I can't see how the motorists can be convicted. A lawyer just has to ask "Does the manufacturer warrant the accuracy of the camera device when infected with malware?"
The answer of course will be "no". The standard of proof is not lowered just because an offence is minor.
Once it happens in one case, all the other cases will be dropped.
This is how it works in Australia.
The burden of evidence is on the police, who are making the accusation.
If you can call into question the accuracy of the evidence, your case will be dropped. You get a presumption of innocence because the evidence arrayed against you was less than rock solid.
In order to achieve the maximum benefits, yes, it has to be ubiquitous. And I expect that eventually, there will be laws requiring it — and by that, I mean before the human driver is outlawed on the public road.
Its worse than that. First every software company, city, auto manufacturer, stereo manufacturer and dealer network will need to agree on a single standard.
We cant even get them to agree on a single standard for the size of stereos (we tried with DIN and again with ISO, both failures as I need adaptors for both). Hell, if you took them out for lunch you'll be hard pressed for them to decide on the same restaurant.
The notion of V2V being safer relies on a perfect technology, as anyone who works in tech knows, a perfect technology does not exist. What happens if vehicles lose connectivity, a bug prevents information from being sent or worse yet, sends the wrong information. V2V to work cant be trusted on its own, it needs to be verified by the vehicle receiving the information.
People need to get over the idea that in a few years there will be cars that drive themselves perfectly whilst they watch the latest episodes of Mastercrap on their phones. This will likely never happen. Even if you have a fully autonomous car, you're still responsible for it, this means you still need to pay attention to what its doing.
I've done a lot of work for SMBs owned by families and I have yet to see one that survived the loss of the founder without serious professional management on hand.
Depends on what kind of business. In order for a child to take over the family business, they have to have some interest in the business. This is why most of the success stories have been trades, I.E. son learns a trade off his dad, then takes over the (small) family business.
However I try to avoid "family run" white collar businesses because they're always corrupt, nepotistic and have unrealistic expectations of their workers (ergo end up with the least competent people or those too timid to seek better employment).
What I don't get is why people *want* to "run" their own business?
I certainly wouldn't. The idea of being one of the idle rich is appealing to me. I've got hobbies that can get quite expensive (travel, race cars, attractive women) and to pursue them without having to worry about a paycheck would be paradise to me.
However once a business reaches a certain complexity, it becomes impossible for one person to manage by one person, especially in the iron fisted way that "family" owners tend to use.
It's not every day you get to watch the slow-motion implosion of a $60+ billion VC baby...
Many of us saw this years ago. When I first read from a leaked Uber document they were losing US$100,000 a quarter, I put a 20 down on them failing before the end of 2018. The bookie happily gave me 100 to 1 odds as the Daily Fail was printing daily advetorials pointing to the imminent death of black cabs at the time. I'm looking forward to that 2000 quid.
There's your $15/hour minimum wage. Certain groups wanted this, now here it is. Good luck kids getting that first job to learn how to have a job so you can go out and get a real one.
False equivalency, there's no link between minimum wage and unemployment (or under employment). That's a myth made up by businesses that cant survive unless they're paying slave labour wages. The alternative is to stop progress and keep people in jobs that aren't paying enough to live on. Some companies may even open their own special stores just for employees and issue payment in their own scrip that can only be spent at the company store as well as offering pay-day loans because their employees don't earn enough to buy the necessities at the company store.
The difference between my scenario and yours is that mine has actually happened where as yours is a myth that has never been demonstrated to be true in the many countries that have minimum wages.
Spent a month in Madrid and they have them there. Unless you eat at McDonalds way too much per person they are definitely a lot slower. However you can easily have 3 times as many as cashiers. The problem I see is similar to if you've ever seen a 65 year old try to use those touch screen Coke fountain drink machines that give you every combination on Earth. Old people won't like them. I also don't know that it eliminates all that many jobs. It seemed to me that they had just as many people, they were just expediting orders. Not saying they won't work, but questioning them being worthy of a stock boost.
Thats Spain for you.
They've automated the cashiers, but not the burger flippers.
Try the UK, we've got the automated kiosks and it's a lot faster as they can keep all 6/8/12 open all the time, whilst only keeping 1 or 2 open at the counter. I've found them a hell of a lot faster. Regardless of if I order at a machine or a person, it takes the same amount of time for an order to get from the broiler to my hand. I've just eliminated the wait to order by using a kiosk.
The problem I see is similar to if you've ever seen a 65 year old try to use those touch screen Coke fountain drink machines that give you every combination on Earth. Old people won't like them..
That problem isn't due to the machine, it's due to the indecisive old person. These are the kind of person who fart-arses about in the line deciding what they want at the counter holding everyone else up, it doesn't matter if they're being served by a person or operating a kiosk, it's their selfishness and indecisiveness that causes the problem regardless of how their ordering. Not to say every old person is a bimbilng idiot mind you, many of them know what they want and have kept up with technology.
everyone else, sure. But not those guys. Well, you could try violence, but every time it's been done it's just ending with a different bunch of yahoos. I guess we could try worker solidarity, but nobody wants to pay for the other guy to have stuff. Lazy good for 'nothin's...
