Although lawsuit comes far too late to protect the people who needed to protect their data more than they needed a $30 rebate from a class action suit.
Make no mistake, the article makes this very clear. Most of the downside of not spending on security is on the customers, not on the business that got hacked.
Security solutions and spending also often includes the security people operating the solutions. And just one of them can easily be almost $200,000 a pop, not necessarily in salary, but in benefits, salary, and even getting a headhunter to find one.
As far as security software, that's pretty expensive too, but varies based on your level of security. I've seen packages that keep the records of every keystroke made on every server that you connect to it. Real Big Brother types of packages. That easily costs more than $200,000 a pop.
Also note that if you work at a smaller company that uses a certain piece of software that isn't very expensive for you because you have few heads and few computers to secure, that same package becomes much, much more expensive for big companies due to their scale, and even with deep discounting. I have to work with Fortune 100 companies in integrating with their security, and while it is not always inspiring to see their level of competence, it is very easy to see that they spend a shitload of money on what they have because they have high visibility and complex environments.
I don't think his advice is particularly bad, it's more of an admission of reality. Spend the money to make a good solid security program, but let's face it, with all the 0-days out there and the threat sources, it is probably best to understand that successful attacks are inevitable. At least then, you also set aside time, money, and resources to deal with the impacts, and do planning that assumes that since breaches are possible, they need to be taken seriously when they happen.
I'm less concerned that someone stole my password than I am that a password might have been stolen, but I didn't know about it for weeks or months or years. If I at least know about it, I can take action.
I disagree. There are plenty of people who can use money well. The problem is that the system rewards people who make money for the purpose of making more money. The problem here is that security is not profitable, and the downside seems to be less expensive than not covering that overhead cost.
We need to find a way to properly incentivize security as its own end, because as I have noticed in my career, getting security resources is like pulling teeth, until someone threatens a suit or seriously damages the reputation of the company. Even then, it is usually more for window dressing.
The problem with the extreme libertarian ideal of what would happen is that it assumes that no one can generate a monopoly. Particularly the monopoly of force of a government.
If that was not possible, it is possible that there would be more freedom for that mechanism to work, but as you say, those conditions don't seem to ever actually occur.
The reality is that I think people want something that prevents anarchy, but they don't want it to become oppressive. I think government is okay in moderation, but it is really taking over just about everything these days, and I don't really think people think about what that means for the future... or even if they care. I dislike the idea of a population that is fully dependent on a government, because I don't see it as much different as being dependent on a corporation or some other force that I have almost no serious input into.
Hell, I would have thought the breach at Ashley Madison would have done them completely in on reputation loss alone...
It is not always easy to kill a company dead with just one thing happening to it, even something like this. There are people invested in it, and they have reason enough to work to keep it going. And if you're one of the people who got into business of helping people have affairs, you're already going to be someone who is somewhat impervious to other people's opinion of you. Many of these companies keep going until they must declare bankruptcy, so there's no reason for them to not give it a college try.
That said, this just means that their decline is being retarded by something like perhaps scads of cash that they got their hands on previously, or perhaps they found some investors who think the concept is good and the brand name still has some value if they wait long enough for the smell to dissipate.
In his defense, he probably didn't think he was doing anything wrong by removing those files, it was probably presented to him as a standard data wipe deal to make sure that the server could be decommissioned. Therefore, he probably didn't think he needed to fully cover his tracks or even that anything illegal was going on.
Granted, alluding to working for a VIP on a public forum is beyond stupid, even if you are totally legit, because then people take interest in you, and it is usually not the people who you were looking to impress.
Knowing how to do something does not translate into it happening all the time. And there are a lot of caveats about calorie counting that are extremely important. You can definitely do it wrong. It is a simple concept, but it can cause a serious mindset shift about food in order to make it possible to implement it.
First off, calorie counting is effective, but can be *hard*. Which is to say, while you can technically eat almost anything you want (within the set limits), if you don't space things out correctly, you feel hungry and miserable all the time. This tends to make cheating something that you want to do, and feel justified in. That's why, as I said, we also have to break the habit of fewer, but bigger meals and eat more often during the day.
Also, if you eat to comfort yourself or deal with issues as a coping mechanism, then restriction of what you eat takes away something that helps you cope. That by itself can turn any realistic diet into something that cannot be managed by the subject of the diet. They then try to do something that allows them to "eat all they want and the pounds just melt away", where the emphasis is on "eat whatever you want" to ensure that those people don't feel they ever have to stop.
Second, the diet industry keeps trying to sell the quick and easy path to weight loss. Some of those do work to some extent, but are often cost prohibitive and bland. Most people realize that this sort of thing is a sham, and often when it is *not* a sham, they're basically doing caloric restriction with their meals to begin with. Ultimately, whether they work or not, the marketing for diets is there to program you to believe that there isn't a simple way to lose weight, "its too hard" or it will "take too long". America has been bombarded with messages telling people how hard dieting is in the interests of trying to make a particular product seem easier or cost-effective in comparison. This affects the mindset of those trying to lose weight on a massive scale.
