What could possibly be gained from further experimentation at this point? We already know how to isolate it and how to produce vaccines for it. And for gene therapy, there are lots of other, less dangerous viruses that can be used as vectors for delivering genetic material. It seems that keeping anything more than the bare minimum amount of material needed to produce vaccines would fall pretty far towards the risk end of the risk-reward curve.
The SyFy version involves a pro wrestler playing the technician. Oh, and the plucky daughter just found out she's pregnant.
So, is this the new standard for scientific reasoning? Run an experiment and draw sweeping conclusions without considering the alternatives? This sort of tripe is simply stupid - it is no better than climate denial or hollow-earthism; I don't think it belongs in a forum of people with an interest in science and technology - or even politics.
What this experiment really shows, is that a group of people who grew up in East Germany "cheated" more than a group of West Germans. We don't hear by which criteria - 'randomly' just means they can't be bothered explaining. There is no explanation of why it is considered reasonable to extrapolate from a small group to humanity in general, or indeed how you get from 'East Germany' to 'Communism' in general, or indeed what is meant by 'Communism'. Being exposed to 'Communism' was hardly the only influence acting on people growing up there, just like 'Capitalism' wasn't the only thing that shaped the lives of West Germans.
A far more likely explanation is that if you live with the fear that your neighbors are informants for an oppressive regime, then you don't have much confidence in the merits of social virtues like sharing and trusting, which are necessary preconditions for fair play: you won't play fair, unless you trust that everybody plays fair. But living with that kind of fear is not unique to communism or socialism; indeed, oppression is arguably incompatible with socialism, which is all about sharing and trusting the society you are part of.
Unless you're towing a yacht, or need to go off roading, a good (200hp+) minivan is a much more logical choice.
Most SUV's people purchase aren't capable of doing this.
A great many of them are just overweight hatchbacks that have been jacked up. FWD 2L engines with big bodies. Because of this, SUV's are actually quite deceptive size wise. They look big on the outside but have limited cargo capacity on the inside. Most SUV's lack a locking diff or low range gearbox which means they don't have the off road capability to tackle a damp, grassy hillside (also they lack underside protection, which only matters if you care about your car).
For passengers, a minivan is better, provides more room and comfort as well as better access to the third row (because they usually have larger doors). For cargo vans or station wagons (AKA Estate cars) are better as they will have more cargo space for the same sized car as well as handling much better (by having a lower centre of gravity).
I've gone offroading in the Australian outback, anything less than a Toyota Land Cruiser or Nissan Patrol will be killed out there. F-series utes (trucks) will have failed long before they get to where the Land Cruisers start. I call SUV's "soft roaders" because their off road capabilities end at mounting the curb.
A Darth Vader voice would be more fun for misbehaving kids:
I was thinking more along the lines of a Goa'uld voice.
It seems that in the US at least, the minivan is quite nearly dead. How many companies other than Chrysler are still making them for the US market at all? Not many.
As for the "pull down mirror", that isn't even remotely new technology. Other vehicles have had those for a decade or more. But of course because America - and the American media especially - love Toyota with a great passion, we regard it as a technological marvel.
Toyota are not really at the fore front of technology, with the exception of their hybrid engines (even BWM is using Toyota's hybrid tech) but Toyota are known for being rock solid and unbreakable which is what makes them really, really popular (imagine, a car that you don't have to replace in 5 years when everything starts failing... looking at you Ford and GM). A side effect of this is that Toyota cars are a bit behind the bleeding edge, the Corolla's 1.8L 2ZR engine hasn't changed much in 5 years because it's still reliable and efficient and hasn't had any need to.
Toyota's reputation is well deserved.
But Toyota's current line up is boring, they have been since they killed the Supra and MR2 back in 2002. Even the new 86 was a bit of a let down, it looked good and handled good but lacked a turbo.
Is Apple beginning to get like M$?
What do you mean by "beginning"?
The only secure Android phone is what is running Cyanogenmod.
Only if you personally are capable of security auditing every single line of source code. Otherwise, you'll be trusting someone or something...as virtually everyone else is doing.
And how much source code does Apple give you to audit.
There are levels of trust we accept because not everyone has the time or skills to audit source code. However many actions (like simply making source code available) make others more trustworthy than their competitors.