Actually, we replace our ruling class quite often, talking in the time scale of countries and empires. Representative governments makes it easier to have major changes without the need for violent upheaval. The UK changed under Thacherism in the 80's and again under the Third Way/Nu Labour in the late 90's and early 00's. Sure it didn't involve throwing the aristocracy from balconies onto the spears of the soldiers... but do you know how hard it is to distribute that many spears these days.
In countries will less stable forms of government, regime change can happen several times a decade. Thailand for example has only had one prime minister complete their full term since the King gave up absolute power and he (Thaksin Shintarawa) was then tried and convicted of corruption. However there are few violent revolutions in that time period for Thailand, plenty of different governments, in the last decade since Thaksin they've gone from semi-functioning democracy to a joke of a democracy back to semi-functioning and now is ruled by a military junta.
I think Trump was an expression of a desire for a change in the ruling class. However like most rash decisions (like the aforementioned throwing of the aristocracy onto the spears of the soldiers) it didn't work and has had a destabilising effect. Regime change does not always work out for the better and sometimes only serve to strengthen the ruling class.
Ask the student how important it is to have minimum wage jobs be paid a "living" wage.
Yup, society at present is very F'd up. Nope, communism/socialism won't fix anything, in fact it does the opposite.
Neither will Fascism or Capitalism.
Americans need to step away from these extremist notions and realise there is a happy middle ground between capitalism and socialism that don't go too far from the centre. That is the core of third way politics, the rejection of a left/right classification system and judging a solution on it's merit, not its ideology.
Capitalism isn't inherently bad.
Socialism isn't inherently bad.
What is bad, extremism. The condition of refusing a good solution because it is not ideologically palatable to you.
Capitalist and socialist policies can happily live side by side. A country can (and many do) benefit from keeping trade tariffs low (a capitalist policy) whilst providing universal or single payer health care (a socialist policy). However the US will continue its march towards fracturing and extinction for as long as it continues to think that the (_)left\(_)right are the enemy instead of the extremists on either side.
disproves the belief that being rich means you must be smart.
There has never been a link between intelligence and wealth. Most wealthy people are born into money and most of them would lose it if they ran the estate rather than allowing it to be managed by a competent employee.
The recent phenomena in paying megabucks for low skilled jobs has exacerbated this creating a class of cashed up bogans/chavs/rednecks.
However, their issue was not in selling a product that used vaugue promises based on disproved or incorrect science for an insane amount. Their problem was name dropping NASA. Once that happened, NASA could shoot them down with impunity. Had they just stuck to "proven by Science(TM)*" they could have gotten away with this scam forever. Serial shyster David "Avocado" Wolfe has been doing this for years now, his moneymakers like the NutriBullet which is a £20 blender that sells for hundreds by making nebulous claims about it extracting more nutrients (coincidentally, this funds his misinformation campaigns). Even Australian Conwoman, Belle Gibson was only taken down because she made a claim that she was medically diagnosed with cancer. If she had of said she only believed she had cancer then the government would never have been able to sue her..
*Science(TM) is a trademarked subsidiary of GloboScam incorporated and does not make any claim to being a scientific organisation, All rights reserved.
Unlike in Britain, the US has extremely strong free speech protections, especially if you can afford a decent lawyer (which Oliver/HBO/TW can). You basically can't win a defamation case in the US, therefore Robert E. Murray doesn't have a legitimate case.
You've got that backwards.
In the UK, you have to prove the speech was deliberately damaging and inflammatory. In the US, you can use the threat of legal action to cajole people into giving you a payout (UK has a loser pays system). To win at deformation, you just need a good lawyer whereas in the UK, you need an actual case.
Plenty of deformation cases have been won in the US, http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/11/18/6-most-successful-celebrity-libel-and-slander-case.
Of course this case is frivolous and I expect it to be thrown out, as it would be in the UK. That kind of thing never gets reported by the papers, the papers don't want people believing that Libel and deformations laws actually work as they're intended. This is mainly because the papers (rightfully) lose most deformation cases bought against them.
New Zealand was started with colonists and look how badly that turned out.
The thing about penal transportation was, only petty criminals were transported. It was seen as a way of reducing the population of riff-raff in England. So anyone who stole a loaf of bread, jeered at a nobleman or was Irish (I'm serious, displaying an Irish flag was considered sedition in the 1800's). However the hardened criminals, the rapists, murderers and politicians, they were kept in merry ol' England.
The reason for this was that penal transportation wasn't a life sentence. You worked your sentence and at the end of which you were given a parcel of land and permitted to do with it as you saw fit. Given the cost of a voyage back to England in the 1820's was astronomical most stayed in Australia (or the American colonies). Those few that went back usually did so via a tour as a sailor in the Royal Navy or a merchant ship because almost all who were transported were relatively poor. The prisoners essential became settlers.
Most people who came to the Australian colonies were actually settlers. The last penal transportation was in 1868 to Perth, Western Australia.
Americans are still provincial enough to believe that an English accent of any kind lends sophistication and cachet. Except, you know, Australian (all we know about those guys is whatever we saw on Crocodile Dundee; also, we imagine they all sound like Steve Irwin).
Americans cant even tell the difference between Australian and English accents. Every time I've been over there I've been asked "Are you from London" or "what part of England are you from" (ignoring the fact it should be "which") I usually reply with "a small island a bit south of England called Australia".
Although now I live in England... I cant really use that any more.
