True, but if you had a working exploit that was no patch to fix, and you knew that your target was about to go off support and loose the ability to submit issues and expect a fast fix turnaround, would you:

A) Go for it the moment you have a working sploit grab all you can.

B) Wait a little while before you take the big risk of using it widely and trying to ex-filtrate the loot to avoid discovery. Then after the support is up and you know the response will be hampered make your move. You know either it will likely take longer for your infiltration to be stopped or the victim will have to accept some self inflicted harm like off-lining production systems until they can find a fix (Which in the case of a government might mean a drone strike, but that is another issue).

Bzzt. WRONG!

A whole lot of "green energy" isn't clean energy. Hydro electric for example has huge ecological consequences, if your efforts are directed at lowering CO2 and methane emissions because your incorrectly believe the greatest environmental threat is climate change you could do lots of harm, for no reason.

Even if climate change is real emissions might be the wrong thing to try and control. Forests remove carbon from the atmosphere, but they do a lot of other potentially climate impacting things as well like wick water up from the ground and release it as vapor. Maybe the world needs more woods, and clearing space for another turbine is exactly the wrong thing to do.

In the end the only real answer in terms of global sustainability is likely fewer people. An area where the Church isn't exactly on the right side of as far as the prevailing views go.

I am not sure it works in this case. In the story the king operates under the assumption neither party wishes to see the child destroyed (children were valuable laborers after all), but perhaps one party cares deeply enough for the child their desire for its well being trumps their selfish desire to possess it or wish to spite other party by denying possession.

In these cases we very likely have one party who wishes to see the embryo destroyed. It does not make sense to turn something over to someone who has a stated intent to destroy it, only to prevent a court from doing so.

If a majority decision can't be reached than the status-quo basically gets maintained, the things sits frozen.

Just like if you die intestate and have two children and no spouse. Lets say you owned your house strait out for the sake of simplicity. Essentially both kids will have to reach an agreement on how to to dispose the property.

If they can't it will be pretty easy for either heir to ask the court require the thing simply be maintained, taxes paid etc out of the estates other funds, while a judge decides how to parcel out the estate fairly and what should be done. Same thing would probably happen here.

More interesting questions exist though. Lets say you and wife have some embryo's frozen as part of some assisted fertility process. It does not work, but their are left overs. You later get divorced, presently childless. She decides to try again and the implantation is successful. Can she come back for child support? Are you a dead beat dad if you want nothing to do with it?

There is middle road between overly heavy handed punishments that are handed out somewhat arbitrarily and rolling over completely and failing to protect the integrity of your degree. Like I stated if the professor had been smart he would have documented the worst cheating and retained the evidence, and pursued whatever due process the schools honor system specifies. I am sure if he had he would have found support. The cheaters would have rightly gotten the F's for course or possibly an even more severe action against them like expulsion. The other students would get the message the rules are not a big joke and are violated at their peril.

They can shoot around corners, just like they can have a fully automatic belt feed large caliber gun. Good luck getting one of those for yourself unless its an antique.

If you think this technology is going to be something you or I get head over to the gun show and buy, you can put down your keys, it'll never happen.

So we can be shot around corners but we won't be shooting around them now or ever.

Yes well the Vice President of the university certainly did not fail his management course!

He recognizes that most University students today are someones precious little snowflake. That someone might stop sending checks, students may transfer and worse the best prospective students might choose other institutions where there is not a perception their on-time graduation plans might be derailed by capricious professor.

I am sorry unless you have hard evidence of a major and specific conspiracy that everyone of your students participated in you CANT fail an entire class. The reality is there was probably a few students who are innocent or whose infractions don't justify an automatic failing grade, so its punishing the innocent. The optics of that just are not appropriate for an academic institution.

If the professor was at all smart, he would have identified the worst offenders built a solid case for them and crucified them before an expulsion board to send a message to the rest of the students, and any one taking his class in the coming semesters, that he isn't to be 'fucked with'. He probably would have gotten support for the university and the public for doing so rather than tossed under the bus. Like it or not politics and perceptions matter, you'd think a business professor would know that.

http://buism.com/neurons.htm

There googled that for you. IANANS but I remember enough keywords for a college 101 class to find this pretty easily.

I read statements like this a lot. I find it interesting for a few reasons. First there is an implicit assumption that men don't care if our work benefits society or not. How do we know for example that it isn't a case of "people are drawn to ... projects that attempt to achieve societal good" and that when you focus engineering on that, you are not really just drawing higher achieving people away from other fields and when you are really get the best and brightest strata of the workforce there simply isn't better gender balance their than in the workforce as a whole?

