Because they're trying to maintain an artificially high standard of living against the rest of the world which is relatively impoverished.
They're riding the tiger. They know that they can't maintain this standard of living forever, something will equalize it, but due to the need to get votes, they don't dare feed the population a dose of bitter medicine. So, they just shrug and try and hold on as long as they can and hope they are dead when reality comes to roost.
Strictly speaking... they should be able to make a language a reason to hire overseas, that is a valuable skill.
However, they should be challenging the company about why they need that for every programmer or admin, and that is the problem. The government is the gatekeeper, but it doesn't even know who to let through the gate. It just listens to the lobbyists tell them all about how there is a "shortage" of workers.
Let the market decide by only giving H1-Bs to the companies willing to pay the most to fill those slots. End the random lottery and make it salary dependent. Companies that really need that skillset will pay for it. The ones who don't, will find another way. Then you need to keep them from outsourcing, which would be next.
Adding an 100k fee to *anything* will cause businesses to stop it for anything other than hiring CEOs (who I think get their own visa type).
Which any business will point out to their congresscritters if they even thought of trying it. You're effectively outlawing H1-Bs, which they won't tolerate.
I still like the idea of only handing out the H1-Bs to those who intend to pay their workers the *most* of all of the applicants over some minimum. Then you can't be accused of trying to torpedo the program, and the businesses have their own rhetoric backfire on them when they say that these people have "talent" they can't get in the USA. If they have "talent", they *should* be willing to pay the H1-Bs like they are "the talent".
They don't have a big picture of the economy. They only know that they need to drop their prices, which means dropping expenses. Manpower is a big expense, so they try and economize on that. Nothing rewards them for caring about that big picture.
You'd think the government would have a solution for big picture issues, but they're the ones allowing this to happen. Just like they're allowing the immigration crisis to occur. You want to get rid of illegal aliens? Investigate and prosecute the businesses that hire them. The problem is that no one wants prices to go up or be seen as responsible for it, and prices will definitely go up if these companies get prosecuted and must use American workers.
Now, prices going up is not necessarily a bad thing *if* the population is making more money. It's all a balancing game.
To be honest, though, I feel that protecting national jobs is an untenable situation in the long term. You create a wealth disparity between haves and have-nots throughout the world, which can eventually be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. That's what was done by colonialism where inequitable trading arrangements have caused significant problems all around the world.
I'd say if there is any of these solutions I support, it would probably be the one that allows H1-Bs for only the highest paid visa candidates on the list. That seems like it is the best fit for H1-B is supposed to be. If these guys are specialists, unattainable in the US by any other means, then they need to be paid like specialists.
Actually, paying a flat fee for an infinite resource isn't actually impossible. What the real problem is that people are paying a flat fee for an infinite resource for an effectively unlimited period.
If you have me a billion dollars today and told me I had to spend it (not give it away to some random person) by tomorrow, I wouldn't be able to do it. It's not that I can't think of something to do with a billion dollars, its that you can't actually complete deals that would take big chunks out of that sum in one day. Too much paperwork, too many people involved. Your best bet would be to have you and your spouse split up and buy as many expensive retail products as you could. Even then, I doubt you'd be able to break 10 million dollars that day. My best bet might be to buy every car on the lot of the various exotic car dealerships, and try and just buy the entire inventory of a bunch of jewelers. At that point, they'd probably still not go for it because they'd need to get all sorts of approvals to sell that much first.
With infinite data plans, you're dealing with constantly expanding traffic and use for that data plan, but phones are only going to be able to push so much traffic in a day, a week, a month, or a year. And most people won't even come close to maxing out their possible bandwidth utilization. As long as you set a deadline for the permanent end of "unlimited", followed by a hefty price increase for "unlimited" in the next term, you could do it.
However, the ability to get it for two years, followed by being able to keep it almost forever, is not how you offer an unlimited plan that is going to stick around.
Most unlimited plans could actually probably work at a profit if you kept the terms shorter and raised the prices to match in each term to meet your expenses and profit expectations. Most people would be paying *now* for future use that they probably won't even use. You just take out expenses and throw your profits into the bank, or into research and you're making money. You just have to get the term and the prices right.