In spite of your failed attempt to justify the article, I still note that you've still not, and neither has the article, pointed to an underlying cause for Windows 7 being considered "insecure" in this instance. I still am of the opinion that there was another cause that allowed the break-in, one that is too embarrassing to reveal.
In spite of your failed attempt to read my post, I wasn't, in fact I said MS were keeping Windows 7 updated.
I never said Windows 7 was inherently insecure, I said it's been almost 8 years since it's release (RTM was Oct 09). The article implied the systems were insecure, but I read that as unpatched. And yes, a Win7 box that is not up to date is insecure. Same as a Win 10, Linux or Mac box that isn't kept up to date.
Pretty much what I meant. However I think the article has been quoted out of context. When I read "old version of Windows" I usually read that as one that is not up to date with patches. Very few bad vulnerabilities hit with no warning. Wannacry for example, patches were out for months before that hit. Long enough for any semi-competent attempt at patch management to get it deployed to production at the very least.
Most drive-by infections can be avoided simply by keeping your OS and software up to date (but I'm certain I'm preaching to the choir about this on/.)
They made it look as though this was the first ever violation of any kind by a car manufacturer and somehow more evil than anything else that had ever happened, even though it quickly became clear how widespread similar tricks are.
So, they cheated, they lied about how they cheated, and they became the world's largest car manufacturer as a direct result of the fact that they cheated, but the anonymous cowards are popping up on slashdot saying it's all political.
"Everybody cheats, why single out VW merely because they did it on a larger scale and deliberately" is not an excuse.
VW's problem is two fold.
1. They got caught.
2. The way they cheated.
Everyone, including the regulatory agencies know you'll never get laboratory figures out in the real world. If I want to know the MPG of the 2er I'm getting, I'll ask people who already have said 2er (online forums for everything means this has usually already been asked and answered). However the state of tune of the engine in the laboratory must be the same as the state of tune of the engine on the road. VW cheated by changing the tune of the engine when it detected test conditions.
Everyone plans for the test, everyone games the test, but that isn't cheating. VW basically used a different engine configuration for the test and that is a strict no-no. Because stages of turbo tuning can change engine characteristics significantly, this would be like Ford taking the 4-pot mustang to the tests and then using those figures for the V8. Beyond just being shady and dishonest, It could end up costing owners megaquid if it wasn't discovered this early because here in the UK, as in many other countries cars older than 3 years have to undergo yearly testing which included an emissions test and the car might not detected the test conditions when parked up at the MOT centre. If you fail the emissions test your car is illegal to drive making the car worthless to sell and expensive to fix.
Also such tests do need to be carried out under laboratory conditions because they are comparisons between different automobiles. So we need to control as many variables as possible. Yes this makes it easy to game, but that is an unfortunate consequence for the need for an accurate comparison between disparate cars.
Later a new variation on the claim referred to 4 slot toasters because the EU was considering minimum efficiency standards for heating and cold storage kitchen appliances. Of course, there was never a ban - you can make a 40 slot toaster if you want, it just has to use reasonably efficient heating elements and mechanical design.
The problem in Europe is not the toasters, but the toasting products. Because sliced bread is now made very tall, toasters have become taller to accommodate it. However other toasted products like (English) muffins or crumpets remain the same size or slightly smaller than they used to be. This means getting my crumpet out of a toaster involves angling it and using the cancel button to eject my crumpet at speed whilst calculating the parabolic arc to ensure that it lands on the plate on the breakfast bar and not on the floor of my kitchen. All the time trying not to get burned because metal toasters are fashionable.
As I'm constantly getting 3rd degree burns, I end up using the top down griller to toast crumpets, which I'm certain is less energy efficient than a toaster.
This wasn't about political correctness, it was about common decency, and Uber's lack thereof.
You see, this is about political correctness.
Back in my day, being politically correct was simply called not being a jerk.
The problem is people have confused the fact that it isn't illegal to be a complete arsehole with the imaginary right to be a complete arsehole. We've enshrined those who are pointlessly offensive, but demonised those who rightfully call them a cunt and tell them to jog off.
I have a vast collection of racist and sexist jokes, they're good fun because they're just jokes. However I wouldn't use them with people I don't know, this includes loudly in public amongst friends (because shouting lewd jokes out in public places isn't rude or anything... maybe I'm just too old fashioned). Your humour needs to be tailored to your audience, you cant expect an audience to tailor itself to your humour. Offensiveness has its place, used correctly it is very effective but not all people know when and how to use it correctly so they end up with the choice of not being offensive... or just being a complete tit.
However I digress, political correctness simply means "You've said something I disagree with. I cant rationally rebut it but II still want to act offended". So when you understand the definition of Political Correctness, this is 100% about political correctness.
NOw...let's see if anyone will hire her now, after all of this....
She brought down a 'toxic' CEO, ok....but now, is she a bit 'toxic' too?
Depends, if a company with integrity is looking for an honest worker or a company then she'll have no trouble. If its a shoddy company with a corrupt culture, she should look elsewhere.
The goal in all these things is that the concept is to spend money now in order to save money later.
The reality in all these things is that the "spend money now" part happens, but the "save money later" part never seems to materialize.
Yep, because government contracts are license to bill.