As far as permanent weight loss, you do need to maintain a high level of consistency in what you eat, and realize that there are times when you do consume more when you don't realize it. Holiday parties are a well known diet killer, but simply going drinking at bars can pack on the pounds quickly, and many people don't consider that to be "eating". If you calorie count, you can do all those things, with the understanding that if it took you 5 weeks to lose 5 pounds, losing the 5 pounds from your holiday party or your drinking binge will now take 5 weeks to get back there.
Also, there is a role for activity, especially for weight maintenance purposes, so I don't disagree with your inclination to do more walking and provide those opportunities and I encourage you to advocate for it. Walking is a very good activity. But it's not going to end the obesity epidemic.
Take note, if you are 250 lbs, and you walk one mile at 17-24 minutes a mile, you will lose about 133 calories. That's less than one can of Pepsi, and a handful of candy can easily add up to that or more. The amount of calories burned is less as you get smaller and more as you start out at a higher weight. The major problem is, especially for those who are 250lbs or more, walking isn't something they can do easily. Their weight is hard on their knees, and while they burn more per mile than the smaller person, they pay for it disproportionately. And to do that one mile, they will take longer. That's why I cannot, and do not believe you can use activity, short of perhaps something like marathon preparation, as something that will cause you to significant weight unless you also control intake.
It is true that today we walk much less, but we also eat a lot more. Walking by itself isn't going to do it alone. If you go by the European example, they walk more, but their portion sizes are also smaller as well, especially compared to the ridiculous sizes that US food portions can get to. Together, that means generally thinner European
Actually, I think there is a significant benefit to simplifying the concept down to consume and expense.
Yes, there are differences in body chemistry, activity level, and other things that alter the exact rate of fat burning or weight loss.
However, taking all of that into account for something as simple as dropping 10-30 pounds is probably overkill and more likely to be discouraging, and even enabling of maintaining an unhealthy weight and consumption pattern.
If you chart all of that out, it's just a range of uncertainty, but you can very easily overwhelm that range by making sure you find the level where you are definitely going to lose weight.
In the end, if you don't put it in your mouth, it doesn't become fat that is stored on you. Period. We're not plants, we don't generate simple sugars from sunlight (and even plants need to absorb nutrients to do that).
Calories is certainly not a perfect measurement of what causes weight, but it doesn't have to be. It is useful as a measure of what goes into generating weight. If your body needs calories, it is going to make sure it gets them. Unless you have a severe endocrine issue, your body is going to override any and all other processes to ensure that it can burn something for energy, and if it doesn't get it from what you ingest, it will go to the fat stores, as that is what they are there for. This happens for some people faster than others, but it will inexorably happen if you maintain your calorie intake budget.
More than half the time, I feel we over complicate things like diet. The major issue with weight isn't knowing what to do to lose it, it is maintaining the willpower to do what it takes when it makes us uncomfortable.
For instance, working out is great, but it isn't the most important way to lose weight. Your average calorie usage for a good hour long jog can be easily made up for by less than one minutes worth of jamming something in your mouth. You totally *should* work out, because fitness isn't just about weight, but you can lose weight even by being a sedentary slug. You might even have more success while doing it while sedentary if you are inclined to want to "reward" yourself work working out hard. Working out is supposed to be its own reward.
You should consider weight loss to be a budgetary matter, not a complicated matter of hormones, activity level and particular types of foods. You need to consider things like fitness and nutrients, but most of those things merely are there to try and differentiated the same low calorie diet from other diets so that they can charge you more money. By all means, find out the right amount of omega-3 fatty acids to ingest, just make sure you do it as part of a diet where you are eating less than your weight maintenance in calories with a consistent meal plan.
And consistency is important, because if you find a meal plan that works for you, hammer that shit for all it is worth. This is where your issues with metabolism rates come into it. Certain meals will cause you to gain more per ingested calorie than others. So you could gain more weight with one meal of 500 calories than another meal that also has 500 calories. But bear in mind, no matter which meal you pick, if you have a meal that causes you to burn more per day than you ingest, you will lose weight. The meal plan only varies the *rate* of weight loss and perceived return over a limited interval. So if you find a 500 calorie meal that fills you up, and causes you to still lose weight faster than the other 500 calorie meal, you will want to consistently work that more efficient meal if you have found it.
But in the end, do not over-analyze it. That is what the diet industry wants you to do. It's a trap.
The system uses quantum teleportation as part of the communication system.
The title may be a little sensational, but only because most people think quantum teleportation means physical teleportation. No one who really knows what QT is thinks that it is a revolutionary breakthrough in FTL communications.