Oil doesn't have to stay in the US for it to lower the price of oil in the US.
If China wants the oil and can't get it from Canada, it will get it from other places that it can get it from, including some places that we source our oil from. That will drive up the oil prices everywhere.
The US has an advantage with local oil reserves, but even the US still imports 27% of its petroleum and that number is the lowest it has been in recent memory. Changes to US oil production could very easily increase that percentage again.
This is a global economy, there are some local restrictions that alter the effects here and there, but if you drive up the price of oil for someone, you will drive it up for everyone to some degree.
That's like the Republicans thinking they can end Obamacare and Social Security by making it hard to operate them. Obstructionism doesn't work, it just makes you look like an asshole.
Alternative fuels need to become more economical based on their own merits, NOT bullshit blockages of economical fuels. Going down that path is only going increase the number of enemies of alternative fuels because people see it for the obstructionism that it is.
That's like saying "if a terrorist got a nuclear weapon, there would be a horrible catastrophe."
Yes, of course there would, but what is the actual risk assessment of that happening as opposed to, for instance, dying in a mundane car accident?
How many pipeline catastrophes are there on a regular basis, and would all of them put together release more pollutants into the air and water supply than simply running trucks and trains with the same amount of oil less efficiently?
Less efficiency is more waste, and that waste is often in the form of toxic chemicals and other materials.
I think we've all just been had for the sake of some people in the Midwest that don't want to give up their land and don't like ugly pipelines.
I would rather we spent the money on useful construction jobs, like repairing our failing bridges (http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/06/04/how-a-decaying-infrastructure-hurts-u-s-manufacturing/).
There is no "general fund" which includes both bridge repairs and pipelines. All the government was needed to do here was to approve the construction. It wasn't paying a cent for construction.
If there is no pipeline, there are zero pipeline jobs, and since the money for the pipeline comes 100% from the oil companies, the workers aren't "reassigned" to bridge work. They get to be unemployed.
You know how you get the most jobs? Approve both the pipeline and also ensure your representatives approve infrastructure spending. It's not like there is some sort of limited pool of workers to work on both, right? Then you have 2x the amount of workers working. Of course, it would have been nice to have 50% of them working, but I guess that's not going to happen either. So let's be happy that they can all remain unemployed.
Buffett runs the trains and has a share in the oil.
This hurts him not at all. Do you think that the oil *isn't* going to be brought up because of the failure of the pipeline?
I don't know if Keystone was good or bad for the US in general, but the only thing that's a real threat to the oil sands exploitation is low priced Saudi oil. It's still profitable to truck and ship that oil because it is oil and everyone needs it.
I think there is some sort of odd belief that the oil has been "stopped". You can't stop oil production without a better alternative. If anyone thought this was a "win" for alternative fuels, they are mistaken. The only people who may have benefited are the people who don't lose their land and who could, in theory, have to deal with the aquifer if there was a spill. You don't stop oil production by trying to stop transport of oil already drilled. Too many people need it and will ensure it gets where it needs to go.
Frankly, I think it would have been a marginal win for the environmentalists to let the pipeline go in. Trucks and trains are a definite pollution and carbon issue, whereas a spill is a theoretical risk while the oil would have been transported without the waste of the trucks and trains. I think this is NIMBY "environmentalism" at work.
HIV is high in Africa due to poor medical practices and some other public health issues. That was never a problem in the US. In the US, it can and could easily be contained by behavior modifications.
In Africa, HIV was in the blood supply, you'd get it from going to the hospital to get a blood transfusion. That was never a serious threat in the US.
Sociopaths are terrible at running corporations because they get them killed by lack of long term planning. Many *appear* successful because they are good at climbing hierarchies to get to the top position.
Short term, the corporations look like well run machines, but frequently its all about stock price and short term profit. If you think of a corporation like a body, it's goal is to make money, but it makes much, much more money the longer it is in business. So a sociopath is a shitty executive for a corporation, they're simply good at understanding how to reward greed from investors, which ensures that they get hired and keep their position.
Let's make this clear, I don't support sending sociopaths to an island or anything inhumane.