A govt contract is never fixed price, partially because the procurement process requires them to take the lowest bidder and the time and materials contracts never come in under estimate (deliberately designed to because governments will not abandon a project and keep throwing good money after bad). The problem that governments have is that they need to fulfil a mandate, and I honestly believe that the majority of senior public servants want to do this but government requirements force them into bad choices. If a project manager chooses a more expensive option, they need to go to Mordor and back to justify it, but because they've got a mandate to fulfil they cant let go of a project.
Vendors of course, abuse this to the hilt and then some. Deliberately under-quoting jobs and over-quoiting expertise are rife. IBM and the Queensland Public Health payroll system (Australia) is just the latest in a long list of examples. QPH ended up with a terrible system, IBM made out like bandits.
Is anyone surprised by the move to back off fixing H-1B abuse? I'm certainly not. I'm more surprised working technology professionals also bought into the con man's words.
"Not I" said Jack.
In fact in almost every thread on "Ermergerd, Jeesus Trump is ending H1-Bzzz !1!!!1!!11!ELEVEN!!!" I said it would never happen. I said that rich and powerful tech companies would keep it from happening and I don't mean the likes of Apple and Microsoft, think more conservative... like IBM, HP, NEC, and all the other companies that run most of their services out of India and only need to keep remote hands in the markets the rip off... erm I mean serve.
I said that they'd be picking up the phone to congress and saying "you know that nice campaign contribution you're counting on... a shame if we had to offshore it". I'm willing to bet that's just what they did. They probably cornered Trump in the men's room at the golf resort.
So I'm collecting my 198th consecutive "I was right award" on this one. Same as that wall that'll never be built (you might get a half-arsed, chicken wire fence... and Mexico isn't gonna pay for it) or all those Jerbs he was going to bring back or the taxes he was going to decrease.
Windows 7 was released in October 2009, which makes it almost 8. Windows XP was released in 2001 and didn't have a suitable successor until October 2009. By that time scale, Win7 is nearing the end of it's life. As long as M$ can create a decent OS after the abortion of Windows 8 and the ad-tastic Windows 10.
In the terms of OS's, 8 is positively ancient. I remember using Android in 2009, anyone who didn't see the evolution of Android wouldn't believe it was the same OS compared to today. MS has kept it updated, but that doesn't change the fact that it was released many years ago.
I know people that used to work in steel mills years ago. You don't want those jobs! They are horribly dangerous!
One of the stories involved two coworkers walking on a catwalk above the blast furnace in full heat suits (think Jamie's suit from Mythbusters). One of the workers leaned on the railing and it let go. He was vaporized before he hit the surface of the steel.
The stories like this go on and on. People crushed between rail cars, etc. Sure, the steel industry paid really well, because it had to. The working conditions were so terrible, no one would work there otherwise.
This kind of extreme work environment is ideal for automation. I'd rather see a robot get destroyed in an accident than a person killed.
There's a reason unions are strongest in trades like construction, logistics and fabrication. Its because traditionally these were exceptionally dangerous jobs and employers really didn't care as they could easily replace one pleb with another. It took a lot of industrial action to change that.
Also, this is why spending money trying to return basic metalworking and manufacturing to developed nations is a huge waste. The only way these industries can return and remain competitive is by being almost completely automated. No great swaths of high paying jobs in the coal mines or in the car factories, just automated equipment directed from 500 miles away. We're better off spending the money to re-skill those workers for industries that cant be sent to developing nations. Developed nations got that way by staying ahead of other nations, rose coloured glass pining for the "good old days" where made at home will only lead us to stagnation and failure.
World War 1 was started by an assassination that was used to impose unrealistic ultimatums on other countries, that triggered a cascade of mutual defence treaties to kick in and then everyone was fighting.
World War 2 was started because Germany wanted a chunk of land that was predominately German and no one wanted to give it to them so they took it by force, which made everyone angry, and the Japanese used this brouhaha as cover for its own imperialist agenda.
WWI was the result of an arms race by waning imperial powers. Most notably a naval arms race, but machine guns and longer range artillery were also making an appearance prior to the outbreak of war. The diplomatic situation was a mess of defensive pacts as imperial powers were anxious to test their new weapons. The assassination or Archduke Ferdinand was just the excuse to go to war. The first world war was a result of the industrial revolution's effect on weapons technology.
The second world war also saw an arms buildup prior, but not due to a technological revolution which was more a result of the war. The underlying cause was German aggression, but also an allied pact to declare war if any of the pact members were invaded (and Poland was a member of that pact).
World War 2 was started because Germany wanted a chunk of land that was predominately German and no one wanted to give it to them so they took it by force,
I think you're being highly generous to Germany there. The war actually didn't start as WWII until they invaded Poland which they had split with Russia.
Uncommonly known fact, the Germans didn't actually start WWII, the UK and France did. The declaration of war with Nazi Germany was issued by the Chamberlain government. The Nazis had gambled that the western allies would not go to war over Poland but didn't know that the allies made a pact to unanimously declare war if any of them were invaded (in 1937, if memory serves).
The Nazis never wanted war with western Europe. Hitlers original plan was to seek Lebensraum in eastern Europe and Russia.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't see how the motorists can be convicted. A lawyer just has to ask "Does the manufacturer warrant the accuracy of the camera device when infected with malware?"
The answer of course will be "no". The standard of proof is not lowered just because an offence is minor.
Once it happens in one case, all the other cases will be dropped.
This is how it works in Australia.
