Most people don't want to become insurance experts or hope that their circle of friends is clued up enough to protect them.

If not for government regulation, both explicitly in complicated arcane rules, and implicitly in the form of allowing ludicrous litigation, liability, and protecting unions, then the cost of both replacing the car and providing healthcare would be so low, that a year's worth of auto insurance would cost $100.

Since it would cost about $2500 to buy a brand new SUV, and a week's stay in the hospital with all the medical attention required to address serious injuries from an accident would still be less than $3000. You could save up 4 years worth of premiums and stop buying any insurance..... thus creating a competitive downward pressure on insurance rates!

In other words, regulations created by the government are indirectly raising costs by a factor of 20000%.

other times it means avoiding using the computing resources.

Or using different resources... such as Dropbox for file sharing, instead of file server and VPN client.

Being close contact with diapers, how this chemical might be effecting babies ?

The chemical is basically a harmless salt not too different from sodium chloride (Unless you were to start eating quantities of it), and there is not a large amount of it in a diaper, so obviously the chemical is specifically used for its beneficial affects.

Use of the chemical improves sanitary conditions and comfort for babies wearing diapers, since it reduces undesirable moisture and wetness in contact with their skin: this is a health and quality-of-life improvement and helps defend against promoting possible rashes or fungal infections of the skin by keeping the skin dryer.

In reality, the baby will be more comfortable, so they will likely be requiring a change less often, which will spare plastic from the landfills.

I think the only real alternatives would be to either use no diapers at all... monitor babies closely and make sure the diaper is changed immediately if they wet themselves in the slightest, or use porous cloth diapers.

The chemical is useful for its ability to hold water. I guess they're just trying to relate the fact that this is a newly-discovered use for a chemical that is already widely used for other purposes, and the availability to apply this commonplace substance to a hard problem was "hiding right under our nose".

It's an inspiring tale that should be encouraging to would-be inventors that there are still new innovative uses waiting to be discovered for simple everyday things.

Water has always been the main reason people die.

Dihydrogen monoxide has been maligned numerous times over the years, but the real culprit is Oxygen; DHMO is just one of the many corrupt forms that Oxygen can take.

If someone smashes a window and burglarizes your home is it your fault because you didn't put bars over your windows?

Your remark is a false analogy. You are missing an important concept called duty of care in regards to companies that require you to provide them sensitive information in order to purchase a service from them. Try this one: you go to the jewelry store, and secure into their care a $100,000 jeweled necklace for repairs. Overnight, a burglar smashes a window in the store and swipes your necklace. The store just calls you up and informs you it has been stolen, so you won't be able to pick it up, and we're sorry we can't help you replace it, BUT we will offer you a 25% discount coupon good for 2 years. There were no bars on the windows, and a worker just left your piece on a work desk or file cabinet. Only the products actually owned by the shop are locked up in a special vault after closing.

An essential fact to keep in mind, is that you as consumer have no control of the shop's level of security.

Now imagine if instead of a $100,000 necklace, it was a piece of intellectual property or personal details, where theft could be occurring without clear physical evidence.

I will agree if a burglar smashes the window of your house and burglarizes your home, the burglar is fully responsible, but only if caught.

In fact, you as homeowner will bear the cost in reality. The cost in lost items, OR the cost in increased insurance premiums that will ultimately exceed any amounts claimed.

Although you as homeowner had a choice to beef up your security, you could have chosen not to.

However you are not free of liability in this situation.. Your liability is your loss in this case.

Dear leaker community: please stop shitting in your own nest. You have no idea what you're doing, or what kind of world you're trying to create.

They could be like the roman senators who assasinated Julius Caesar, because they feared growing power would result in Caesar being crowned king and crush the republican form of government, but after the dirty deed was done, the senate lost legitimacy and Rome became a dictatorship, so their actions had the opposite of the intended affect.

With all that has been leaked so far.... if the general public has not yet become outraged enough with the NSA to have politicians driving for change, then probably nothing they have left will be able to meet that threshold.

Did I just slip through a crack in the universe, to a place where the past decades of computer intrusions didn't take place.

In every past intrusion, the intruders were always held to be 100% to blame.

No manager ever went to jail for gross negligence after a million credit card numbers were stolen, or a control system was attacked.

No major company that was breached ever got sued for all they have by customers whose personal information and privacy were compromised due to the company's gross negligence --- again the intruders were held to have all the blame.

The most serious breaches happen every day by most every business large and small.... you can bet your bottom dollar, that the vast majority of breaches are swept under the rug, and we never learn about them. Unless the breach becomes severe enough or something happens where the company can no longer hide it.... I suspect 90% of small and medium businesses are not disclosing this kind of stuff properly, not even if customers are at risk

When was the last time you got a letter from your grocery store?

Businesses are having workstations on their LAN infected with random malware all the time.