That said, there may be an evolutionary advantage to sociopathy for those individuals, but that advantage can be parasitic. There need not be *any* advantage to society.
You only need to have *enough* people with empathy to build a society to have a society. Once that society exists and has enough advantage to generate a safe niche in terms of resources, sociopathic genes become able to take advantage of that without (immediately) killing the host society.
It's all about genes being selected, not humans. Natural selection of sociopathic genes does not imply that they necessarily aid society, only that they can thrive in that niche. And if you think about it, having no empathy can be a handicap in some cases, but having no guilt about doing what is best for yourself can also make you very successful, but at the expense of others.
The control of the sociopath population is the same mechanism as any parasite is controlled, by defenses that their hosts have against them and by lack of available resources to support them if they start becoming rampant. Sociopaths are often markedly "different" in interactions when their mimicry of emotions fails them and failing that, eventually someone catches on to them by their actions.
There are states where you can pay an uninsured driver fee in lieu of insurance. Sort of like how you can pay an uninsured healthcare fee if you don't have health insurance. The fee (well, according to SCOTUS it is a tax) is there to encourage you to pay, but considering the cost of auto insurance for some people, it is probably cheaper to pay the fee.
There are definitely people who don't like this. Obviously if your BMW just got trashed by someone's piece of shit and they are uninsured, it is your insurance company who has to pay, or you have to pay yourself. The POS drivers has no insurance to pay for their car, but they have a POS, so they probably could buy a new POS for the money they saved on not paying their car insurance.
Please don't even joke about that. I'd vote for Bernie Sanders before I voted for Trump. Both are about as useless, but Trump is actively dangerous. We'd probably survive Bernie and do all right with some good gridlock.
I have sympathy with that duplication, even while being very well aware of the waste entailed.
Otherwise, what keeps the cops from getting medical related information about you? If you have government health care, there's a trove of information about you out there.
Yes, you can set up specific rules about that sort of thing, but its better that the default case be that you cannot share, than have the default case that you can share.
Which achieves fossil fuel plants where safety isn't even really a concern to begin with because we're less afraid of lung cancer and radiation from coal than evil radiation from heavily shielded nuclear plants.
We're hyper-aware of nuclear safety, but there are industrial accidents all the time that kill lots of people due to cost cutting and poor management. Something like solar would just shift the danger to fabrication plants which use plenty of toxic chemicals and batteries which are basically made of toxic materials. We accept that because we're being trained to believe that solar power is light and airy and clean and totally safe, but it's only "safe" in the generation. There's nothing clean about what goes into solar plants and what happens when you decommission the apparatus to support it.
Yes, but to also be fair, the high costs of operating a nuke plant are due in large part to the assumed liability of operating one which is ramped up by anti-nukes.
I agree that nuclear plants can be undercut by gas, but nuclear would be much cheaper if it had been allowed to be built out and have a sane approval process. And maybe we could fulfill our energy needs without fracking gas into people's water supplies.
It is sad that due to fear of the unknown, we walk straight into the arms of fossil fuels and all that it entails.
It's all about NIMBY. People who don't have nukes in their backyard will fight to keep them away because they fear what they don't understand. They also have more to lose. For people who already live near nuke plants, if their property values were going to go down because of the plant, it has already happened.
The plants that are already there have been safe for decades and people are used to them. It's also very difficult for anti-nukes to call for a plant with a safe record to shutdown because they get less traction suggesting that a plant that has been safe for decades is somehow a looming menace.
Of course, when a Chernobyl or Fukushima happens, then the fear level can be ramped up enough to deny extensions for even safely operating plants with a good record.
That's not a useful argument. The previous poster discussed priorities, you're suggesting it is either you get to do what you want, or it is the same as if the server was shut off.
Yes, security professionals want things that may make it more difficult to implement features, but rarely are those features rendered impossible. And the ones that *are* rendered impossible perhaps shouldn't have been considered to be desirable in the first place because they were privacy or security disasters waiting to happen.