The burden of evidence is on the police, who are making the accusation.
If you can call into question the accuracy of the evidence, your case will be dropped. You get a presumption of innocence because the evidence arrayed against you was less than rock solid.
In order to achieve the maximum benefits, yes, it has to be ubiquitous. And I expect that eventually, there will be laws requiring it — and by that, I mean before the human driver is outlawed on the public road.
Its worse than that. First every software company, city, auto manufacturer, stereo manufacturer and dealer network will need to agree on a single standard.
We cant even get them to agree on a single standard for the size of stereos (we tried with DIN and again with ISO, both failures as I need adaptors for both). Hell, if you took them out for lunch you'll be hard pressed for them to decide on the same restaurant.
The notion of V2V being safer relies on a perfect technology, as anyone who works in tech knows, a perfect technology does not exist. What happens if vehicles lose connectivity, a bug prevents information from being sent or worse yet, sends the wrong information. V2V to work cant be trusted on its own, it needs to be verified by the vehicle receiving the information.
People need to get over the idea that in a few years there will be cars that drive themselves perfectly whilst they watch the latest episodes of Mastercrap on their phones. This will likely never happen. Even if you have a fully autonomous car, you're still responsible for it, this means you still need to pay attention to what its doing.
I check texts when at a red light. I do not check them barrelling 80 MPH down the freeway.
So you're the arsehole causing the traffic jam by sitting at a green light with your head buried in your phone.
There's a reason they're treated equally, you're a danger in either situation.
I've done a lot of work for SMBs owned by families and I have yet to see one that survived the loss of the founder without serious professional management on hand.
Depends on what kind of business. In order for a child to take over the family business, they have to have some interest in the business. This is why most of the success stories have been trades, I.E. son learns a trade off his dad, then takes over the (small) family business.
However I try to avoid "family run" white collar businesses because they're always corrupt, nepotistic and have unrealistic expectations of their workers (ergo end up with the least competent people or those too timid to seek better employment).
I certainly wouldn't. The idea of being one of the idle rich is appealing to me. I've got hobbies that can get quite expensive (travel, race cars, attractive women) and to pursue them without having to worry about a paycheck would be paradise to me.
However once a business reaches a certain complexity, it becomes impossible for one person to manage by one person, especially in the iron fisted way that "family" owners tend to use.
It's not every day you get to watch the slow-motion implosion of a $60+ billion VC baby...
Many of us saw this years ago. When I first read from a leaked Uber document they were losing US$100,000 a quarter, I put a 20 down on them failing before the end of 2018. The bookie happily gave me 100 to 1 odds as the Daily Fail was printing daily advetorials pointing to the imminent death of black cabs at the time. I'm looking forward to that 2000 quid.
There's your $15/hour minimum wage. Certain groups wanted this, now here it is. Good luck kids getting that first job to learn how to have a job so you can go out and get a real one.
False equivalency, there's no link between minimum wage and unemployment (or under employment). That's a myth made up by businesses that cant survive unless they're paying slave labour wages. The alternative is to stop progress and keep people in jobs that aren't paying enough to live on. Some companies may even open their own special stores just for employees and issue payment in their own scrip that can only be spent at the company store as well as offering pay-day loans because their employees don't earn enough to buy the necessities at the company store.
The difference between my scenario and yours is that mine has actually happened where as yours is a myth that has never been demonstrated to be true in the many countries that have minimum wages.
Spent a month in Madrid and they have them there. Unless you eat at McDonalds way too much per person they are definitely a lot slower. However you can easily have 3 times as many as cashiers. The problem I see is similar to if you've ever seen a 65 year old try to use those touch screen Coke fountain drink machines that give you every combination on Earth. Old people won't like them. I also don't know that it eliminates all that many jobs. It seemed to me that they had just as many people, they were just expediting orders. Not saying they won't work, but questioning them being worthy of a stock boost.
Thats Spain for you.
They've automated the cashiers, but not the burger flippers.
Try the UK, we've got the automated kiosks and it's a lot faster as they can keep all 6/8/12 open all the time, whilst only keeping 1 or 2 open at the counter. I've found them a hell of a lot faster. Regardless of if I order at a machine or a person, it takes the same amount of time for an order to get from the broiler to my hand. I've just eliminated the wait to order by using a kiosk.
The problem I see is similar to if you've ever seen a 65 year old try to use those touch screen Coke fountain drink machines that give you every combination on Earth. Old people won't like them..
That problem isn't due to the machine, it's due to the indecisive old person. These are the kind of person who fart-arses about in the line deciding what they want at the counter holding everyone else up, it doesn't matter if they're being served by a person or operating a kiosk, it's their selfishness and indecisiveness that causes the problem regardless of how their ordering. Not to say every old person is a bimbilng idiot mind you, many of them know what they want and have kept up with technology.
everyone else, sure. But not those guys. Well, you could try violence, but every time it's been done it's just ending with a different bunch of yahoos. I guess we could try worker solidarity, but nobody wants to pay for the other guy to have stuff. Lazy good for 'nothin's...
Actually, we replace our ruling class quite often, talking in the time scale of countries and empires. Representative governments makes it easier to have major changes without the need for violent upheaval. The UK changed under Thacherism in the 80's and again under the Third Way/Nu Labour in the late 90's and early 00's. Sure it didn't involve throwing the aristocracy from balconies onto the spears of the soldiers... but do you know how hard it is to distribute that many spears these days.
