Given the fact that tractors typically put in 450-600 miles in a day... Yeah yeah, stop and charge, but given it takes a few hours to charge a car, and this will supposedly have a MUCH bigger battery pack, I guess truckers can now get 300 miles before they have to stop for 5-6 hours to recharge, meaning drive for 7 hours, charge for 6, drive for 7, charge for 6, etc. Not too conducive to rest!
Trucks are a completely different animal than cars, though. Why not put extra battery packs under the trailers? These could be very easily swapped out with simple equipment (even a standard forklift, probably) at a truck stop, and (dis)connected manually. Since they'd charge while the trailers are being loaded/unloaded, you'd have a full battery every time you pick up a new trailer. Truck stops on the Interstate already tend to be much larger operations than normal gas stations, so they'd just need a charging warehouse and a forklift (and several metric butt-loads of electric service).
I see no part of the two factor scheme that failed. The title is misleading, at best.
This was password recovery/reset that was exploited, not the two factor auth. In fact, this sort of issue is PRECISELY why two factor should be used, because one of the factors may be compromised, and the account would still be secure. The auth still was secure, but the attackers exploited the weak password reset security - weakest link and all that.
Well, it is sort of a two-factor fail. Because it's not really two factors if one of the factors is dependent for its security on the other one. This is like someone being able to use a stolen SecurID fob to reset the password on the associated account. It's only one factor at that point.
Imagine if you had young children you were trying to get to school. I live in north Texas, where it's not nearly as bad (although it's creeping that way), and I have to drop my kids off at school no earlier than 8 AM - which means I hit the freeways at the worst possible time, which means I'm lucky if I'm in by 9 AM.
*Have* to drop them off? There's no buses, bicycles or feet they could use? I was required to get myself to school starting at first grade, where my only option was feet because I hadn't learned to ride a bike yet (unless it was pouring rain or dangerously cold).
I also live in North TX, and the traffic here always goes from bad to horrific on the first day of school, apparently due to everyone "having" to individually drive their kids to school.
Keep in mind sir, that as we chip away at the First and Fourth amendment, it weakens the Second - the Second is just for show now. The government KNOWS everyone who got the guns . The storm troopers from the DOJ will raid the houses with the guns, take them, and good luck in the courts.
So the DOJ has enough "storm troopers" to simultaneously disarm the entire US population within about 30 minutes?
Because unless they can magically do that, the first wave of victims will spread the word, and the second-nth waves will be ready and waiting. Enjoy your instant civil war. FWIW, no one that I know that's been in the US military would support such a move, either.
Hope you boys and girls have a nice little nest egg saved to replace your AC when it dies (because they all do eventually). Otherwise, I need to invest in company stock that builds window units. Holy shit!
IMO, a responsible homeowner will keep about 10% of the value of their home in cash or easily liquidated assets in order to handle this kind of maintenance. You need to put away about 1% of the value per year whether you spend it or not that year. That's about what it averages out to, but it tends to come in inconveniently large hits when it needs to be done. I have very little sympathy for someone who buys a house, and doesn't plan ahead for this sort of thing.
For AC replacement under a home warranty, you're virtually always going to be better just cashing out and then finding your own people to do it properly. The home warranty company will send incompetent (cheap) idiots, and only pay for the cheapest, least efficient piece of garbage they can find, though, so you'll still be out a couple of grand to get it done properly.
The warranty companies pay the contractors a flat fee per call, so their incentive is always to get the hell out and to the next call as fast as possible - they get more money if they have to come back!
I don't care what it says, don't write a manifesto for work unless it's part of your job. This guy's an idiot on multiple levels, says idioto
Depends... He might also have realized that if he was illegally fired, he could get a huge settlement, and so released a well-researched memo calculated to do exactly what it did. In that case, he might be a genius, if the risk pays off...
Or the 3rd choice: They don't really care what their employees prefer.
Definitely this.
One of my primary red flags for bailing out of a place (or avoiding working there in the first place) is when they start opening up/making less private work areas, accompanied by some huggy-feely BS about why it's a good idea.
It's a sure sign that management either doesn't know or doesn't care what people want/need - either way, time to think about leaving.
Mandate which vaccinations children are required to have to avail of private / public daycare and schools. And make the parents criminally liable if the child or someone he/she comes into contact with contracts a preventable disease because of their negligence.
