It doesn't matter if anybody died or got injured. TMI was a PR disaster for the industry. I think this quote pretty much sums it up:
"The only negative long-term health effect from TMI has been mass psychosis caused by the Hiroshima Syndrome."
The biggest problem nuclear has is the "3 Mile Island", "Chernobyl", "Fukushima" effect. Basically, when things go bad, they can go REALLY bad. Then of course, there was the San Onofre maintenance issue which generated a ton of bad publicity - in a highly populated area; ultimately leading to the shutdown of the reactor. People don't like the idea of being radiated; and understandably so. It is an extremely high hurdle to restore public confidence. Even those who claim to be "pro-nuclear" would say "yes, fine, as long as it isn't in my back yard". The new designs are far safer and more efficient. The industry needs to now solve the PR issue before it can gain traction again - which means an expensive campaign. Nothing is going to change until that happens.
I understand your point, but if you believe a store is unsafe to visit, you don't go to that store. You don't decide, oh - I'll just shoplift. Some sites allow you to pay so you can avoid the ads, and the response from some has been: "Why would I pay when I can just use an ad-blocker"? Some people I'm sure are using ad-blockers to protect against malware, but the vast majority of people do so because they just don't want to be bothered by the ads. Obviously there are safe ads, otherwise everyone would be freaking out about it. Regarding the point about sites choosing ads, brokers, etc. It is still the responsibility of the site to ensure the ads which appear there are safe. It's their site. If the broker they have chosen is a bad apple, they need to choose another broker. That is standard premise liability law.
Yes, anything is possible, just as it is possible the sun will super nova tomorrow and destroy the earth... or the planet will get hit by an untracked meteor; or how about the nemesis theory?
I didn't say everything was safe - I said that if websites want to use ads, that is fair - and if people don't want to agree to the terms of the website, don't visit it. Second, I stated that if websites are using ads, they have a responsibility to ensure there is no malware. Third, claiming the use of an ad-blocker to protect against malware is a bit disingenuous. Now, if you are claiming that the primary purpose of ad-blockers is malware detection, I'm not buying it. Most people use them just because they don't want to be annoyed by ads. I completely understand that, but believe it is ripping off the website, because they consider the ads as payment for the content. If you don't trust the ads are safe, don't visit the website. I've encountered sites which went overboard on the ads. I don't visit them anymore.
Ads are a way for companies to get revenue on their content. That seems fair. If you don't want to agree to their terms, don't visit their website. Simple enough. If they are using ads however, they do have a responsibility to ensure there is no malware. Claiming you are running an ad-blocker to protect against malware however is a bit disingenuous.
From the article: "The reasoning behind myGov's suggestion is understandable: some tourists will swap their Australian SIM cards to local ones while on holiday. Once this is done, they won't be able to receive myGov security codes without reinstalling their Australian SIMs, which is a hassle."
Why aren't they using a Yubikey or an authenticator app, such as Google Authenticator, Authy or one of the many others that are available? If the argument is that "SIM dependent" authentication is more secure that is definitely undermined by the fact they are telling people it's inconvenient to use, so turn it off.
They need to fix this to be usable in real world situations, not some theoretical construct.
As other folks have mentioned... I prefer to limit my exposure to needless radiation. We already get dosed from a myriad of other sources, no need to add on; especially since dosages are cumulative. At least they've ditched the backscatter xray machines... those really concerned me. Regarding the pat down - I've never had an issue with the TSA - they are just trying to do their job. They've always been professional and courteous. In any event, if for some reason they still want me to go through the MM machine, I'll do so without a fuss. I'd just rather avoid it, if possible.
Thanks! Perfect summary. This was just pork barrel for the Canadian Oil industry. Wouldn't have done anything to affect prices or supply in the US. Another example of how the media has failed us. What is really ridiculous was the lies spread here in the US to try to sell it and the complicity of the media. So sad...
It isn't just the UK; only 19 of the 28 member states of the EU use the Euro currency. Ones that don't include Denmark, Czech Republic, Romania, and Sweden.
Exactly... yet we read all the hand-wringing in the press about Greece leaving the EU; it's not that they're not smart enough to know the difference; their just spinning FUD. Yes, it would be a pain to switch currencies, but considering the alternative of paying off a ridiculous amount of debt, seems like the only viable solution would be go bankrupt and start over. Considering that Germany has gone bankrupt 7 times, I don't think they have much room to criticize. The wise thing would have been to make the banks who lent the money in the first place take the loss... but that ship has sailed.
I would hope the Greek people would just wake up but it appears that they're all drinking the kool-aid.