In countries will less stable forms of government, regime change can happen several times a decade. Thailand for example has only had one prime minister complete their full term since the King gave up absolute power and he (Thaksin Shintarawa) was then tried and convicted of corruption. However there are few violent revolutions in that time period for Thailand, plenty of different governments, in the last decade since Thaksin they've gone from semi-functioning democracy to a joke of a democracy back to semi-functioning and now is ruled by a military junta.
I think Trump was an expression of a desire for a change in the ruling class. However like most rash decisions (like the aforementioned throwing of the aristocracy onto the spears of the soldiers) it didn't work and has had a destabilising effect. Regime change does not always work out for the better and sometimes only serve to strengthen the ruling class.
Ask the student how important it is to have minimum wage jobs be paid a "living" wage.
Yup, society at present is very F'd up. Nope, communism/socialism won't fix anything, in fact it does the opposite.
Neither will Fascism or Capitalism.
Americans need to step away from these extremist notions and realise there is a happy middle ground between capitalism and socialism that don't go too far from the centre. That is the core of third way politics, the rejection of a left/right classification system and judging a solution on it's merit, not its ideology.
Capitalism isn't inherently bad.
Socialism isn't inherently bad.
What is bad, extremism. The condition of refusing a good solution because it is not ideologically palatable to you.
Capitalist and socialist policies can happily live side by side. A country can (and many do) benefit from keeping trade tariffs low (a capitalist policy) whilst providing universal or single payer health care (a socialist policy). However the US will continue its march towards fracturing and extinction for as long as it continues to think that the (_)left\(_)right are the enemy instead of the extremists on either side.
disproves the belief that being rich means you must be smart.
There has never been a link between intelligence and wealth. Most wealthy people are born into money and most of them would lose it if they ran the estate rather than allowing it to be managed by a competent employee.
The recent phenomena in paying megabucks for low skilled jobs has exacerbated this creating a class of cashed up bogans/chavs/rednecks.
However, their issue was not in selling a product that used vaugue promises based on disproved or incorrect science for an insane amount. Their problem was name dropping NASA. Once that happened, NASA could shoot them down with impunity. Had they just stuck to "proven by Science(TM)*" they could have gotten away with this scam forever. Serial shyster David "Avocado" Wolfe has been doing this for years now, his moneymakers like the NutriBullet which is a £20 blender that sells for hundreds by making nebulous claims about it extracting more nutrients (coincidentally, this funds his misinformation campaigns). Even Australian Conwoman, Belle Gibson was only taken down because she made a claim that she was medically diagnosed with cancer. If she had of said she only believed she had cancer then the government would never have been able to sue her..
*Science(TM) is a trademarked subsidiary of GloboScam incorporated and does not make any claim to being a scientific organisation, All rights reserved.
Unlike in Britain, the US has extremely strong free speech protections, especially if you can afford a decent lawyer (which Oliver/HBO/TW can). You basically can't win a defamation case in the US, therefore Robert E. Murray doesn't have a legitimate case.
You've got that backwards.
In the UK, you have to prove the speech was deliberately damaging and inflammatory. In the US, you can use the threat of legal action to cajole people into giving you a payout (UK has a loser pays system). To win at deformation, you just need a good lawyer whereas in the UK, you need an actual case.
Plenty of deformation cases have been won in the US, http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/11/18/6-most-successful-celebrity-libel-and-slander-case.
Of course this case is frivolous and I expect it to be thrown out, as it would be in the UK. That kind of thing never gets reported by the papers, the papers don't want people believing that Libel and deformations laws actually work as they're intended. This is mainly because the papers (rightfully) lose most deformation cases bought against them.
Not just Australia. The state of Georgia was also founded as a penal colony. And one quarter of all British immigrants to the (now) United States were prisoners sent as temporarily enslaved ("indentured") labor.
New Zealand was started with colonists and look how badly that turned out.
The thing about penal transportation was, only petty criminals were transported. It was seen as a way of reducing the population of riff-raff in England. So anyone who stole a loaf of bread, jeered at a nobleman or was Irish (I'm serious, displaying an Irish flag was considered sedition in the 1800's). However the hardened criminals, the rapists, murderers and politicians, they were kept in merry ol' England.
The reason for this was that penal transportation wasn't a life sentence. You worked your sentence and at the end of which you were given a parcel of land and permitted to do with it as you saw fit. Given the cost of a voyage back to England in the 1820's was astronomical most stayed in Australia (or the American colonies). Those few that went back usually did so via a tour as a sailor in the Royal Navy or a merchant ship because almost all who were transported were relatively poor. The prisoners essential became settlers.
Most people who came to the Australian colonies were actually settlers. The last penal transportation was in 1868 to Perth, Western Australia.
Americans are still provincial enough to believe that an English accent of any kind lends sophistication and cachet. Except, you know, Australian (all we know about those guys is whatever we saw on Crocodile Dundee; also, we imagine they all sound like Steve Irwin).
Americans cant even tell the difference between Australian and English accents. Every time I've been over there I've been asked "Are you from London" or "what part of England are you from" (ignoring the fact it should be "which") I usually reply with "a small island a bit south of England called Australia".
Although now I live in England... I cant really use that any more.