Might not even need that. We just need to get anyone properly vaccinated (or medically unable to be vaccinated) that gets sick to start suing the hell out of the parents of voluntarily unvaccinated children if there's even a shred of evidence to suggest their child might be the source. If there gets to be a significant enough financial risk of not vaccinating, stupidity might take a back seat to the pocketbook. Since civil juries don't don't have to be unanimous, the small percentage of anti-vaxxers would be at a severe disadvantage in a civil trial.
Shouldn't all politicians seek to find policies which resonate with their constituents?
No. Politicians should have principles, and stick to them. They should stand up for things they believe in, and try to convince voters that they are right. What they should NOT do is find out what a plurality of voters want, and then just bend their principles to give it to them.
No, GP was right. You're talking about a *leader*, not a politician.
Up until the most modern DSG's this was a very true statement, automatics meant significant performance sacrifices where a real driver would considerably outperform the auto. Now a well tuned DSG can even outperform the best drivers on gear changes.
I drive both a "modern DSG" and a manual. For cars on the street, the fraction of a second faster the DSG can do (under some circumstances) is irrelevant. What actually matters is the brain behind the transmission.
With a manual, I know ahead of time that I'm going to, for example, need to shift from 6th to 3rd to pass someone, and the shift will occur at exactly the right time just before I need the extra power. Any automatic is going to be purely reactive, and there's a delay before I get the power I need.
Even in manual mode, a DSG is irritating when I need to go from 7th all the way down to 2nd for a slow right-hand turn, when the manual can just go straight from 6th to 2nd.
People in fancy cars will _get_out_of_your_way_, the fancier the car, the faster they move to get out of your way.
The thing I miss the most after finally having to replace my old beater is that I used to easily win EVERY single game of "chicken" I got into while changing lanes, merging, etc. Being able to elicit the feeling of "he doesn't care if he hits me" is great...:D
I've always said that feeding your cat any food you're likely to find in a normal supermarket/wal-mart/etc. is no different than taking your kids to McDonald's three meals a day (and maybe worse).
If you start feeding your cat good cat food, you'll notice they eat quite a bit less of it, which partially compensates for the increased cost. Leaves more room for water in the case of dry food, too, but you still need to give them some wet/oily food every day.
No commerce or transfer of funds will be able to take place without being done 'in the clear', where anyone and everyone with the technical chops to do so can tap into it; you'd be nuts to put any banking or personal information of any kind over the Internet if that's the way it worked.
Not necessarily... You can still use encryption to authenticate without also including confidentiality. For example, you buy something at a shop, and put your payment card in the POS terminal. The terminal reads your account number, and generates a request to transfer funds from your account to theirs, and signs it with their private key. It sends it to your card, where you approve the transfer, and your card signs it with your private key. It can then be sent in the clear to your bank. The whole internet will know where you're spending money, but they shouldn't be able to get access to your money or modify the transaction in flight.
As soon as you do ban them, I'm going to protest that the supreme court has an offensive name (ok, not a trademark but still a name) because their assumption that they are supreme is very offensive to me.
That's similar to my practice of dealing with people that think they have a "right" to not be offended. I tell them that I'm offended by people that are offended by (whatever they're complaining about), so if they're correct that it's a fundamental right, they must stop being offended immediately because they're infringing on my rights.:P
I'm usually also a proponent for not requiring college degrees for IT, but infosec is one area where I think there's an argument for one. A good education in computer science will help understand some of the low-level details of how hardware and software work, which in many cases is where vulnerabilities live.
Not everyone in the IT/security dept. needs that, of course, but for once, it's not entirely without value.
The problem with a "just spend more money" argument is that for a business, information security is just risk management. If it costs the business more for security than it does to deal with a breach, it doesn't make sense to have the security.
Part of the problem is that breaches that leak customer information can screw over customers (or whoever they're storing data about) a lot more than the business, so the cost of the breach is externalized to some extent. Maybe we need legislation that straight up requires cash payments to every person whose information is leaked, based on what information was included. Make storing information about people an easily quantified liability.
Unless you happen to have a root cert. I guess the question is how much do you trust Amazon Trust Services?
Well, abusing that cert in this way would be a very quick way to get most browser developers to stop trusting their root cert. Especially Google, since this behavior would be messing with the value of their search results (and advertising).
electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
Well, that's impressive... they've developed cars that burn combustion engines as fuel??
You still get your full UBI regardless of how much money you make, dramatically increasing the incentives to work.
No, because employers don't want to dramatically increase the incentives. They are getting enough employees with the current system, so with UBI, they can lower the wages, and still get enough people.