Quantum teleportation is cool, but not in the revolutionary way that physical teleportation would be.
I think in some sense, the particles are never actually separated, when though their x,y,z coordinates change in 3D space. It may make more sense to think of them as still actually connected in some domain, but that their projection in space has changed so that they seem to now be separated when only looking at spatial coordinates.
Azure is usable. But it is not really right to criticize Oracle for their business practices and not point out that Microsoft is not exactly saintly in that regard either.
Back in the day the original SCO didn't have horrendously bad software, but we know what happened when they decided to shake everyone down for money. You really couldn't separate their products from their business practices at that point.
Does Oracle have its uses? Sure. It has a high end database which is useful, if overpriced, and I am sure their cloud is at least semi-competent. But you can't really ignore who they are when looking at the tech specs.
True, although there are ways to ensure that there are trusted importers out there through something like registration of purchases from them and comparisons against results, followed by occasional spot checks. Not exactly the FDA level of monitoring and testing, but I think there is a certain amount of over-engineering built into many of our programs.
The real trick with avoiding fly-by-nights is to ensure that they can't... fly by night. Which is to say provide incentives for remaining a company that remains in business long term.
I often think that our biggest problem with the markets is not that corporations control things, but that short term thinkers control corporations. Corporations, if they acted like an immortal entity looking after its own goals and mandates, should be more inclined to look for long term value. The problem is that they keep getting shaken down for their money and assets by those who want to cash out.
Government is a little better in that regard, but has two problems that make it a bad solution long term. First, while they do react to voter's wishes (good), they can find themselves forced to change with the winds of politics against a better long term set of goals (bad).
Second, governments can't be forced to reform themselves by direct feedback from the results of their programs. Which is to say that a government worker can easily see a bad policy or practice that is costing the government millions a year, but nothing can be done about it without legislation, requiring a political process that does not actually reward spending money more efficiently and definitely does not react to the same feedback.
Government intervention can be better than short term thinking, but eventually becomes stagnant and difficult to reform.
The commercial implications of automation will also increase productivity in terms of the ability to operate trucks more consistently and more safely than human drivers.
And for personal transport, fully automated vehicles allows for significant safety and eventually efficiency and traffic flow improvements.
Is it as revolutionary as the automobile itself? Perhaps not. But depending on how it is implemented and applied, it could certainly have value.
Nevertheless, I agree about the job situation. We're removing jobs and we need to be able to either employ those people gainfully, or otherwise deal with them being on the dole. I'm not sure that I would stop implementation of the technology for that, but I would focus efforts on dealing with the workforce impacts.
It certainly had an effect, although more from the opposition factor than any inherent value in the communist system.
Communism was a serious threat, and by threat, I don't just mean to the pocketbooks of capitalists. No one wanted what happened to Russia to happen to their country, and workers movements did get a bit of a lift from those trying to use them to block communism taking hold.
But make no mistake, its the political equivalent of using the threat of zombies outside the door to keep you focused on working together within. You're always better off with eradicating that sort of threat than trying to "harness" it to your advantage.
I won't even say we need a "better capitalism", but the ultimate solution needs to be better than a nuclear stalemate where the other side is oppression in the name of the "workers". I clearly remember the Cold War, and I have no nostalgia for the period in the slightest. At least today, I don't actually have to wonder if someone in Russia or NORAD is going to screw up and end the world on ten minutes notice. The threat is still there, but much more comfortably remote now.
At this point, I cannot even imagine America with Trump in charge. I can't even think about it.
With Hillary, I can at least envision it. The usual political bullshit. Standard corrupt action and hubris. Bill dicking bimbos in the WH again. Mediocre government with the usual infighting.
I hate both of them, but Trump actually scares me, where Hillary only makes me angry and frustrated. And to be honest, I am not as much afraid of Trump himself, as I am that this country could actually elect someone like Trump. He's still going to lose, but this is the only opponent that Hillary should be able to curbstomp, and she's totally not doing so. Or so the pollsters would have us believe.
Maybe she needs to take this election off to recover from her illnesses and let Tim Kaine get elected President. I could possibly even vote for him.
I don't think Trump is a racist. I think he's a bottom feeding, populist asshole.
Racism would require a certain ideological commitment from him, a sort of consistency in his arguments that would at least allow a clear understanding of what he might actually do, as abhorrent as that would be.
From Trump, I don't fear him instituting a racist agenda, I fear him just doing whatever he damn well pleases. There may be a little casual racism in there, but there's probably also going to be a little bit of just about anything that makes him feel like he's in charge and makes him able to comment on whatever the hell he feels like. He's literally there because he thinks all America needs is him and his strength and all the problems will disappear. Solutions will simply appear when he says that things need to change. Because strength.
Trump isn't winning shit. Sorry, or perhaps I should say, good for you and the rest of us.