Yup, the banks got bailed out and the debt is now publicly owned. It's the creed of Wall Street: Privatize the profits, socialize the loses; then have the mainstream media pump out spin to obfuscate it. So now you have the people of the EU fighting among themselves while the banks are quite happy since they've already got their money. The only way for Greece to recover is to leave the monetary union. They can remain a member of the EU without using the euro as their currency, the UK is an example of that; but every story you read in the mainstream media implies otherwise, which simply isn't true. Government doesn't exist to make a profit, it exists for the welfare of the people. This is going to backfire big time.
For your listening enjoyment...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Seriously? This last sentence kind of sums it up... "However, with the week over and despite his criticism, he's back to using KDE."
Click bait... nothing to see here, move along.
LastPass of course is going to be a target; but if you used the product as recommended
with 2nd factor authentication and not reusing your master password elsewhere you don't
have anything to worry about.
LastPass is handling this in a measured, logical, efficient manner - and as always, they err on the safe side.
Of course, this being the internet, you have the usual suspects crying chicken little, the sky is falling.
It's all about transparency folks... and Mozilla is telling everybody exactly what they are doing...
Same thing with Google... they post ad nauseum about what they are doing, and people
still vibrate in place with outrage. If you don't want to use the product don't. No one is forcing you.
The hilarious thing is people go on using Facebook and most of the time FB just does things without telling anyone
until after the fact. People gripe about it but the number of FB customers keep growing at a healthy clip.
Don't get me started on the shenanigans Microsoft pulls; and as far as yahoo is concerned their mail service
is extremely distracting IMO with the way the ads pop up and flash, blink, etc.
Rather a request to understand the process Google is using... the problem of course is the EU Courts came up with this
ridiculous requirement, the punted to Google to figure it out. In fact, this isn't a "right to be forgotten", but rather
the "right to attempt to make it more difficult to retrieve information". Removing information from the search engine
doesn't get rid of the information. If the information is public record then it should be available. If the information is
erroneous, then people should go to the source and have it removed. Now of course some in the EU are trying to
force Google to make this world-wide - good luck with that... ain't gonna happen.
Yup... absolutely correct.
The article is a bit silly - of course Apple doesn't have the problem, because they control the hardware. Microsoft keeps changing their phone strategy, so until they come up with something and stick to it, you can't really judge how they are dealing with the issue.
I've gotten to the point where I ignore these types of studies... they already have decided what the conclusion must be: "Reefer madness is real and must be stopped" so they furiously look for cause/effect relationship to prove their point. However, there is endless information about the significant impact of alcohol and tobacco to society; and I'm sure that usage impacts the ability to pass university courses also... not to mention your lungs, liver, heart, increase in work absences, harm to pregnancy, etc. etc. etc. The bottom line is making the substance illegal does more harm to society than having it be legal. Why are we spending billions if not trillions of dollars a year to keep people from growing and smoking a plant. I think we as a planet have more pressing concerns, like clean water, clean air, global warming... those trillions of dollars could be put to better use. It's the same thing as people whipping themselves into a frenzy about gay marriage. Who cares, mind your own business and worry about putting food on your families table.
Other people have already repeated this talking point ad nauseum, so I guess I'm not surprised to read that Carly repeated this flawed strawman. However, her calling someone a hypocrite is a bit hilarious - not as much as the demon sheep ad, but almost. Cenk Uygur discusses and demolishes the GOP's penchant for this sort of thing here:
Sean Hannity Thinks Outrage At Anti-Gay Law Should Be Redirected: https://youtu.be/B7IJ5MbRN2k
I didn't suggest that they throw out the entire ecosystem. I suggested that they use the Linux kernel. They would maintain a Windows Desktop. The win/win is that they save a bundle on supporting their kernel and Linux gets the benefit of the MS talent working on the Linux kernel.
They could leverage the WINE project to assist with legacy apps and gradually move everything to the new model. In any event the previous versions of Windows wouldn't go away overnight. Maintaining their own proprietary OS is just an albatross for them. They need to concentrate on things they can monetize.
Perhaps, but maybe not - and they are in a slow spiral down and they know it. Their current model isn't sustainable, and I don't think they want to become another Blackberry. That isn't to say they are in any imminent danger, they have enough inertia to keep going on for years. They article seems to show that their current leadership knows they need to adapt and is willing to change. Will be interesting to see what they do.
If they were really smart, they would adopt the Linux kernel and develop a Windows Desktop, in much the same way that we have GNOME, KDE, etc. They have quite a few smart people working there, and it would be a win/win for everyone. They aren't a hardware manufacturer like Apple so it doesn't really make alot of sense for them to continue along the current model of selling Windows; and continuing to develop and support an operating system by yourself that is notorious for security issues is expensive. Those resources could be better applied toward other things that could be monetized. Helping with Linux would definitely be less resource intensive than what they are doing now.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if anybody died or got injured. TMI was a PR disaster for the industry. I think this quote pretty much sums it up: "The only negative long-term health effect from TMI has been mass psychosis caused by the Hiroshima Syndrome."