...Windows 7 is old, just not obsolete....
In spite of your failed attempt to justify the article, I still note that you've still not, and neither has the article, pointed to an underlying cause for Windows 7 being considered "insecure" in this instance. I still am of the opinion that there was another cause that allowed the break-in, one that is too embarrassing to reveal.
In spite of your failed attempt to read my post, I wasn't, in fact I said MS were keeping Windows 7 updated.
I never said Windows 7 was inherently insecure, I said it's been almost 8 years since it's release (RTM was Oct 09). The article implied the systems were insecure, but I read that as unpatched. And yes, a Win7 box that is not up to date is insecure. Same as a Win 10, Linux or Mac box that isn't kept up to date.
Windows 7 is old, just not obsolete.
It's mature, not old.
Pretty much what I meant. However I think the article has been quoted out of context. When I read "old version of Windows" I usually read that as one that is not up to date with patches. Very few bad vulnerabilities hit with no warning. Wannacry for example, patches were out for months before that hit. Long enough for any semi-competent attempt at patch management to get it deployed to production at the very least.
/.)
Most drive-by infections can be avoided simply by keeping your OS and software up to date (but I'm certain I'm preaching to the choir about this on
They made it look as though this was the first ever violation of any kind by a car manufacturer and somehow more evil than anything else that had ever happened, even though it quickly became clear how widespread similar tricks are.
So, they cheated, they lied about how they cheated, and they became the world's largest car manufacturer as a direct result of the fact that they cheated, but the anonymous cowards are popping up on slashdot saying it's all political.
"Everybody cheats, why single out VW merely because they did it on a larger scale and deliberately" is not an excuse.
VW's problem is two fold.
1. They got caught.
2. The way they cheated.
Everyone, including the regulatory agencies know you'll never get laboratory figures out in the real world. If I want to know the MPG of the 2er I'm getting, I'll ask people who already have said 2er (online forums for everything means this has usually already been asked and answered). However the state of tune of the engine in the laboratory must be the same as the state of tune of the engine on the road. VW cheated by changing the tune of the engine when it detected test conditions.
Everyone plans for the test, everyone games the test, but that isn't cheating. VW basically used a different engine configuration for the test and that is a strict no-no. Because stages of turbo tuning can change engine characteristics significantly, this would be like Ford taking the 4-pot mustang to the tests and then using those figures for the V8. Beyond just being shady and dishonest, It could end up costing owners megaquid if it wasn't discovered this early because here in the UK, as in many other countries cars older than 3 years have to undergo yearly testing which included an emissions test and the car might not detected the test conditions when parked up at the MOT centre. If you fail the emissions test your car is illegal to drive making the car worthless to sell and expensive to fix.
Also such tests do need to be carried out under laboratory conditions because they are comparisons between different automobiles. So we need to control as many variables as possible. Yes this makes it easy to game, but that is an unfortunate consequence for the need for an accurate comparison between disparate cars.
Later a new variation on the claim referred to 4 slot toasters because the EU was considering minimum efficiency standards for heating and cold storage kitchen appliances. Of course, there was never a ban - you can make a 40 slot toaster if you want, it just has to use reasonably efficient heating elements and mechanical design.
The problem in Europe is not the toasters, but the toasting products. Because sliced bread is now made very tall, toasters have become taller to accommodate it. However other toasted products like (English) muffins or crumpets remain the same size or slightly smaller than they used to be. This means getting my crumpet out of a toaster involves angling it and using the cancel button to eject my crumpet at speed whilst calculating the parabolic arc to ensure that it lands on the plate on the breakfast bar and not on the floor of my kitchen. All the time trying not to get burned because metal toasters are fashionable.
As I'm constantly getting 3rd degree burns, I end up using the top down griller to toast crumpets, which I'm certain is less energy efficient than a toaster.
This wasn't about political correctness, it was about common decency, and Uber's lack thereof.
You see, this is about political correctness.
Back in my day, being politically correct was simply called not being a jerk.
The problem is people have confused the fact that it isn't illegal to be a complete arsehole with the imaginary right to be a complete arsehole. We've enshrined those who are pointlessly offensive, but demonised those who rightfully call them a cunt and tell them to jog off.
I have a vast collection of racist and sexist jokes, they're good fun because they're just jokes. However I wouldn't use them with people I don't know, this includes loudly in public amongst friends (because shouting lewd jokes out in public places isn't rude or anything... maybe I'm just too old fashioned). Your humour needs to be tailored to your audience, you cant expect an audience to tailor itself to your humour. Offensiveness has its place, used correctly it is very effective but not all people know when and how to use it correctly so they end up with the choice of not being offensive... or just being a complete tit.
However I digress, political correctness simply means "You've said something I disagree with. I cant rationally rebut it but II still want to act offended". So when you understand the definition of Political Correctness, this is 100% about political correctness.
NOw...let's see if anyone will hire her now, after all of this....
She brought down a 'toxic' CEO, ok....but now, is she a bit 'toxic' too?
Depends, if a company with integrity is looking for an honest worker or a company then she'll have no trouble. If its a shoddy company with a corrupt culture, she should look elsewhere.
Doubts that it's going to save $1 trillion.
The goal in all these things is that the concept is to spend money now in order to save money later.
The reality in all these things is that the "spend money now" part happens, but the "save money later" part never seems to materialize.