I know Google collects info from my Nexus 5 and 7 but Google are at least honest about what they collect, give me options on what gets sent and have demonstrated how it's annonymised.
Apple collects the same, if not more info from Iphone/Ipad users but they don't openly admit to it, they hid it deep in the fine print of the T&C's (something about sharing data with "partners") nor do they demonstrate that the data is anonymised at all.
Unless you're a complete idiot, it's easy to see who's the more trustworthy.
Sure you can treat that as a contract breach, but it seems more like a criminal matter to me... Why do you even put that in the contract, it's needless to say that criminal conduct will not be tolerated.
Because, in the criminal court, you are innocent until proven guilty, whereas in the civil court, the standard of proof is much more relaxed. So, in terms of stopping unwanted activity, putting it in the contract like this, is much more efficient.
Your 'silly' idea isn't completely silly. If we want to get people off drug addiction, the way forward must entail winning the trust of the victims; and you can't win the trust of people by treating them as criminals.
Where you get it wrong, I think, is where you assume the addicts will still be homesless wrecks; in countries where you can legally get your daily heroin fix (Switzerland? Holland?), heroin addicts quite often have a career, family etc. The truth is that it isn't the addiction as such, but the criminalisation and the diseases from unclean drugs and needles that destroy lives.
Edward Snowden certainly has name recognition in the security space, which in branding terms equals big money. He's got his share of wild and crazy times overseas doing various hijinx not always on the up and up, sorta just like other security specialists of an earlier generation. Sure, in terms of branding alone Snowden could easily become the next McAfee, and he's still very young!
And isn't as if they weren't both wanted on international warrants either; and street cred. does sell sneakers.
And when we got to the front, all the "electronic passport" aisles were gone and only the manned aisles were left. I know why they were removed - nobody uses them. They are too much a faff,
I use the electronic "smart gates" in Australia all the time, I've never had an issue with them. They get used a lot but there's never a long like at them because they're faster than a manned counter.
My biggest fear is another overzealous customs officer in another country doesn't do what one Malaysian one did and stamp the centre page that has the chip in it and the words "Do Not Stamp This Page" in bold lettering on it. Getting another passport is a bitch.
the solution of hiring more people will, of course, not be considered.
Nor should it be. The number of people that really care about a check-in terminal having a "human touch" is probably about 2%. The number willing to pay extra to have their ticket issued by a human is likely closer to 0%. Any airline hiring extra humans to deal with this will just lose business to their lower cost competitors.
Ultimately this.
A lot of the stress at the airport is self inflicted because people don't want to pay for things. They don't want to pay baggage so they lug an oversized case everywhere. In the US it has been a race to the bottom and it's been so bad that you don't have any airlines left that an Australian, Asian or European would consider to be "full service".
Let me be clear that I certainly don't blame individuals for the TSA cluster fuck, but beyond that it's down to cheap people being too cheap for their own good.
I just flew Singapore Airlines from Perth to Manila transiting through Singapore. Singapore is a great airline to fly on, 30 KG baggage in cattle class, 19" seats on their Airbuses, the cabin crew bring around hot towels before take off, a choice of meal in economy, decent tea and a good in-flight entertainment system. Beyond this, Changi International Airport in Singapore is a very easy place to get around. Free wifi that works, lots of signs, trains that run between the terminals every 4 minutes airside, plenty of free activities and lots of sitting areas.
The cost of this was A$200 above flying a budget airline like deathstar (JetStar) and for them I'd have to transit though Darwin (which meant collecting and re-checking my bags at Darwin). When you're in the air for 18 hours all up, its a small price to pay for a little extra comfort.
Here's the link to the blog post, that didn't make it into my previous reply: https://www.adayinthelifeof.nl.... It clarifies several reasons for using the standard port 22 for ssh.
Yes, you are right and I stand corrected. In fact late yesterday, I happened upon a blog post teaching me the same explanation you gave me just now:
when we start SSH on port 22, we know for a fact that this is done by root or a root-process since no other user could possibly open that port. But what happens when we move SSH to port 2222? This port can be opened without a privileged account, which means I can write a simple script that listens to port 2222 and mimics SSH in order to capture your passwords. And this can easily be done with simple tools commonly available on every linux system/server. So running SSH on a non-privileged port makes it potentially LESS secure, not MORE.
Thank you for your important clarification regarding my security practices.
System going down in 5 minutes.