I have asked for a feature at a past company I worked at where coders would actually provide audit events in the code that get logged so we can see what was actually happening in our own application. It was required for security, but you could argue that it would be useful for people like customer support. It had to wait for a bunch of other features to get done, but we couldn't even talk to the Federal market without audit events being up to snuff. And, because of that, we lost potential customers and our troubleshooting suffered. Security isn't always blocking progress. Sometimes it demands capabilities that your application actually needs in order to turn a profit, even if they aren't shiny.
You have to prioritize security somewhere and whether it is a higher or lower priority, you have to take it seriously. I accept that you may need to get this or that product feature into the code before a competitor, but eventually you build up so much security debt that you can't get out of it without a lot of work, and then the moaning starts about how there would have to be a "complete re-write" to even address security, so why bother?
And then you have some disaster like Target or AM or Sony or take your pick. AM is toast now because their security was hilariously bad. Sony was embarrassed because their security was (and probably is) hilariously bad. I seriously doubt that there was a exec meeting or something where any of them said, "Fuck Security". What happened is that they kept saying that usability or features are more important and security was second, and it *stayed* second, which meant that it *never* got fixed.
Maybe he has forked Linux and has actually fixed the issues, but he'd prefer that the kernel come that way without having to be patched.
Or he needs Linux to do certain things, and there is nothing better out there (which is Linus's point).
At the same time, Linux may make CoreOS possible, but unless Linux improves, it may also represent a big problem for CoreOS.
It's sort of like that "free" car your relatives give you when you're a teenager. You can't get a car yourself because you're too poor, but if it keeps breaking down when you try to make use of it to go to your job at the supermarket, you could find yourself wishing there was a way that car would be more reliable. And, it might someday get your ass fired while the guy you laughed at for biking to work every day actually got to keep his job.
Yeah, biking like using some other kernel may be a pain in the ass, but bikes and well designed kernels are easy to fix, and the extra work actually makes you healthier in the long run.
BUT, until we can look at the code, we can't really say that it's "every bit as secure as a standard Linux setup is."
This article blunts that point at least a little bit.
You can look at the Linux kernel code all you want, but if the suggestions of the security experts who *do* review the code and find the bugs are ignored, is that actually any better than what you get with Windows? All you get is that you *know* Linux is insecure as opposed to just assuming it with Windows.
You have to fix the bugs or implement the security features for the code review to actually have an effect.
I will grant, code review makes a risk assessment of Linux a lot easier than Windows. That is an important advantage, but if the risk assessment of Linux is "fatally compromised", then you may not be able to compensate for it and you start going to software providers who might be able to offer a better track record.
Ultimately, Linus may be right about what people want. There is certainly a good argument out there about making something that people can use, instead of building a locked box which is secure but which have no applications.
However, sometimes what people want changes and instead of running with the bulls, you're being run over by them when they panic and suddenly change course. Sometimes a little compromise in the interests of the future of the platform make sense, even if they are somewhat counter-intuitive at the moment.
Using a hammer is an extremely poor and simplistic analogy. A hammer is a piece of wood and a shaped piece of metal which are kept together in some fairly simple manner.
The Linux kernel and most systems are anything but simple and can break or be broken in ways that will be impossible to see through a simple inspection. You can easily inspect a hammer to see that it is safe and in working order.
Security is about being able to assess risk and then either fix the issue or accept the risk and compensate for it. If it is fairly straightforward for the risks with the Linux kernel to be assessed and somehow compensated for, then Linus may have a point.
If, however, there is no way of adequately assessing the real risk of using the kernel, then Linux has a problem that will eventually need to be resolved and one day a catastrophe could happen that causes a sudden departure from the Linux kernel or a serious retrenchment.
Security is problematic because no one takes it seriously until there is a disaster. And when the panic starts, it is far, far too late.
Anonymous has no case. It is a catch-all for people who wish to act under that name. There can't be be a case if *everyone* is allowed to assume the moniker and there is no qualification based on philosophy.
Anonymous is an expression of what people can do, if they are able to hide their identities and act as a spontaneously self-coordinating group.
However, what is done will become increasingly random as more and more people wish to use the name and the methods.
Someone comes up with an idea, and whoever likes it can join in through coordinating via social media or IRC or whatever. Consequently, it could be a huge success, or a total bust, or anything between.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they're trying to maintain an artificially high standard of living against the rest of the world which is relatively impoverished.