Yep, because government contracts are license to bill.
A govt contract is never fixed price, partially because the procurement process requires them to take the lowest bidder and the time and materials contracts never come in under estimate (deliberately designed to because governments will not abandon a project and keep throwing good money after bad). The problem that governments have is that they need to fulfil a mandate, and I honestly believe that the majority of senior public servants want to do this but government requirements force them into bad choices. If a project manager chooses a more expensive option, they need to go to Mordor and back to justify it, but because they've got a mandate to fulfil they cant let go of a project.
Vendors of course, abuse this to the hilt and then some. Deliberately under-quoting jobs and over-quoiting expertise are rife. IBM and the Queensland Public Health payroll system (Australia) is just the latest in a long list of examples. QPH ended up with a terrible system, IBM made out like bandits.
Is anyone surprised by the move to back off fixing H-1B abuse? I'm certainly not. I'm more surprised working technology professionals also bought into the con man's words.
"Not I" said Jack.
In fact in almost every thread on "Ermergerd, Jeesus Trump is ending H1-Bzzz !1!!!1!!11!ELEVEN!!!" I said it would never happen. I said that rich and powerful tech companies would keep it from happening and I don't mean the likes of Apple and Microsoft, think more conservative... like IBM, HP, NEC, and all the other companies that run most of their services out of India and only need to keep remote hands in the markets the rip off... erm I mean serve.
I said that they'd be picking up the phone to congress and saying "you know that nice campaign contribution you're counting on... a shame if we had to offshore it". I'm willing to bet that's just what they did. They probably cornered Trump in the men's room at the golf resort.
So I'm collecting my 198th consecutive "I was right award" on this one. Same as that wall that'll never be built (you might get a half-arsed, chicken wire fence... and Mexico isn't gonna pay for it) or all those Jerbs he was going to bring back or the taxes he was going to decrease.
i call this bullshit
Windows 7 is old, just not obsolete.
Windows 7 was released in October 2009, which makes it almost 8. Windows XP was released in 2001 and didn't have a suitable successor until October 2009. By that time scale, Win7 is nearing the end of it's life. As long as M$ can create a decent OS after the abortion of Windows 8 and the ad-tastic Windows 10.
In the terms of OS's, 8 is positively ancient. I remember using Android in 2009, anyone who didn't see the evolution of Android wouldn't believe it was the same OS compared to today. MS has kept it updated, but that doesn't change the fact that it was released many years ago.
I know people that used to work in steel mills years ago. You don't want those jobs! They are horribly dangerous!
One of the stories involved two coworkers walking on a catwalk above the blast furnace in full heat suits (think Jamie's suit from Mythbusters). One of the workers leaned on the railing and it let go. He was vaporized before he hit the surface of the steel.
The stories like this go on and on. People crushed between rail cars, etc. Sure, the steel industry paid really well, because it had to. The working conditions were so terrible, no one would work there otherwise.
This kind of extreme work environment is ideal for automation. I'd rather see a robot get destroyed in an accident than a person killed.
There's a reason unions are strongest in trades like construction, logistics and fabrication. Its because traditionally these were exceptionally dangerous jobs and employers really didn't care as they could easily replace one pleb with another. It took a lot of industrial action to change that.
Also, this is why spending money trying to return basic metalworking and manufacturing to developed nations is a huge waste. The only way these industries can return and remain competitive is by being almost completely automated. No great swaths of high paying jobs in the coal mines or in the car factories, just automated equipment directed from 500 miles away. We're better off spending the money to re-skill those workers for industries that cant be sent to developing nations. Developed nations got that way by staying ahead of other nations, rose coloured glass pining for the "good old days" where made at home will only lead us to stagnation and failure.
World War 1 was started by an assassination that was used to impose unrealistic ultimatums on other countries, that triggered a cascade of mutual defence treaties to kick in and then everyone was fighting.
World War 2 was started because Germany wanted a chunk of land that was predominately German and no one wanted to give it to them so they took it by force, which made everyone angry, and the Japanese used this brouhaha as cover for its own imperialist agenda.
WWI was the result of an arms race by waning imperial powers. Most notably a naval arms race, but machine guns and longer range artillery were also making an appearance prior to the outbreak of war. The diplomatic situation was a mess of defensive pacts as imperial powers were anxious to test their new weapons. The assassination or Archduke Ferdinand was just the excuse to go to war. The first world war was a result of the industrial revolution's effect on weapons technology.
The second world war also saw an arms buildup prior, but not due to a technological revolution which was more a result of the war. The underlying cause was German aggression, but also an allied pact to declare war if any of the pact members were invaded (and Poland was a member of that pact).
World War 2 was started because Germany wanted a chunk of land that was predominately German and no one wanted to give it to them so they took it by force,
I think you're being highly generous to Germany there. The war actually didn't start as WWII until they invaded Poland which they had split with Russia.
Uncommonly known fact, the Germans didn't actually start WWII, the UK and France did. The declaration of war with Nazi Germany was issued by the Chamberlain government. The Nazis had gambled that the western allies would not go to war over Poland but didn't know that the allies made a pact to unanimously declare war if any of them were invaded (in 1937, if memory serves).
The Nazis never wanted war with western Europe. Hitlers original plan was to seek Lebensraum in eastern Europe and Russia.