Just about any service provider you do business with has your information and has Windows workstations, and that should make the public scared as hell

But by and large, the public is unaware, even "security experts" are unaware.

There's a reason these powers exist, or did you just think CPS officers get a kick out of taking children from their homes? Idiot

The case demonstrated in the article is proof enough that CPS officers are routinely abusing (apparently) absolute powers they have been granted. I'm not saying kids can never be forcibly removed without the kids' agreement, without sufficient evidence to get the proper judiciary orders, but the controls preventing rampant abuse of this government power to commit tyrannies and misuse of the color of law to enforce CPS employees' personal opinion on proper child-rearing are too weak, and the controls and protections need to be strengthened more.

Bullshit. Not a single mention of psychological abuse, which can be just as damaging if not more so than physical abuse.

Read it again.

And which often results in the child being too scared or conditioned against speaking up about their abuse.

That's fine, but they need to have definitive evidence of claimed psychological abuse, for an emergency removal on that basis, and it should be clear enough for them to get the 2 independent peace officers outside CPS to investigate the situation and come to agreement with the CPS personnel of the immediate necessity.

Today is January 16, 69 AE (Anthropocene Era)

Someone born in 1946 CE will now be referred to as: Born in 1 AE

Someone born in 1945 CE will now be referred to as "Born in 0 AE"; the year of the Anthropocene Epoch.

1944 CE will now be referred to as "1 BAE"; 1 year before the Anthropocene Epoch, etc

In this manner, every year renumbered.

And of course, tomorrow will be 1/17/69.

Every town/city in the US is different as far as risk. That said, the risk that a child will be kidnapped is not zero.

It is never zero. However, we do not charge parents with neglect for driving their children around, even though we know that sometimes cars get in accidents, and sometimes passengers die.

Therefore, for it to be said to be irresponsible, the risk should be at least greater than that of other modes of transportation.

In other words: there must be more than residual risk, for sure.

We also let children 'play' and engage in sports, therefore.... to be neglecting required supervision... the risk for the child in question in that situation should be at least greater than that involved in normal 'play' and sports engagements, including some dangerous sports that children are allowed to participate in with parental consent, where they could be at risk of serious injury or death from effects such as snakebite or drowning, hockey puck to the temples, for example.

I think the question about whether the child was adequately supervised will depend on time, and also.... the local area.

I wouldn't be comfortable with a child left alone.... that said, their kids were not alone apparently they were accompanied by each other. Therefore, if the kids have the proper skills, they would not be in particular danger, and if something did happen: the other child should be able to find help.

CPS needs to be severely neutered, but it can serve a purpose if it's powers are properly limited.

They can start with a rule that says no forced removal from a parent's care until a court order is issued with all sides represented; without recorded consent from a minimum of 1 parent to the child or another parent or current legal guardian;

In other words: restrict forced removal of children to situations where the child is physically unable to speak or is willing to approve, without any lengths at attempted persuasion from a CPS representative.

If the Child is unable or unwilling to agree to the removal, then the removal is almost certainly more harmful than helpful in most everyday situations. CPS should bear a burden of proof that there is an Extraordinary and unusual circumstance justifying special actions.

Allow for "emergency" forced removal, only after a competent licensed physician, medical investigator have signed off that there is definitive evidence of significant injury or physical abuse and immediate emergency and more likely than not a physical abuse, malnutrition, or deprivation of food that should be characterized as neglect, or a licensed psychologist signed off that there is more likely than not intentional psychological abuse or neglect.

Or at least two peace officers agree and can sign a document stating that the child is likely to be in clear and immediate danger if not forcibly removed.

IOW: stringent requirements for CPS. The way to go and help curtail this abuse of inappropriate absolute power that CPS has been afforded.

"I've fallen! And I can't get up!" is a call to arms.

I think you've misinterpreted that one... it's clearly a "Help Wanted" posting quietly reaching out to fellow villains for some technical assistance.

Shouldn't matter. Even non-nuclear plants tend to have a "physical" layer of security beneath the computer. If, for example, a reactor vessel becomes overly full, it triggers a switch which directly closes all the feed valves

Yup. They have extra layers of safety in power plants you won't find in microcontroller-controlled mechanical devices designed for the consumer.

Then look at one of the more modern fast breeder or molten salt reactor concepts such as ThorCon, which claim to incorporate more inherent safety, and I think the fact that there are millions cars driving around with humans behind the wheel, some of them carrying large quantities of hazardous or explosive materials, some of them drunk, some of them insane or asleep, is a scary as hell, compared to the more benign idea, that a machine-learning system would be controlling some industrial processes....

It's not their fault you have a small browser window and/or low resolution display.

My resolution is 1440 x 900, and the browser window is maximized.

http://screencloud.net/v/9qFv