Not necessarily... Consider that a lot of minimum-wage jobs are backbreaking, dirty, or dangerous. They can get away paying the minimum because the only people that would do them are desperate, so they'll take anything. With UBI, those jobs would have to pay enough that people actually WANT to do them in spite of the drawbacks. Similarly, low-wage jobs in high-cost-of-living areas, where the workers have to live two hours away would probably have to increase what they pay to make people want to deal with the commute.
I find it strange that these are targeted towards gamers.
Most games still only seem to support one thread (or at most two or three, if you're lucky), so that many cores is a disadvantage because your per-core speed is usually lower.
Why the heck do you have to have a "weekend family getaway" to get people off of screens? When I was a kid, my parents just kicked me out of the house most of the summer, and I spent it outside (now get off my lawn!).
There are places in the US where you would make less money working than you would on welfare. And since basically any kind of income can disqualify you from welfare, not only is work discouraged buyt working your way up is discouraged as well. Basically, since welfare isn’t on any kind of sliding scale, it actively discourages working.
UBI would be abused. For sure. But if you’re not at risk of losing the income, then plenty of people will get part time jobs just to deal with the boredom.
The whole dynamic of a lot of currently-min-wage jobs would change if there was UBI. We'll take the fictional min-wage job of Excrement Scrubber that no one wants as an example.
Right now, the only people that would take a job as an Excrement Scrubber are people who are so desperate, they'll do anything for a buck, so the scrubbing companies can pay peanuts, because the employees are just happy to have anything. If the employees get a similar amount of UBI for doing nothing, they'll quit their crappy excrement scrubbing jobs, and look for something more pleasant.
The excrement scrubbing companies will then have to pay enough to make people actually WANT to scrub excrement, so someone willing to get their hands dirty might be able to make a decent living at it. Of course, this means that it will cost people more to have someone come and scrub their excrement. If they're on UBI only, they probably won't be able to afford it, so they have to do it themselves, or find something to do that pays enough to have someone come do it.
This would apply to a whole range of dirty and dangerous jobs, and they would then be able to contribute more in taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the fact that tractors typically put in 450-600 miles in a day... Yeah yeah, stop and charge, but given it takes a few hours to charge a car, and this will supposedly have a MUCH bigger battery pack, I guess truckers can now get 300 miles before they have to stop for 5-6 hours to recharge, meaning drive for 7 hours, charge for 6, drive for 7, charge for 6, etc. Not too conducive to rest!
Trucks are a completely different animal than cars, though. Why not put extra battery packs under the trailers? These could be very easily swapped out with simple equipment (even a standard forklift, probably) at a truck stop, and (dis)connected manually. Since they'd charge while the trailers are being loaded/unloaded, you'd have a full battery every time you pick up a new trailer. Truck stops on the Interstate already tend to be much larger operations than normal gas stations, so they'd just need a charging warehouse and a forklift (and several metric butt-loads of electric service).
I see no part of the two factor scheme that failed. The title is misleading, at best.
This was password recovery/reset that was exploited, not the two factor auth. In fact, this sort of issue is PRECISELY why two factor should be used, because one of the factors may be compromised, and the account would still be secure. The auth still was secure, but the attackers exploited the weak password reset security - weakest link and all that.
Well, it is sort of a two-factor fail. Because it's not really two factors if one of the factors is dependent for its security on the other one. This is like someone being able to use a stolen SecurID fob to reset the password on the associated account. It's only one factor at that point.
Imagine if you had young children you were trying to get to school. I live in north Texas, where it's not nearly as bad (although it's creeping that way), and I have to drop my kids off at school no earlier than 8 AM - which means I hit the freeways at the worst possible time, which means I'm lucky if I'm in by 9 AM.
*Have* to drop them off? There's no buses, bicycles or feet they could use? I was required to get myself to school starting at first grade, where my only option was feet because I hadn't learned to ride a bike yet (unless it was pouring rain or dangerously cold).
I also live in North TX, and the traffic here always goes from bad to horrific on the first day of school, apparently due to everyone "having" to individually drive their kids to school.
Keep in mind sir, that as we chip away at the First and Fourth amendment, it weakens the Second - the Second is just for show now. The government KNOWS everyone who got the guns . The storm troopers from the DOJ will raid the houses with the guns, take them, and good luck in the courts.
So the DOJ has enough "storm troopers" to simultaneously disarm the entire US population within about 30 minutes?
Because unless they can magically do that, the first wave of victims will spread the word, and the second-nth waves will be ready and waiting. Enjoy your instant civil war. FWIW, no one that I know that's been in the US military would support such a move, either.