Secondly the statement seems to assume this desire to be a "social do gooder" is some natural characteristic of women and not that they are socialized to be this way. Maybe the imbalance isn't so much to do with middle school on but much earlier. Perhaps if we stopped giving young girls little dolls to care for and a toy cookware and instead handed them a toy hammer and gun we would see different results.

Thirdly there is an assumption in this statement that one should work to "achieve societal good" rather than for ones own ends as if that is some how noble or good. Why is society seen as a ends, rather than a means by which we can enjoy higher productivity, safety and personal wealth. Sure we all have an obligation not to harm society, and to attempt put back as much as we have taken out so that its their for the next person but when is it "good enough"? When do we tell people hey you only live once meet your obligations and spend the rest of your precious little time enjoying what is yours as much as possible?

Yes and no, on the hand the statement is true. On the other hand Bethesda already got paid. If they had said at the outset we are going to use the Gillette model charge a minimal fee to recover our costs developing the game, and let the community produce a sell additional content for which we will take a cut, things might be different.

That isn't what they did though, the charged as much for the game as any other AAA title, and now seek to profit handsomely for efforts they have little to know hand in. There are probably some variable costs associated with 'supporting' the mods. More tech support calls for the core product etc.

Still 45% is a pretty big take and is hard to justify; especially when someone else is operating the market place doing all the risky work of handling the money etc and already taking %30 to do it. If they were asking 15% or something that would feel more like a kind of royalty (which isn't unfair), and I think people would find that much less objectionable.

You are the kind of person that keeps expending effort on the unproductive an ineffective apparently.

Would you say an unemployed person buying scratch offs should be applauded. After all at least they are doing something to try and solve their financial problems.

Yes if they are drinking diet soda as part of some overall plan to regulate their calorie intake, without soda having to be one more thing they give up fine, good for them.

The thing is they most likely are not doing that when you see them drinking diet soda while sitting in front of a single meal that still represent ~75% of their daily recommended calorie intake. They probably just like diet soda (me, don't like the syrupy throat coating feeling of the regular stuff). or have been sold on the idea that they can someone get healthy by just making that one change, which is misguided enough to be harmful.

One of the problems is that realistically, the amount of processed sugar be sucrose or HFCS is 0. So the daily % would be NaN.

While refined sugar isn't necessarily bad for you it servers no real dietary purpose other than bulk calories which you either don't need because you are not working in the fields all day, building stone walls by hand, walking everywhere you go etc... or could obtain just easily from some other source along with other nutrients your body does require.

You really DO need 11 (I think proteins) from dietary sources, the other nine your body can synthesize or perhaps its the other way around. You really do need fats as they are the only way to retain certain other fat soluble nutrients. Obviously we have to have sodium and potassium, lack of them can become catastrophic fairly quickly etc. Lots of these things we find in unhealthy excess in processed foods, but we do need some quantity of them; we have no need for sugar. All the sugar we need can be derived from more complex carbohydrates which physiologically are usually better for us. If health is your only criteria, ie cost and pleasure are not considerations etc, I am not sure you can recommend anyone eat sugar; at most you can say it probably won't hurt you.

I am not one to go chowing down on the cheap fast food but I do like diet soda even with a meal that is otherwise an overly caloric and generally nutritionally questionable mess. I find the consistency regular soda to be unpleasantly syrupy.

So there are some people who really just like diet cola better.

Don't forget though fuel stores. In the event of a natural disaster or something "the grid" can be down for days. A little generator (runs on fuel) to run the pumps can bring fuel up from storage tanks to vehicles means people have motor fuel.

EVs will very likely leave people with whatever they have in the battery so to speak. Now assuming people have home charge stations that might be full rather than half empty for most folks so the situation still might be better in aggregate with batteries, tough to say as it really depends on the size and scope of the calamity.

ICEs are also cheap to build now compared with high capacity batteries AND electric motors to run with them. If the input energy is cheap enough than the costs of the inferior efficiency of producing a chemical fuel to than burn may not matter as much as the capital cost of the vehicle in the first place.

If we started pulling carbon out of the atmosphere to make fuel as fast as we put back burning the motor fleet could become carbon neutral. The energy loss is at least partly recovered too, we add energy to the atmosphere with waste heat, and then remove it with the turbines.

Thanks for the link very interesting, and helpful. I am not sure I fully buy the security argument, mainly because most of the time I don't see the LSMs themselves adding much value; but the points about DOS resistance and keeping the work load in the senders own timeslice being generally desirable makes sense.