evil, sickos posting pictures of naked children or your government censoring something they don't like. It's one or the other, you can't get rid of both.
Also, I appreciate the irony that you posted as an AC.
There shouldn't be a case at all - while the father certainly has some steak[sic] in the game, he certainly has no ownership or power over the woman's body. If the laws and regulations in her area allow for her to have an abortion, it is her right to do so and no one else's decision. It's ridiculous that these kinds of cases have ever even occurred, but then again we live in a country where women are still treated by many of the old-thought people as property, possessions, and pawns to manipulate and direct as they choose.
Does the opposite also apply? That is, if the father-to-be gets cold feet, should he be able to disown any and all rights and responsibilities towards the kid? Because it seems like being potentially stuck paying child support for almost two decades is a larger inconvenience than carrying the child for nine months. So, on the basis of equality, should a "legal abortion" be possible in the same circumstances than a physical one (which, I agree, is anytime the parent-to-be wants to)?
Also, does every discussion online turn to abortion eventually? Is Midwife's Law the Godwin's Law for modern America ?-)
Or you could just use Freenet. It's slow, but it's specifically designed for anonymous, censorship-resistant file sharing, and since every node stores file chunks, every node will help the network even if run by a sick weirdo who's only interested in discussing the philosophy of ethics on Frost.
So now you toil your life away and eventually have absolutely nothing to show for it in the end.
And given that, does it really make sense to toil? From what I've seen around here, more and more people are moving from "bust your ass to make as much as possible" to "put in the minimum effort needed to survive, even if you could easily make more, because it just isn't worth it". Good for them, but I doubt modern economies can survive the end of consumerism and the resulting slow or nonexistent growth.
The value of bitcoins is up at the news of a hearing that is probably going to make it illegal to do 95% of what is done with BTC?
That makes sense.
If your hypothesis leads to predictions that disagree with observed reality, then the logical conclusion is that your hypothesis is wrong. Perhaps you should tell us where you got your "95%" statistic, so that we can analyze what, exactly speaking, went wrong?
What I heard is that Renault realized that the cost of the battery is one of the main problems in electric car adoption, both because it is expensive and because it is unclear how its value will depreciate over time.
But because that was a problem potentially solvable through technology, they decided to replace it with a much bigger problem that does not depend on insufficiently advanced technology to remain unsolvable. It's an utterly brilliant move that should definitely help make all electric cars seem suspicious. Well done, Renault. My lungs thank you, or would if they weren't choking on exhaust fumes.
Therefore, instead of letting people buy the car with the battery, they sell the car much cheaper without a battery and the battery can be leased.
Yes, that solves the problem. Renault is run by independently wealthy philanthropists, thus it can take the loss of leasing the battery for less than its monthly deprecation.
I haven't looked into this further, but a possible reason for refusing to recharge would be if someone stopped paying the lease of the battery but didn't return it. Or if the battery pack got stolen from the person who leased it.
Or to protect the customer from being preyed upon by third party battery manufacturers, who might tempt them with cheaper and/or better replacements. A weak soul might yield, thus committing the mortal sin of giving their money to these seducers rather than Renault, who it rightfully belongs to. It's a dangerous market full of such moral pitfalls, and Renault needs to protect its customers from being poached by competitors.
Oh well. We were already moving towards own-nothing culture by making everything disposable; I guess letting DRM spread and infect physical products is the next step. Won't it be glorious to return to the past where everything is owned by the King and we're all just leasing from him, subject to his goodwill which in turn depends on our continued obedience?
Considering how close that is to a nuclear power station I think you might have bigger things to worry about than a military drone that went down in the lake.
Well, no. A possibly broken container full of jet fuel poses a far greater danger than a nuclear power station. However, fearmongering like yours poses still more risk to any particular person and humanity as a whole than both combined, since it keeps us tied to fossile fuels with all the problems with shortages and enviromental damage that implies.
You are "a bigger thing to worry about". How's it feel to be a threat to humanity?
Just an accident. And when the first drone "accidentally fires" on a US citizen... what then?