Hope you boys and girls have a nice little nest egg saved to replace your AC when it dies (because they all do eventually). Otherwise, I need to invest in company stock that builds window units. Holy shit!
IMO, a responsible homeowner will keep about 10% of the value of their home in cash or easily liquidated assets in order to handle this kind of maintenance. You need to put away about 1% of the value per year whether you spend it or not that year. That's about what it averages out to, but it tends to come in inconveniently large hits when it needs to be done. I have very little sympathy for someone who buys a house, and doesn't plan ahead for this sort of thing.
For AC replacement under a home warranty, you're virtually always going to be better just cashing out and then finding your own people to do it properly. The home warranty company will send incompetent (cheap) idiots, and only pay for the cheapest, least efficient piece of garbage they can find, though, so you'll still be out a couple of grand to get it done properly.
The warranty companies pay the contractors a flat fee per call, so their incentive is always to get the hell out and to the next call as fast as possible - they get more money if they have to come back!
I think the math works out to over $20/day per student, given the numbers in the summary (assuming a school year == 180 days)...
Does anyone else think that's excessive? You'd be better off (by a lot) paying 1/3 of the parents $20/day to carpool two or three other students...
I don't care what it says, don't write a manifesto for work unless it's part of your job. This guy's an idiot on multiple levels, says idioto
Depends... He might also have realized that if he was illegally fired, he could get a huge settlement, and so released a well-researched memo calculated to do exactly what it did. In that case, he might be a genius, if the risk pays off...
Or the 3rd choice: They don't really care what their employees prefer.
Definitely this.
One of my primary red flags for bailing out of a place (or avoiding working there in the first place) is when they start opening up/making less private work areas, accompanied by some huggy-feely BS about why it's a good idea.
It's a sure sign that management either doesn't know or doesn't care what people want/need - either way, time to think about leaving.
Mandate which vaccinations children are required to have to avail of private / public daycare and schools. And make the parents criminally liable if the child or someone he/she comes into contact with contracts a preventable disease because of their negligence.
Might not even need that. We just need to get anyone properly vaccinated (or medically unable to be vaccinated) that gets sick to start suing the hell out of the parents of voluntarily unvaccinated children if there's even a shred of evidence to suggest their child might be the source. If there gets to be a significant enough financial risk of not vaccinating, stupidity might take a back seat to the pocketbook. Since civil juries don't don't have to be unanimous, the small percentage of anti-vaxxers would be at a severe disadvantage in a civil trial.
Shouldn't all politicians seek to find policies which resonate with their constituents?
No. Politicians should have principles, and stick to them. They should stand up for things they believe in, and try to convince voters that they are right. What they should NOT do is find out what a plurality of voters want, and then just bend their principles to give it to them.
No, GP was right. You're talking about a *leader*, not a politician.
Up until the most modern DSG's this was a very true statement, automatics meant significant performance sacrifices where a real driver would considerably outperform the auto. Now a well tuned DSG can even outperform the best drivers on gear changes.
I drive both a "modern DSG" and a manual. For cars on the street, the fraction of a second faster the DSG can do (under some circumstances) is irrelevant. What actually matters is the brain behind the transmission.
With a manual, I know ahead of time that I'm going to, for example, need to shift from 6th to 3rd to pass someone, and the shift will occur at exactly the right time just before I need the extra power. Any automatic is going to be purely reactive, and there's a delay before I get the power I need.
Even in manual mode, a DSG is irritating when I need to go from 7th all the way down to 2nd for a slow right-hand turn, when the manual can just go straight from 6th to 2nd.
People in fancy cars will _get_out_of_your_way_, the fancier the car, the faster they move to get out of your way.
The thing I miss the most after finally having to replace my old beater is that I used to easily win EVERY single game of "chicken" I got into while changing lanes, merging, etc. Being able to elicit the feeling of "he doesn't care if he hits me" is great... :D
I've always said that feeding your cat any food you're likely to find in a normal supermarket/wal-mart/etc. is no different than taking your kids to McDonald's three meals a day (and maybe worse).
If you start feeding your cat good cat food, you'll notice they eat quite a bit less of it, which partially compensates for the increased cost. Leaves more room for water in the case of dry food, too, but you still need to give them some wet/oily food every day.
"Slapped with $2.7 billion"? Is that like smacking someone with a rolled-up newspaper, but using rolled up $100 bills instead?