I wish the alternative wasn't the same old mediocre corrupt BS that got Trump this far, but as much as I dislike Hillary, I cannot even stomach Trump. He's like a one question IQ test.
I mean... he just fucking lied about Hillary making up the Birther argument right on camera. Lied. Straight lied his ass off. Not just the usual half-baked shit he throws off. I have only one quote to for that sort of ridiculousness, even though I am not entirely sure Trump is even this smart....
"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
Three guesses where that quote is from. You'll only need one.
Lobbying, in some form, is as old as government. It's a matter of picking your poison.
If you close the lobbyists down, they'll be replaced something else.
And there really is no point in voters getting their "own lobbyists", because lobbyists are there to allow government leaders to know how voters can be made to vote. And in a way, special interest groups *are* lobbyists for the voters... their voters... who can also be manipulated themselves into doing what the group wants.
Bear in mind that campaign finance money is important, but many special interest groups have something more important: lists of donors and members who can be counted on to do what the special interest group wants and vote who they say to vote for. Those groups pay in the currency of voters, not merely money, in return for their legislation being passed.
Indeed, the lobbyists are mostly there to provide the text of legislation that the special interests wanted enacted into laws. Getting rid of them means the legislator now will cast about for some other method of figuring out how to write laws and get information using the relatively small amount of money they get for a staff. And that will just cause lobbying to appear in some other form.
So, I don't think they should be illegal. They should simply be made as transparent and regulated as possible. If they have something to say to a legislator, it should be public knowledge and only under certain conditions.
I don't think anyone believes that a computer driven vehicle will ever be able perfectly avoid killing people. That's not even reasonable, let alone the goal of the program. Computer driven cars will kill people, that's simply going to happen.
The utility of such a system is that there is certainly higher (and improving) safety, but also the potential for better traffic flow, gas mileage, as well as considerable convenience involved.
For commercial applications, it removes the need for a driver which is positive for cost, as well as being able to use the truck more efficiently with more non-stop travel hours for each rig.
I enjoy driving as much as the next person, but not having to do it even when I don't feel like it, like in bumper to bumper traffic, would be a huge relief. While I have a good record of not getting in accidents, that sort of traffic makes it way too easy for fender benders and such to occur and the stress level is pretty high. A car that dealt with that for me would probably add at least a year to my life.
What part of having seen what they actually do, first-hand, count as "personal hatred"?
Their business practices are abusive, to put it mildly. Only a poor businessman looks at only the bottom line in the short term without an eye to what will happen to their organization later. If you're going to chase Larry's bargain basement loss leader pricing so Oracle can get their foot in your front door, then perhaps the pity should be for your employer, not mine.
At this point, just the name Oracle is enough to make me stay well away from their cloud. I have seen what they have done with their database and how they manage to wring what money they can out of the unsuspecting and have no interest in feeding that beast, even if their prices are rock bottom.
AWS has its problems, but their pricing and product offering is not bad enough that I would go into the gutter to let that disease into my organization. I'd go Azure long before I'd go Oracle in any event. (Not that such a thought is something I consider appetizing either...)
I won't call it stupid, but it's not a very useful example because you've just defined a scenario that a human would do just as bad at, or worse, than the onboard computer.
A human:
Is less likely to reduce speed in environments like that. Is less likely to even see cues in the first place Might be on a cell phone or otherwise distracted.
The computer still might fail in that situation, but I don't see why you think an average human would do any better in this convoluted example. An individual human might outperform the average computer, if they were using a considerable amount of intellect to use all cues to their advantage, but even then, humans lack the task oriented senses and reaction times of these systems.
So, even if the human had full situational awareness, were of a professional quality of driver, and took proper precautions, they might still fail in a situation that the computer would succeed at simply due to reaction time and sensor capabilities. And the average human is nowhere near that level of capability and focus on driving.
Except that's a silly case. A human has slower reaction time and lacks always attentive sensors and is often distracted. The humans can identify the ball, sure, but that's useful because they need the cue.
A self driving car will detect the ball *and* the child and react faster than any human driver to the actual child without having to have a dawning realization about the ball. They don't need to know that it's a child's ball because the car will have detected the actual issue and reacted to it directly.
And yes, in some cases the child will be fast enough or erratic enough to end up in the path of the car close enough that the car can't do anything to avoid it. And that would be the exact same problem for a human driver, only the self-driving car would break fast enough to prevent harm to the child in that case appreciably more often than a human would be able to. That's all down to reaction times and dedicated decision making about actual data. In that case, I'll statistically take the car over any human.
It might be more efficient, that doesn't always equate to better service.
Of course, replacing inefficient, but shitty government buses with efficient, but still shitty private buses might make sense in areas who already have poorly managed transit. It will be interesting to see if they can overcome public busing with a private busing service, but due to government backing and the politics of mass transit, that's going to be harder to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Although lawsuit comes far too late to protect the people who needed to protect their data more than they needed a $30 rebate from a class action suit.