They're riding the tiger. They know that they can't maintain this standard of living forever, something will equalize it, but due to the need to get votes, they don't dare feed the population a dose of bitter medicine. So, they just shrug and try and hold on as long as they can and hope they are dead when reality comes to roost.
Strictly speaking... they should be able to make a language a reason to hire overseas, that is a valuable skill.
However, they should be challenging the company about why they need that for every programmer or admin, and that is the problem. The government is the gatekeeper, but it doesn't even know who to let through the gate. It just listens to the lobbyists tell them all about how there is a "shortage" of workers.
Let the market decide by only giving H1-Bs to the companies willing to pay the most to fill those slots. End the random lottery and make it salary dependent. Companies that really need that skillset will pay for it. The ones who don't, will find another way. Then you need to keep them from outsourcing, which would be next.
Adding an 100k fee to *anything* will cause businesses to stop it for anything other than hiring CEOs (who I think get their own visa type).
Which any business will point out to their congresscritters if they even thought of trying it. You're effectively outlawing H1-Bs, which they won't tolerate.
I still like the idea of only handing out the H1-Bs to those who intend to pay their workers the *most* of all of the applicants over some minimum. Then you can't be accused of trying to torpedo the program, and the businesses have their own rhetoric backfire on them when they say that these people have "talent" they can't get in the USA. If they have "talent", they *should* be willing to pay the H1-Bs like they are "the talent".
They don't have a big picture of the economy. They only know that they need to drop their prices, which means dropping expenses. Manpower is a big expense, so they try and economize on that. Nothing rewards them for caring about that big picture.
You'd think the government would have a solution for big picture issues, but they're the ones allowing this to happen. Just like they're allowing the immigration crisis to occur. You want to get rid of illegal aliens? Investigate and prosecute the businesses that hire them. The problem is that no one wants prices to go up or be seen as responsible for it, and prices will definitely go up if these companies get prosecuted and must use American workers.
Now, prices going up is not necessarily a bad thing *if* the population is making more money. It's all a balancing game.
To be honest, though, I feel that protecting national jobs is an untenable situation in the long term. You create a wealth disparity between haves and have-nots throughout the world, which can eventually be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. That's what was done by colonialism where inequitable trading arrangements have caused significant problems all around the world.
I'd say if there is any of these solutions I support, it would probably be the one that allows H1-Bs for only the highest paid visa candidates on the list. That seems like it is the best fit for H1-B is supposed to be. If these guys are specialists, unattainable in the US by any other means, then they need to be paid like specialists.
Actually, paying a flat fee for an infinite resource isn't actually impossible. What the real problem is that people are paying a flat fee for an infinite resource for an effectively unlimited period.
If you have me a billion dollars today and told me I had to spend it (not give it away to some random person) by tomorrow, I wouldn't be able to do it. It's not that I can't think of something to do with a billion dollars, its that you can't actually complete deals that would take big chunks out of that sum in one day. Too much paperwork, too many people involved. Your best bet would be to have you and your spouse split up and buy as many expensive retail products as you could. Even then, I doubt you'd be able to break 10 million dollars that day. My best bet might be to buy every car on the lot of the various exotic car dealerships, and try and just buy the entire inventory of a bunch of jewelers. At that point, they'd probably still not go for it because they'd need to get all sorts of approvals to sell that much first.
With infinite data plans, you're dealing with constantly expanding traffic and use for that data plan, but phones are only going to be able to push so much traffic in a day, a week, a month, or a year. And most people won't even come close to maxing out their possible bandwidth utilization. As long as you set a deadline for the permanent end of "unlimited", followed by a hefty price increase for "unlimited" in the next term, you could do it.
However, the ability to get it for two years, followed by being able to keep it almost forever, is not how you offer an unlimited plan that is going to stick around.
Most unlimited plans could actually probably work at a profit if you kept the terms shorter and raised the prices to match in each term to meet your expenses and profit expectations. Most people would be paying *now* for future use that they probably won't even use. You just take out expenses and throw your profits into the bank, or into research and you're making money. You just have to get the term and the prices right.