Nothing.
Why? Do you expect the same people who did nothing when they got the Snowden revelations, and the Wikileaks revelations, and the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo Bay, and Iraq War, and and and - do you think these people will suddenly do something? No, there'll be some noise on the Internet, it will die down, and the assasinations will continue with increasing frequency until they've become the new norm. Then it's onward to the next step.
Because when the most important factor for making money is having money, you get a vicious circle where a small group ends up looting the entire economy, then using their newfound wealth to buy laws to prevent anyone from rising to challenge them. The scheme finally collapses when the plutocrats start believing their own lies about the system being just and fair, fail to pay enough for maintenance because the serfs deserve their fate, and cause an economic collapse - which is the phase we're in now. The next will be popular uprising, the signs of which are already visible in the form of Occupy movements, the rise of European nationalist parties and even the Tea Party, misdirected as the last might be.
The interesting question is how much damage resetting the cycle will cause this time. The last great cycle, the one associated with the Industrial Revolution, saw the rise of communism and fascism as reactions to the predations of the plutocrats. The end results were Hitler, Stalin, Mao and a number of lesser (or at least less powerful) monsters, and perhaps a hundred million deaths. How many people need to die this time around?
It's really up to people like you: will you continue following ideology and distorting everything to fit it to the bitter end, or do you acknowledge reality at some point?
You forgot to include how terrorists will kill puppies and Cthulhu will rise from the depths if copyright is abolished. If you want to set up an argument from intimidation, at least don't be lazy about it.
Encryption is worthless without secure key exchange
Encryption is still useful when it prevents your enemy from simply dumbing everything to be analyzed later. A MITM attack requires more resources than simply saving the packets. It's simple herd tactics: a Carnivore can still brutally tear apart any particular victim it wants, but while it does the rest get away; it can no longer make a net and catch them all to be slaughtered at its leisure.
The problem with self-signed certs is that there isn't a good way to determine whether a site is legitimately using a self-signed cert, or if an attacker is successfully accomplishing a man-in-the-middle attack using a self-signed cert.
Well, you need to trust you got the right URL anyway, so the most logical way would be to embed the certificate fingerprint into it. Something like httpc://abcdef01020304/slashdot.org. This won't stop malicious agents from spreading false URLs, but nothing's stopping them from doing so with any certificate system.
Eliminating plain-http would destroy the internet as we know it because the only alternative then is forking cash over to an easily-manipulated corporation for the priviledge of then being able to talk on the internet.
Well, the simplest way to combat this would be to device a new URI scheme that combines both a DNS/IP adress and a public key. That way lose the need to have external certification authorities, at the cost of also losing easy memorization of adresses. But who types them in by hand anyway?
It would kill things like Tor and hidden services.
Tor would be completely unaffected. Simply have the project create a dummy root certificate, publish it, then have people add it to the browser they use to browse Tor (Tor Browser Bundle would naturally come preconfigured).
It don't matter. The NSA will simply require the root certs of all CAs and make all this work moot.
Actually, it would still help. There's a huge difference in resource requirements between listening in on a connection and doing a MITM for it. Mass surveillance is only possible because modern technology makes it cheap; every speedbumb, no matter how trivial, helps when it applies to every single connection.
Slashdot Mirror
Because why settle for selling a car when you can sell a car yet keep the vic-customer paying over and over and over again for maintenance?
The only thing better than planned obsolescence is planned obsolescence where you don't actually have to manufacture a new item, but just reset a counter on the old one.
Government officials should live in fear of their lives.
They've shown that they can't be trusted in other circumstances.
And ensuring that only those who's lust for power overrides even their self-protection instinct seek the job improves things how?
Not every country crumbles and surrenders its core values the second it runs into a terrorist. Breivik failed to accomplish anything beyond killing people and now rots in jail, nothing but a sad footnote on history, and children's summer camps still don't have armed guards "just in case". Compare that to Osama and his pretty much complete victory over the US.