Make no mistake, the article makes this very clear. Most of the downside of not spending on security is on the customers, not on the business that got hacked.
Security solutions and spending also often includes the security people operating the solutions. And just one of them can easily be almost $200,000 a pop, not necessarily in salary, but in benefits, salary, and even getting a headhunter to find one.
As far as security software, that's pretty expensive too, but varies based on your level of security. I've seen packages that keep the records of every keystroke made on every server that you connect to it. Real Big Brother types of packages. That easily costs more than $200,000 a pop.
Also note that if you work at a smaller company that uses a certain piece of software that isn't very expensive for you because you have few heads and few computers to secure, that same package becomes much, much more expensive for big companies due to their scale, and even with deep discounting. I have to work with Fortune 100 companies in integrating with their security, and while it is not always inspiring to see their level of competence, it is very easy to see that they spend a shitload of money on what they have because they have high visibility and complex environments.
I don't think his advice is particularly bad, it's more of an admission of reality. Spend the money to make a good solid security program, but let's face it, with all the 0-days out there and the threat sources, it is probably best to understand that successful attacks are inevitable. At least then, you also set aside time, money, and resources to deal with the impacts, and do planning that assumes that since breaches are possible, they need to be taken seriously when they happen.
I'm less concerned that someone stole my password than I am that a password might have been stolen, but I didn't know about it for weeks or months or years. If I at least know about it, I can take action.
I disagree. There are plenty of people who can use money well. The problem is that the system rewards people who make money for the purpose of making more money. The problem here is that security is not profitable, and the downside seems to be less expensive than not covering that overhead cost.
We need to find a way to properly incentivize security as its own end, because as I have noticed in my career, getting security resources is like pulling teeth, until someone threatens a suit or seriously damages the reputation of the company. Even then, it is usually more for window dressing.
The problem with the extreme libertarian ideal of what would happen is that it assumes that no one can generate a monopoly. Particularly the monopoly of force of a government.
If that was not possible, it is possible that there would be more freedom for that mechanism to work, but as you say, those conditions don't seem to ever actually occur.
The reality is that I think people want something that prevents anarchy, but they don't want it to become oppressive. I think government is okay in moderation, but it is really taking over just about everything these days, and I don't really think people think about what that means for the future... or even if they care. I dislike the idea of a population that is fully dependent on a government, because I don't see it as much different as being dependent on a corporation or some other force that I have almost no serious input into.
Hell, I would have thought the breach at Ashley Madison would have done them completely in on reputation loss alone...
It is not always easy to kill a company dead with just one thing happening to it, even something like this. There are people invested in it, and they have reason enough to work to keep it going. And if you're one of the people who got into business of helping people have affairs, you're already going to be someone who is somewhat impervious to other people's opinion of you. Many of these companies keep going until they must declare bankruptcy, so there's no reason for them to not give it a college try.
That said, this just means that their decline is being retarded by something like perhaps scads of cash that they got their hands on previously, or perhaps they found some investors who think the concept is good and the brand name still has some value if they wait long enough for the smell to dissipate.
In his defense, he probably didn't think he was doing anything wrong by removing those files, it was probably presented to him as a standard data wipe deal to make sure that the server could be decommissioned. Therefore, he probably didn't think he needed to fully cover his tracks or even that anything illegal was going on.
Granted, alluding to working for a VIP on a public forum is beyond stupid, even if you are totally legit, because then people take interest in you, and it is usually not the people who you were looking to impress.
Knowing how to do something does not translate into it happening all the time. And there are a lot of caveats about calorie counting that are extremely important. You can definitely do it wrong. It is a simple concept, but it can cause a serious mindset shift about food in order to make it possible to implement it.
First off, calorie counting is effective, but can be *hard*. Which is to say, while you can technically eat almost anything you want (within the set limits), if you don't space things out correctly, you feel hungry and miserable all the time. This tends to make cheating something that you want to do, and feel justified in. That's why, as I said, we also have to break the habit of fewer, but bigger meals and eat more often during the day.
Also, if you eat to comfort yourself or deal with issues as a coping mechanism, then restriction of what you eat takes away something that helps you cope. That by itself can turn any realistic diet into something that cannot be managed by the subject of the diet. They then try to do something that allows them to "eat all they want and the pounds just melt away", where the emphasis is on "eat whatever you want" to ensure that those people don't feel they ever have to stop.
Second, the diet industry keeps trying to sell the quick and easy path to weight loss. Some of those do work to some extent, but are often cost prohibitive and bland. Most people realize that this sort of thing is a sham, and often when it is *not* a sham, they're basically doing caloric restriction with their meals to begin with. Ultimately, whether they work or not, the marketing for diets is there to program you to believe that there isn't a simple way to lose weight, "its too hard" or it will "take too long". America has been bombarded with messages telling people how hard dieting is in the interests of trying to make a particular product seem easier or cost-effective in comparison. This affects the mindset of those trying to lose weight on a massive scale.