That is of limited comfort to me. If people keep trying it, they could eventually succeed. They need to stop even trying something so asinine.
Oil doesn't have to stay in the US for it to lower the price of oil in the US.
If China wants the oil and can't get it from Canada, it will get it from other places that it can get it from, including some places that we source our oil from. That will drive up the oil prices everywhere.
The US has an advantage with local oil reserves, but even the US still imports 27% of its petroleum and that number is the lowest it has been in recent memory. Changes to US oil production could very easily increase that percentage again.
This is a global economy, there are some local restrictions that alter the effects here and there, but if you drive up the price of oil for someone, you will drive it up for everyone to some degree.
That's like the Republicans thinking they can end Obamacare and Social Security by making it hard to operate them. Obstructionism doesn't work, it just makes you look like an asshole.
Alternative fuels need to become more economical based on their own merits, NOT bullshit blockages of economical fuels. Going down that path is only going increase the number of enemies of alternative fuels because people see it for the obstructionism that it is.
That's like saying "if a terrorist got a nuclear weapon, there would be a horrible catastrophe."
Yes, of course there would, but what is the actual risk assessment of that happening as opposed to, for instance, dying in a mundane car accident?
How many pipeline catastrophes are there on a regular basis, and would all of them put together release more pollutants into the air and water supply than simply running trucks and trains with the same amount of oil less efficiently?
Less efficiency is more waste, and that waste is often in the form of toxic chemicals and other materials.
I think we've all just been had for the sake of some people in the Midwest that don't want to give up their land and don't like ugly pipelines.
I would rather we spent the money on useful construction jobs, like repairing our failing bridges (http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/06/04/how-a-decaying-infrastructure-hurts-u-s-manufacturing/).
There is no "general fund" which includes both bridge repairs and pipelines. All the government was needed to do here was to approve the construction. It wasn't paying a cent for construction.
If there is no pipeline, there are zero pipeline jobs, and since the money for the pipeline comes 100% from the oil companies, the workers aren't "reassigned" to bridge work. They get to be unemployed.
You know how you get the most jobs? Approve both the pipeline and also ensure your representatives approve infrastructure spending. It's not like there is some sort of limited pool of workers to work on both, right? Then you have 2x the amount of workers working. Of course, it would have been nice to have 50% of them working, but I guess that's not going to happen either. So let's be happy that they can all remain unemployed.
Buffett runs the trains and has a share in the oil.
This hurts him not at all. Do you think that the oil *isn't* going to be brought up because of the failure of the pipeline?
I don't know if Keystone was good or bad for the US in general, but the only thing that's a real threat to the oil sands exploitation is low priced Saudi oil. It's still profitable to truck and ship that oil because it is oil and everyone needs it.
I think there is some sort of odd belief that the oil has been "stopped". You can't stop oil production without a better alternative. If anyone thought this was a "win" for alternative fuels, they are mistaken. The only people who may have benefited are the people who don't lose their land and who could, in theory, have to deal with the aquifer if there was a spill. You don't stop oil production by trying to stop transport of oil already drilled. Too many people need it and will ensure it gets where it needs to go.
Frankly, I think it would have been a marginal win for the environmentalists to let the pipeline go in. Trucks and trains are a definite pollution and carbon issue, whereas a spill is a theoretical risk while the oil would have been transported without the waste of the trucks and trains. I think this is NIMBY "environmentalism" at work.
HIV is high in Africa due to poor medical practices and some other public health issues. That was never a problem in the US. In the US, it can and could easily be contained by behavior modifications.
In Africa, HIV was in the blood supply, you'd get it from going to the hospital to get a blood transfusion. That was never a serious threat in the US.
Sociopaths are terrible at running corporations because they get them killed by lack of long term planning. Many *appear* successful because they are good at climbing hierarchies to get to the top position.
Short term, the corporations look like well run machines, but frequently its all about stock price and short term profit. If you think of a corporation like a body, it's goal is to make money, but it makes much, much more money the longer it is in business. So a sociopath is a shitty executive for a corporation, they're simply good at understanding how to reward greed from investors, which ensures that they get hired and keep their position.
Let's make this clear, I don't support sending sociopaths to an island or anything inhumane.