Banning guns in the US will not work because US citizens want to have guns and will oppose such motions. It has nothing to do with the amount of guns (because if a gun is used when banned, it's confiscated, and if it's not, it's not a problem), but about attitudes about them. Which are also what cause the gun violence problem: cars are accessible to pretty much everyone, and any dumbass can take one through a crowd on a sidewalk and easily kill more people than even the most elite sniper, and things like the GTA series ensure this is public knowledge - yet car massacres don't happen (or at least aren't reported).
Every American has access to what's basically guided artillery, yet they use relatively ineffective handguns for their murder sprees. Why? Why do guns get associated with violence while cars do not, despite being potentially far more lethal? Answer that question, and you can start making progress about understanding and perhaps stopping gun violence.
In other words, it's time to forget about politicians and call in the psychologists.
...You do realize that Antarctica is a continent, not an ocean, right?
Nope, I guess you didn't.
It's been tried. The SS, for example, prided themselves on their ability to carry on unpleasant "necessities". So did the Soviet Bolsheviks. Both kept on finding new victims in part precisely because it let them keep on exalting on their "transcendental" toughness. Do you really want to ensure every single politician has a similar self-image of an unflappable ubermensch immune to normal human emotions?
And of course that's ignoring all the trouble things like retributive justice and idiots defending their "honor" cause. Not to mention the occasional Slashdot post that advocates manned spaceflight because we could apparently start a Mars colony right this momement if we were macho enough. I swear, this idiotic cult of toughness will never die.
Certainty is not the realm of mere mortals. The question is, which is likely to cause least damage: nuclear power, coal, or deindustrialization?
Thus far, the "green" solution seems to be picking coal and pretending you'll switch to renewables - any decade now.
So is he? We're pretty much at World War III: Internet Edition nowadays. Even if you don't agree with a particular hactivist, one might still argue that they're Afghans and the NSA and other Acronym Evils are the Soviet Union.
So which nation is it which has made most noise about US being the leader of the free world? Clearly, the bad press US gets for falling short of that image rests square on the shoulders of whatever land came up with that "land of the free" -propaganda. I think it was called Ame-something.
On the good side, he can now skip right to closing Guantanamo Bay.
We can take for given that any anonymous, censorship-resistant network will contain objectionable material of any imaginable kind. That is unavoidable; you cannot design a computer algorithm that protects good content from being censored by bad people yet lets good people censor bad content. Not even a fully sapient AI could do this, since it might simply disagree with you on what is or is not bad. So, you need to make a choice: either pedophiles are anonymous or no one is. You need to decide what is a bigger evil, sickos posting pictures of naked children or your government censoring something they don't like. It's one or the other, you can't get rid of both.
Also, I appreciate the irony that you posted as an AC.
Does the opposite also apply? That is, if the father-to-be gets cold feet, should he be able to disown any and all rights and responsibilities towards the kid? Because it seems like being potentially stuck paying child support for almost two decades is a larger inconvenience than carrying the child for nine months. So, on the basis of equality, should a "legal abortion" be possible in the same circumstances than a physical one (which, I agree, is anytime the parent-to-be wants to)?
Also, does every discussion online turn to abortion eventually? Is Midwife's Law the Godwin's Law for modern America ?-)
Or you could just use Freenet. It's slow, but it's specifically designed for anonymous, censorship-resistant file sharing, and since every node stores file chunks, every node will help the network even if run by a sick weirdo who's only interested in discussing the philosophy of ethics on Frost.
And given that, does it really make sense to toil? From what I've seen around here, more and more people are moving from "bust your ass to make as much as possible" to "put in the minimum effort needed to survive, even if you could easily make more, because it just isn't worth it". Good for them, but I doubt modern economies can survive the end of consumerism and the resulting slow or nonexistent growth.
If your hypothesis leads to predictions that disagree with observed reality, then the logical conclusion is that your hypothesis is wrong. Perhaps you should tell us where you got your "95%" statistic, so that we can analyze what, exactly speaking, went wrong?