As far as permanent weight loss, you do need to maintain a high level of consistency in what you eat, and realize that there are times when you do consume more when you don't realize it. Holiday parties are a well known diet killer, but simply going drinking at bars can pack on the pounds quickly, and many people don't consider that to be "eating". If you calorie count, you can do all those things, with the understanding that if it took you 5 weeks to lose 5 pounds, losing the 5 pounds from your holiday party or your drinking binge will now take 5 weeks to get back there.
Also, there is a role for activity, especially for weight maintenance purposes, so I don't disagree with your inclination to do more walking and provide those opportunities and I encourage you to advocate for it. Walking is a very good activity. But it's not going to end the obesity epidemic.
Take note, if you are 250 lbs, and you walk one mile at 17-24 minutes a mile, you will lose about 133 calories. That's less than one can of Pepsi, and a handful of candy can easily add up to that or more. The amount of calories burned is less as you get smaller and more as you start out at a higher weight. The major problem is, especially for those who are 250lbs or more, walking isn't something they can do easily. Their weight is hard on their knees, and while they burn more per mile than the smaller person, they pay for it disproportionately. And to do that one mile, they will take longer. That's why I cannot, and do not believe you can use activity, short of perhaps something like marathon preparation, as something that will cause you to significant weight unless you also control intake.
It is true that today we walk much less, but we also eat a lot more. Walking by itself isn't going to do it alone. If you go by the European example, they walk more, but their portion sizes are also smaller as well, especially compared to the ridiculous sizes that US food portions can get to. Together, that means generally thinner European
Actually, I think there is a significant benefit to simplifying the concept down to consume and expense.
Yes, there are differences in body chemistry, activity level, and other things that alter the exact rate of fat burning or weight loss.
However, taking all of that into account for something as simple as dropping 10-30 pounds is probably overkill and more likely to be discouraging, and even enabling of maintaining an unhealthy weight and consumption pattern.
If you chart all of that out, it's just a range of uncertainty, but you can very easily overwhelm that range by making sure you find the level where you are definitely going to lose weight.
In the end, if you don't put it in your mouth, it doesn't become fat that is stored on you. Period. We're not plants, we don't generate simple sugars from sunlight (and even plants need to absorb nutrients to do that).
Calories is certainly not a perfect measurement of what causes weight, but it doesn't have to be. It is useful as a measure of what goes into generating weight. If your body needs calories, it is going to make sure it gets them. Unless you have a severe endocrine issue, your body is going to override any and all other processes to ensure that it can burn something for energy, and if it doesn't get it from what you ingest, it will go to the fat stores, as that is what they are there for. This happens for some people faster than others, but it will inexorably happen if you maintain your calorie intake budget.
More than half the time, I feel we over complicate things like diet. The major issue with weight isn't knowing what to do to lose it, it is maintaining the willpower to do what it takes when it makes us uncomfortable.
For instance, working out is great, but it isn't the most important way to lose weight. Your average calorie usage for a good hour long jog can be easily made up for by less than one minutes worth of jamming something in your mouth. You totally *should* work out, because fitness isn't just about weight, but you can lose weight even by being a sedentary slug. You might even have more success while doing it while sedentary if you are inclined to want to "reward" yourself work working out hard. Working out is supposed to be its own reward.
You should consider weight loss to be a budgetary matter, not a complicated matter of hormones, activity level and particular types of foods. You need to consider things like fitness and nutrients, but most of those things merely are there to try and differentiated the same low calorie diet from other diets so that they can charge you more money. By all means, find out the right amount of omega-3 fatty acids to ingest, just make sure you do it as part of a diet where you are eating less than your weight maintenance in calories with a consistent meal plan.
And consistency is important, because if you find a meal plan that works for you, hammer that shit for all it is worth. This is where your issues with metabolism rates come into it. Certain meals will cause you to gain more per ingested calorie than others. So you could gain more weight with one meal of 500 calories than another meal that also has 500 calories. But bear in mind, no matter which meal you pick, if you have a meal that causes you to burn more per day than you ingest, you will lose weight. The meal plan only varies the *rate* of weight loss and perceived return over a limited interval. So if you find a 500 calorie meal that fills you up, and causes you to still lose weight faster than the other 500 calorie meal, you will want to consistently work that more efficient meal if you have found it.
But in the end, do not over-analyze it. That is what the diet industry wants you to do. It's a trap.
The system uses quantum teleportation as part of the communication system.
The title may be a little sensational, but only because most people think quantum teleportation means physical teleportation. No one who really knows what QT is thinks that it is a revolutionary breakthrough in FTL communications.