That said, there may be an evolutionary advantage to sociopathy for those individuals, but that advantage can be parasitic. There need not be *any* advantage to society.
You only need to have *enough* people with empathy to build a society to have a society. Once that society exists and has enough advantage to generate a safe niche in terms of resources, sociopathic genes become able to take advantage of that without (immediately) killing the host society.
It's all about genes being selected, not humans. Natural selection of sociopathic genes does not imply that they necessarily aid society, only that they can thrive in that niche. And if you think about it, having no empathy can be a handicap in some cases, but having no guilt about doing what is best for yourself can also make you very successful, but at the expense of others.
The control of the sociopath population is the same mechanism as any parasite is controlled, by defenses that their hosts have against them and by lack of available resources to support them if they start becoming rampant. Sociopaths are often markedly "different" in interactions when their mimicry of emotions fails them and failing that, eventually someone catches on to them by their actions.
There are states where you can pay an uninsured driver fee in lieu of insurance. Sort of like how you can pay an uninsured healthcare fee if you don't have health insurance. The fee (well, according to SCOTUS it is a tax) is there to encourage you to pay, but considering the cost of auto insurance for some people, it is probably cheaper to pay the fee.
There are definitely people who don't like this. Obviously if your BMW just got trashed by someone's piece of shit and they are uninsured, it is your insurance company who has to pay, or you have to pay yourself. The POS drivers has no insurance to pay for their car, but they have a POS, so they probably could buy a new POS for the money they saved on not paying their car insurance.
Please don't even joke about that. I'd vote for Bernie Sanders before I voted for Trump. Both are about as useless, but Trump is actively dangerous. We'd probably survive Bernie and do all right with some good gridlock.
I have sympathy with that duplication, even while being very well aware of the waste entailed.
Otherwise, what keeps the cops from getting medical related information about you? If you have government health care, there's a trove of information about you out there.
Yes, you can set up specific rules about that sort of thing, but its better that the default case be that you cannot share, than have the default case that you can share.
Which achieves fossil fuel plants where safety isn't even really a concern to begin with because we're less afraid of lung cancer and radiation from coal than evil radiation from heavily shielded nuclear plants.
We're hyper-aware of nuclear safety, but there are industrial accidents all the time that kill lots of people due to cost cutting and poor management. Something like solar would just shift the danger to fabrication plants which use plenty of toxic chemicals and batteries which are basically made of toxic materials. We accept that because we're being trained to believe that solar power is light and airy and clean and totally safe, but it's only "safe" in the generation. There's nothing clean about what goes into solar plants and what happens when you decommission the apparatus to support it.
Yes, but to also be fair, the high costs of operating a nuke plant are due in large part to the assumed liability of operating one which is ramped up by anti-nukes.
I agree that nuclear plants can be undercut by gas, but nuclear would be much cheaper if it had been allowed to be built out and have a sane approval process. And maybe we could fulfill our energy needs without fracking gas into people's water supplies.
It is sad that due to fear of the unknown, we walk straight into the arms of fossil fuels and all that it entails.
It's all about NIMBY. People who don't have nukes in their backyard will fight to keep them away because they fear what they don't understand. They also have more to lose. For people who already live near nuke plants, if their property values were going to go down because of the plant, it has already happened.
The plants that are already there have been safe for decades and people are used to them. It's also very difficult for anti-nukes to call for a plant with a safe record to shutdown because they get less traction suggesting that a plant that has been safe for decades is somehow a looming menace.
Of course, when a Chernobyl or Fukushima happens, then the fear level can be ramped up enough to deny extensions for even safely operating plants with a good record.
That's not a useful argument. The previous poster discussed priorities, you're suggesting it is either you get to do what you want, or it is the same as if the server was shut off.
Yes, security professionals want things that may make it more difficult to implement features, but rarely are those features rendered impossible. And the ones that *are* rendered impossible perhaps shouldn't have been considered to be desirable in the first place because they were privacy or security disasters waiting to happen.