No commerce or transfer of funds will be able to take place without being done 'in the clear', where anyone and everyone with the technical chops to do so can tap into it; you'd be nuts to put any banking or personal information of any kind over the Internet if that's the way it worked.
Not necessarily... You can still use encryption to authenticate without also including confidentiality. For example, you buy something at a shop, and put your payment card in the POS terminal. The terminal reads your account number, and generates a request to transfer funds from your account to theirs, and signs it with their private key. It sends it to your card, where you approve the transfer, and your card signs it with your private key. It can then be sent in the clear to your bank. The whole internet will know where you're spending money, but they shouldn't be able to get access to your money or modify the transaction in flight.
As soon as you do ban them, I'm going to protest that the supreme court has an offensive name (ok, not a trademark but still a name) because their assumption that they are supreme is very offensive to me.
That's similar to my practice of dealing with people that think they have a "right" to not be offended. I tell them that I'm offended by people that are offended by (whatever they're complaining about), so if they're correct that it's a fundamental right, they must stop being offended immediately because they're infringing on my rights. :P
I'm usually also a proponent for not requiring college degrees for IT, but infosec is one area where I think there's an argument for one. A good education in computer science will help understand some of the low-level details of how hardware and software work, which in many cases is where vulnerabilities live.
Not everyone in the IT/security dept. needs that, of course, but for once, it's not entirely without value.
The problem with a "just spend more money" argument is that for a business, information security is just risk management. If it costs the business more for security than it does to deal with a breach, it doesn't make sense to have the security.
Part of the problem is that breaches that leak customer information can screw over customers (or whoever they're storing data about) a lot more than the business, so the cost of the breach is externalized to some extent. Maybe we need legislation that straight up requires cash payments to every person whose information is leaked, based on what information was included. Make storing information about people an easily quantified liability.
With HTTPS this is impossible.
Unless you happen to have a root cert. I guess the question is how much do you trust Amazon Trust Services?
Well, abusing that cert in this way would be a very quick way to get most browser developers to stop trusting their root cert. Especially Google, since this behavior would be messing with the value of their search results (and advertising).
electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
Well, that's impressive... they've developed cars that burn combustion engines as fuel??
You still get your full UBI regardless of how much money you make, dramatically increasing the incentives to work.
No, because employers don't want to dramatically increase the incentives. They are getting enough employees with the current system, so with UBI, they can lower the wages, and still get enough people.
Not necessarily... Consider that a lot of minimum-wage jobs are backbreaking, dirty, or dangerous. They can get away paying the minimum because the only people that would do them are desperate, so they'll take anything. With UBI, those jobs would have to pay enough that people actually WANT to do them in spite of the drawbacks. Similarly, low-wage jobs in high-cost-of-living areas, where the workers have to live two hours away would probably have to increase what they pay to make people want to deal with the commute.
And yet he is worth several billion dollars ... I am going with "he is way smarter than people realize."
I think that should be "he is able to pay people way smarter than he is."
I find it strange that these are targeted towards gamers.
Most games still only seem to support one thread (or at most two or three, if you're lucky), so that many cores is a disadvantage because your per-core speed is usually lower.
Why the heck do you have to have a "weekend family getaway" to get people off of screens? When I was a kid, my parents just kicked me out of the house most of the summer, and I spent it outside (now get off my lawn!).
There are places in the US where you would make less money working than you would on welfare. And since basically any kind of income can disqualify you from welfare, not only is work discouraged buyt working your way up is discouraged as well. Basically, since welfare isn’t on any kind of sliding scale, it actively discourages working.
UBI would be abused. For sure. But if you’re not at risk of losing the income, then plenty of people will get part time jobs just to deal with the boredom.
The whole dynamic of a lot of currently-min-wage jobs would change if there was UBI. We'll take the fictional min-wage job of Excrement Scrubber that no one wants as an example.
Right now, the only people that would take a job as an Excrement Scrubber are people who are so desperate, they'll do anything for a buck, so the scrubbing companies can pay peanuts, because the employees are just happy to have anything. If the employees get a similar amount of UBI for doing nothing, they'll quit their crappy excrement scrubbing jobs, and look for something more pleasant.
The excrement scrubbing companies will then have to pay enough to make people actually WANT to scrub excrement, so someone willing to get their hands dirty might be able to make a decent living at it. Of course, this means that it will cost people more to have someone come and scrub their excrement. If they're on UBI only, they probably won't be able to afford it, so they have to do it themselves, or find something to do that pays enough to have someone come do it.
This would apply to a whole range of dirty and dangerous jobs, and they would then be able to contribute more in taxes.