The biggest problem nuclear has is the "3 Mile Island", "Chernobyl", "Fukushima" effect. Basically, when things go bad, they can go REALLY bad. Then of course, there was the San Onofre maintenance issue which generated a ton of bad publicity - in a highly populated area; ultimately leading to the shutdown of the reactor. People don't like the idea of being radiated; and understandably so. It is an extremely high hurdle to restore public confidence. Even those who claim to be "pro-nuclear" would say "yes, fine, as long as it isn't in my back yard". The new designs are far safer and more efficient. The industry needs to now solve the PR issue before it can gain traction again - which means an expensive campaign. Nothing is going to change until that happens.
I understand your point, but if you believe a store is unsafe to visit, you don't go to that store. You don't decide, oh - I'll just shoplift. Some sites allow you to pay so you can avoid the ads, and the response from some has been: "Why would I pay when I can just use an ad-blocker"? Some people I'm sure are using ad-blockers to protect against malware, but the vast majority of people do so because they just don't want to be bothered by the ads. Obviously there are safe ads, otherwise everyone would be freaking out about it. Regarding the point about sites choosing ads, brokers, etc. It is still the responsibility of the site to ensure the ads which appear there are safe. It's their site. If the broker they have chosen is a bad apple, they need to choose another broker. That is standard premise liability law.
Yes, anything is possible, just as it is possible the sun will super nova tomorrow and destroy the earth... or the planet will get hit by an untracked meteor; or how about the nemesis theory?
I didn't say everything was safe - I said that if websites want to use ads, that is fair - and if people don't want to agree to the terms of the website, don't visit it. Second, I stated that if websites are using ads, they have a responsibility to ensure there is no malware. Third, claiming the use of an ad-blocker to protect against malware is a bit disingenuous. Now, if you are claiming that the primary purpose of ad-blockers is malware detection, I'm not buying it. Most people use them just because they don't want to be annoyed by ads. I completely understand that, but believe it is ripping off the website, because they consider the ads as payment for the content. If you don't trust the ads are safe, don't visit the website. I've encountered sites which went overboard on the ads. I don't visit them anymore.
Ads are a way for companies to get revenue on their content. That seems fair. If you don't want to agree to their terms, don't visit their website. Simple enough. If they are using ads however, they do have a responsibility to ensure there is no malware. Claiming you are running an ad-blocker to protect against malware however is a bit disingenuous.
This from the conservative Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/blog/no-am... http://www.cato.org/blog/why-s... Nothing to see here, move along...
From the article: "The reasoning behind myGov's suggestion is understandable: some tourists will swap their Australian SIM cards to local ones while on holiday. Once this is done, they won't be able to receive myGov security codes without reinstalling their Australian SIMs, which is a hassle." Why aren't they using a Yubikey or an authenticator app, such as Google Authenticator, Authy or one of the many others that are available? If the argument is that "SIM dependent" authentication is more secure that is definitely undermined by the fact they are telling people it's inconvenient to use, so turn it off. They need to fix this to be usable in real world situations, not some theoretical construct.
As other folks have mentioned... I prefer to limit my exposure to needless radiation. We already get dosed from a myriad of other sources, no need to add on; especially since dosages are cumulative. At least they've ditched the backscatter xray machines... those really concerned me. Regarding the pat down - I've never had an issue with the TSA - they are just trying to do their job. They've always been professional and courteous. In any event, if for some reason they still want me to go through the MM machine, I'll do so without a fuss. I'd just rather avoid it, if possible.
Thanks! Perfect summary. This was just pork barrel for the Canadian Oil industry. Wouldn't have done anything to affect prices or supply in the US. Another example of how the media has failed us. What is really ridiculous was the lies spread here in the US to try to sell it and the complicity of the media. So sad...
It isn't just the UK; only 19 of the 28 member states of the EU use the Euro currency. Ones that don't include Denmark, Czech Republic, Romania, and Sweden.
Exactly... yet we read all the hand-wringing in the press about Greece leaving the EU; it's not that they're not smart enough to know the difference; their just spinning FUD. Yes, it would be a pain to switch currencies, but considering the alternative of paying off a ridiculous amount of debt, seems like the only viable solution would be go bankrupt and start over. Considering that Germany has gone bankrupt 7 times, I don't think they have much room to criticize. The wise thing would have been to make the banks who lent the money in the first place take the loss... but that ship has sailed. I would hope the Greek people would just wake up but it appears that they're all drinking the kool-aid.