Quantum teleportation is cool, but not in the revolutionary way that physical teleportation would be.
I think in some sense, the particles are never actually separated, when though their x,y,z coordinates change in 3D space. It may make more sense to think of them as still actually connected in some domain, but that their projection in space has changed so that they seem to now be separated when only looking at spatial coordinates.
Azure is usable. But it is not really right to criticize Oracle for their business practices and not point out that Microsoft is not exactly saintly in that regard either.
Back in the day the original SCO didn't have horrendously bad software, but we know what happened when they decided to shake everyone down for money. You really couldn't separate their products from their business practices at that point.
Does Oracle have its uses? Sure. It has a high end database which is useful, if overpriced, and I am sure their cloud is at least semi-competent. But you can't really ignore who they are when looking at the tech specs.
True, although there are ways to ensure that there are trusted importers out there through something like registration of purchases from them and comparisons against results, followed by occasional spot checks. Not exactly the FDA level of monitoring and testing, but I think there is a certain amount of over-engineering built into many of our programs.
The real trick with avoiding fly-by-nights is to ensure that they can't... fly by night. Which is to say provide incentives for remaining a company that remains in business long term.
I often think that our biggest problem with the markets is not that corporations control things, but that short term thinkers control corporations. Corporations, if they acted like an immortal entity looking after its own goals and mandates, should be more inclined to look for long term value. The problem is that they keep getting shaken down for their money and assets by those who want to cash out.
Government is a little better in that regard, but has two problems that make it a bad solution long term. First, while they do react to voter's wishes (good), they can find themselves forced to change with the winds of politics against a better long term set of goals (bad).
Second, governments can't be forced to reform themselves by direct feedback from the results of their programs. Which is to say that a government worker can easily see a bad policy or practice that is costing the government millions a year, but nothing can be done about it without legislation, requiring a political process that does not actually reward spending money more efficiently and definitely does not react to the same feedback.
Government intervention can be better than short term thinking, but eventually becomes stagnant and difficult to reform.
The commercial implications of automation will also increase productivity in terms of the ability to operate trucks more consistently and more safely than human drivers.
And for personal transport, fully automated vehicles allows for significant safety and eventually efficiency and traffic flow improvements.
Is it as revolutionary as the automobile itself? Perhaps not. But depending on how it is implemented and applied, it could certainly have value.
Nevertheless, I agree about the job situation. We're removing jobs and we need to be able to either employ those people gainfully, or otherwise deal with them being on the dole. I'm not sure that I would stop implementation of the technology for that, but I would focus efforts on dealing with the workforce impacts.
It certainly had an effect, although more from the opposition factor than any inherent value in the communist system.
Communism was a serious threat, and by threat, I don't just mean to the pocketbooks of capitalists. No one wanted what happened to Russia to happen to their country, and workers movements did get a bit of a lift from those trying to use them to block communism taking hold.
But make no mistake, its the political equivalent of using the threat of zombies outside the door to keep you focused on working together within. You're always better off with eradicating that sort of threat than trying to "harness" it to your advantage.
I won't even say we need a "better capitalism", but the ultimate solution needs to be better than a nuclear stalemate where the other side is oppression in the name of the "workers". I clearly remember the Cold War, and I have no nostalgia for the period in the slightest. At least today, I don't actually have to wonder if someone in Russia or NORAD is going to screw up and end the world on ten minutes notice. The threat is still there, but much more comfortably remote now.
At this point, I cannot even imagine America with Trump in charge. I can't even think about it.
With Hillary, I can at least envision it. The usual political bullshit. Standard corrupt action and hubris. Bill dicking bimbos in the WH again. Mediocre government with the usual infighting.
I hate both of them, but Trump actually scares me, where Hillary only makes me angry and frustrated. And to be honest, I am not as much afraid of Trump himself, as I am that this country could actually elect someone like Trump. He's still going to lose, but this is the only opponent that Hillary should be able to curbstomp, and she's totally not doing so. Or so the pollsters would have us believe.
Maybe she needs to take this election off to recover from her illnesses and let Tim Kaine get elected President. I could possibly even vote for him.
I don't think Trump is a racist. I think he's a bottom feeding, populist asshole.
Racism would require a certain ideological commitment from him, a sort of consistency in his arguments that would at least allow a clear understanding of what he might actually do, as abhorrent as that would be.
From Trump, I don't fear him instituting a racist agenda, I fear him just doing whatever he damn well pleases. There may be a little casual racism in there, but there's probably also going to be a little bit of just about anything that makes him feel like he's in charge and makes him able to comment on whatever the hell he feels like. He's literally there because he thinks all America needs is him and his strength and all the problems will disappear. Solutions will simply appear when he says that things need to change. Because strength.
Trump isn't winning shit. Sorry, or perhaps I should say, good for you and the rest of us.