I have asked for a feature at a past company I worked at where coders would actually provide audit events in the code that get logged so we can see what was actually happening in our own application. It was required for security, but you could argue that it would be useful for people like customer support. It had to wait for a bunch of other features to get done, but we couldn't even talk to the Federal market without audit events being up to snuff. And, because of that, we lost potential customers and our troubleshooting suffered. Security isn't always blocking progress. Sometimes it demands capabilities that your application actually needs in order to turn a profit, even if they aren't shiny.
You have to prioritize security somewhere and whether it is a higher or lower priority, you have to take it seriously. I accept that you may need to get this or that product feature into the code before a competitor, but eventually you build up so much security debt that you can't get out of it without a lot of work, and then the moaning starts about how there would have to be a "complete re-write" to even address security, so why bother?
And then you have some disaster like Target or AM or Sony or take your pick. AM is toast now because their security was hilariously bad. Sony was embarrassed because their security was (and probably is) hilariously bad. I seriously doubt that there was a exec meeting or something where any of them said, "Fuck Security". What happened is that they kept saying that usability or features are more important and security was second, and it *stayed* second, which meant that it *never* got fixed.
Maybe he has forked Linux and has actually fixed the issues, but he'd prefer that the kernel come that way without having to be patched.
Or he needs Linux to do certain things, and there is nothing better out there (which is Linus's point).
At the same time, Linux may make CoreOS possible, but unless Linux improves, it may also represent a big problem for CoreOS.
It's sort of like that "free" car your relatives give you when you're a teenager. You can't get a car yourself because you're too poor, but if it keeps breaking down when you try to make use of it to go to your job at the supermarket, you could find yourself wishing there was a way that car would be more reliable. And, it might someday get your ass fired while the guy you laughed at for biking to work every day actually got to keep his job.
Yeah, biking like using some other kernel may be a pain in the ass, but bikes and well designed kernels are easy to fix, and the extra work actually makes you healthier in the long run.
BUT, until we can look at the code, we can't really say that it's "every bit as secure as a standard Linux setup is."
This article blunts that point at least a little bit.
You can look at the Linux kernel code all you want, but if the suggestions of the security experts who *do* review the code and find the bugs are ignored, is that actually any better than what you get with Windows? All you get is that you *know* Linux is insecure as opposed to just assuming it with Windows.
You have to fix the bugs or implement the security features for the code review to actually have an effect.
I will grant, code review makes a risk assessment of Linux a lot easier than Windows. That is an important advantage, but if the risk assessment of Linux is "fatally compromised", then you may not be able to compensate for it and you start going to software providers who might be able to offer a better track record.
Ultimately, Linus may be right about what people want. There is certainly a good argument out there about making something that people can use, instead of building a locked box which is secure but which have no applications.
However, sometimes what people want changes and instead of running with the bulls, you're being run over by them when they panic and suddenly change course. Sometimes a little compromise in the interests of the future of the platform make sense, even if they are somewhat counter-intuitive at the moment.
Using a hammer is an extremely poor and simplistic analogy. A hammer is a piece of wood and a shaped piece of metal which are kept together in some fairly simple manner.
The Linux kernel and most systems are anything but simple and can break or be broken in ways that will be impossible to see through a simple inspection. You can easily inspect a hammer to see that it is safe and in working order.
Security is about being able to assess risk and then either fix the issue or accept the risk and compensate for it. If it is fairly straightforward for the risks with the Linux kernel to be assessed and somehow compensated for, then Linus may have a point.
If, however, there is no way of adequately assessing the real risk of using the kernel, then Linux has a problem that will eventually need to be resolved and one day a catastrophe could happen that causes a sudden departure from the Linux kernel or a serious retrenchment.
Security is problematic because no one takes it seriously until there is a disaster. And when the panic starts, it is far, far too late.
Anonymous has no case. It is a catch-all for people who wish to act under that name. There can't be be a case if *everyone* is allowed to assume the moniker and there is no qualification based on philosophy.
Anonymous is an expression of what people can do, if they are able to hide their identities and act as a spontaneously self-coordinating group.
However, what is done will become increasingly random as more and more people wish to use the name and the methods.
Someone comes up with an idea, and whoever likes it can join in through coordinating via social media or IRC or whatever. Consequently, it could be a huge success, or a total bust, or anything between.