Yup, the banks got bailed out and the debt is now publicly owned. It's the creed of Wall Street: Privatize the profits, socialize the loses; then have the mainstream media pump out spin to obfuscate it. So now you have the people of the EU fighting among themselves while the banks are quite happy since they've already got their money. The only way for Greece to recover is to leave the monetary union. They can remain a member of the EU without using the euro as their currency, the UK is an example of that; but every story you read in the mainstream media implies otherwise, which simply isn't true. Government doesn't exist to make a profit, it exists for the welfare of the people. This is going to backfire big time.
For your listening enjoyment... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Seriously? This last sentence kind of sums it up... "However, with the week over and despite his criticism, he's back to using KDE." Click bait... nothing to see here, move along.
LastPass of course is going to be a target; but if you used the product as recommended with 2nd factor authentication and not reusing your master password elsewhere you don't have anything to worry about. LastPass is handling this in a measured, logical, efficient manner - and as always, they err on the safe side. Of course, this being the internet, you have the usual suspects crying chicken little, the sky is falling.
It's all about transparency folks... and Mozilla is telling everybody exactly what they are doing... Same thing with Google... they post ad nauseum about what they are doing, and people still vibrate in place with outrage. If you don't want to use the product don't. No one is forcing you. The hilarious thing is people go on using Facebook and most of the time FB just does things without telling anyone until after the fact. People gripe about it but the number of FB customers keep growing at a healthy clip. Don't get me started on the shenanigans Microsoft pulls; and as far as yahoo is concerned their mail service is extremely distracting IMO with the way the ads pop up and flash, blink, etc.
Rather a request to understand the process Google is using... the problem of course is the EU Courts came up with this ridiculous requirement, the punted to Google to figure it out. In fact, this isn't a "right to be forgotten", but rather the "right to attempt to make it more difficult to retrieve information". Removing information from the search engine doesn't get rid of the information. If the information is public record then it should be available. If the information is erroneous, then people should go to the source and have it removed. Now of course some in the EU are trying to force Google to make this world-wide - good luck with that... ain't gonna happen.
Yup... absolutely correct. The article is a bit silly - of course Apple doesn't have the problem, because they control the hardware. Microsoft keeps changing their phone strategy, so until they come up with something and stick to it, you can't really judge how they are dealing with the issue.
I've gotten to the point where I ignore these types of studies... they already have decided what the conclusion must be: "Reefer madness is real and must be stopped" so they furiously look for cause/effect relationship to prove their point. However, there is endless information about the significant impact of alcohol and tobacco to society; and I'm sure that usage impacts the ability to pass university courses also... not to mention your lungs, liver, heart, increase in work absences, harm to pregnancy, etc. etc. etc. The bottom line is making the substance illegal does more harm to society than having it be legal. Why are we spending billions if not trillions of dollars a year to keep people from growing and smoking a plant. I think we as a planet have more pressing concerns, like clean water, clean air, global warming... those trillions of dollars could be put to better use. It's the same thing as people whipping themselves into a frenzy about gay marriage. Who cares, mind your own business and worry about putting food on your families table.
Other people have already repeated this talking point ad nauseum, so I guess I'm not surprised to read that Carly repeated this flawed strawman. However, her calling someone a hypocrite is a bit hilarious - not as much as the demon sheep ad, but almost. Cenk Uygur discusses and demolishes the GOP's penchant for this sort of thing here: Sean Hannity Thinks Outrage At Anti-Gay Law Should Be Redirected: https://youtu.be/B7IJ5MbRN2k
Yup... I can definitely believe that... but in 2015 it's a brave new world... ;-)
Use of GNU doesn't preclude making money. Redhat has proved that...
I didn't suggest that they throw out the entire ecosystem. I suggested that they use the Linux kernel. They would maintain a Windows Desktop. The win/win is that they save a bundle on supporting their kernel and Linux gets the benefit of the MS talent working on the Linux kernel.
They could leverage the WINE project to assist with legacy apps and gradually move everything to the new model. In any event the previous versions of Windows wouldn't go away overnight. Maintaining their own proprietary OS is just an albatross for them. They need to concentrate on things they can monetize.
Perhaps, but maybe not - and they are in a slow spiral down and they know it. Their current model isn't sustainable, and I don't think they want to become another Blackberry. That isn't to say they are in any imminent danger, they have enough inertia to keep going on for years. They article seems to show that their current leadership knows they need to adapt and is willing to change. Will be interesting to see what they do.
If they were really smart, they would adopt the Linux kernel and develop a Windows Desktop, in much the same way that we have GNOME, KDE, etc. They have quite a few smart people working there, and it would be a win/win for everyone. They aren't a hardware manufacturer like Apple so it doesn't really make alot of sense for them to continue along the current model of selling Windows; and continuing to develop and support an operating system by yourself that is notorious for security issues is expensive. Those resources could be better applied toward other things that could be monetized. Helping with Linux would definitely be less resource intensive than what they are doing now.