I wish the alternative wasn't the same old mediocre corrupt BS that got Trump this far, but as much as I dislike Hillary, I cannot even stomach Trump. He's like a one question IQ test.
I mean... he just fucking lied about Hillary making up the Birther argument right on camera. Lied. Straight lied his ass off. Not just the usual half-baked shit he throws off. I have only one quote to for that sort of ridiculousness, even though I am not entirely sure Trump is even this smart....
"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
Three guesses where that quote is from. You'll only need one.
Lobbying, in some form, is as old as government. It's a matter of picking your poison.
If you close the lobbyists down, they'll be replaced something else.
And there really is no point in voters getting their "own lobbyists", because lobbyists are there to allow government leaders to know how voters can be made to vote. And in a way, special interest groups *are* lobbyists for the voters... their voters... who can also be manipulated themselves into doing what the group wants.
Bear in mind that campaign finance money is important, but many special interest groups have something more important: lists of donors and members who can be counted on to do what the special interest group wants and vote who they say to vote for. Those groups pay in the currency of voters, not merely money, in return for their legislation being passed.
Indeed, the lobbyists are mostly there to provide the text of legislation that the special interests wanted enacted into laws. Getting rid of them means the legislator now will cast about for some other method of figuring out how to write laws and get information using the relatively small amount of money they get for a staff. And that will just cause lobbying to appear in some other form.
So, I don't think they should be illegal. They should simply be made as transparent and regulated as possible. If they have something to say to a legislator, it should be public knowledge and only under certain conditions.
I don't think anyone believes that a computer driven vehicle will ever be able perfectly avoid killing people. That's not even reasonable, let alone the goal of the program. Computer driven cars will kill people, that's simply going to happen.
The utility of such a system is that there is certainly higher (and improving) safety, but also the potential for better traffic flow, gas mileage, as well as considerable convenience involved.
For commercial applications, it removes the need for a driver which is positive for cost, as well as being able to use the truck more efficiently with more non-stop travel hours for each rig.
I enjoy driving as much as the next person, but not having to do it even when I don't feel like it, like in bumper to bumper traffic, would be a huge relief. While I have a good record of not getting in accidents, that sort of traffic makes it way too easy for fender benders and such to occur and the stress level is pretty high. A car that dealt with that for me would probably add at least a year to my life.
What part of having seen what they actually do, first-hand, count as "personal hatred"?
Their business practices are abusive, to put it mildly. Only a poor businessman looks at only the bottom line in the short term without an eye to what will happen to their organization later. If you're going to chase Larry's bargain basement loss leader pricing so Oracle can get their foot in your front door, then perhaps the pity should be for your employer, not mine.
At this point, just the name Oracle is enough to make me stay well away from their cloud. I have seen what they have done with their database and how they manage to wring what money they can out of the unsuspecting and have no interest in feeding that beast, even if their prices are rock bottom.
AWS has its problems, but their pricing and product offering is not bad enough that I would go into the gutter to let that disease into my organization. I'd go Azure long before I'd go Oracle in any event. (Not that such a thought is something I consider appetizing either...)
I won't call it stupid, but it's not a very useful example because you've just defined a scenario that a human would do just as bad at, or worse, than the onboard computer.
A human:
Is less likely to reduce speed in environments like that.
Is less likely to even see cues in the first place
Might be on a cell phone or otherwise distracted.
The computer still might fail in that situation, but I don't see why you think an average human would do any better in this convoluted example. An individual human might outperform the average computer, if they were using a considerable amount of intellect to use all cues to their advantage, but even then, humans lack the task oriented senses and reaction times of these systems.
So, even if the human had full situational awareness, were of a professional quality of driver, and took proper precautions, they might still fail in a situation that the computer would succeed at simply due to reaction time and sensor capabilities. And the average human is nowhere near that level of capability and focus on driving.
Except that's a silly case. A human has slower reaction time and lacks always attentive sensors and is often distracted. The humans can identify the ball, sure, but that's useful because they need the cue.
A self driving car will detect the ball *and* the child and react faster than any human driver to the actual child without having to have a dawning realization about the ball. They don't need to know that it's a child's ball because the car will have detected the actual issue and reacted to it directly.
And yes, in some cases the child will be fast enough or erratic enough to end up in the path of the car close enough that the car can't do anything to avoid it. And that would be the exact same problem for a human driver, only the self-driving car would break fast enough to prevent harm to the child in that case appreciably more often than a human would be able to. That's all down to reaction times and dedicated decision making about actual data. In that case, I'll statistically take the car over any human.
It might be more efficient, that doesn't always equate to better service.
Of course, replacing inefficient, but shitty government buses with efficient, but still shitty private buses might make sense in areas who already have poorly managed transit. It will be interesting to see if they can overcome public busing with a private busing service, but due to government backing and the politics of mass transit, that's going to be harder to do.