But because that was a problem potentially solvable through technology, they decided to replace it with a much bigger problem that does not depend on insufficiently advanced technology to remain unsolvable. It's an utterly brilliant move that should definitely help make all electric cars seem suspicious. Well done, Renault. My lungs thank you, or would if they weren't choking on exhaust fumes.
Yes, that solves the problem. Renault is run by independently wealthy philanthropists, thus it can take the loss of leasing the battery for less than its monthly deprecation.
Or to protect the customer from being preyed upon by third party battery manufacturers, who might tempt them with cheaper and/or better replacements. A weak soul might yield, thus committing the mortal sin of giving their money to these seducers rather than Renault, who it rightfully belongs to. It's a dangerous market full of such moral pitfalls, and Renault needs to protect its customers from being poached by competitors.
Oh well. We were already moving towards own-nothing culture by making everything disposable; I guess letting DRM spread and infect physical products is the next step. Won't it be glorious to return to the past where everything is owned by the King and we're all just leasing from him, subject to his goodwill which in turn depends on our continued obedience?
Well, no. A possibly broken container full of jet fuel poses a far greater danger than a nuclear power station. However, fearmongering like yours poses still more risk to any particular person and humanity as a whole than both combined, since it keeps us tied to fossile fuels with all the problems with shortages and enviromental damage that implies.
You are "a bigger thing to worry about". How's it feel to be a threat to humanity?
Nothing.
Why? Do you expect the same people who did nothing when they got the Snowden revelations, and the Wikileaks revelations, and the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo Bay, and Iraq War, and and and - do you think these people will suddenly do something? No, there'll be some noise on the Internet, it will die down, and the assasinations will continue with increasing frequency until they've become the new norm. Then it's onward to the next step.
If Osama indeed hated your freedom, then he won.
Apple better pay up, then - glass is so terrible fragile :).
Because when the most important factor for making money is having money, you get a vicious circle where a small group ends up looting the entire economy, then using their newfound wealth to buy laws to prevent anyone from rising to challenge them. The scheme finally collapses when the plutocrats start believing their own lies about the system being just and fair, fail to pay enough for maintenance because the serfs deserve their fate, and cause an economic collapse - which is the phase we're in now. The next will be popular uprising, the signs of which are already visible in the form of Occupy movements, the rise of European nationalist parties and even the Tea Party, misdirected as the last might be.
The interesting question is how much damage resetting the cycle will cause this time. The last great cycle, the one associated with the Industrial Revolution, saw the rise of communism and fascism as reactions to the predations of the plutocrats. The end results were Hitler, Stalin, Mao and a number of lesser (or at least less powerful) monsters, and perhaps a hundred million deaths. How many people need to die this time around?
It's really up to people like you: will you continue following ideology and distorting everything to fit it to the bitter end, or do you acknowledge reality at some point?
You forgot to include how terrorists will kill puppies and Cthulhu will rise from the depths if copyright is abolished. If you want to set up an argument from intimidation, at least don't be lazy about it.
Encryption is still useful when it prevents your enemy from simply dumbing everything to be analyzed later. A MITM attack requires more resources than simply saving the packets. It's simple herd tactics: a Carnivore can still brutally tear apart any particular victim it wants, but while it does the rest get away; it can no longer make a net and catch them all to be slaughtered at its leisure.
Well, you need to trust you got the right URL anyway, so the most logical way would be to embed the certificate fingerprint into it. Something like httpc://abcdef01020304/slashdot.org. This won't stop malicious agents from spreading false URLs, but nothing's stopping them from doing so with any certificate system.
Well, the simplest way to combat this would be to device a new URI scheme that combines both a DNS/IP adress and a public key. That way lose the need to have external certification authorities, at the cost of also losing easy memorization of adresses. But who types them in by hand anyway?
Tor would be completely unaffected. Simply have the project create a dummy root certificate, publish it, then have people add it to the browser they use to browse Tor (Tor Browser Bundle would naturally come preconfigured).
Actually, it would still help. There's a huge difference in resource requirements between listening in on a connection and doing a MITM for it. Mass surveillance is only possible because modern technology makes it cheap; every speedbumb, no matter how trivial, helps when it applies to every single connection.