In addition to what I said above, there's another growing demographic that's sort of the elephant in the room here: The basement dweller who spends his days playing World of Warcraft while his parents work. I've seen a lot of these, and IMO they're the biggest cause of the obesity epidemic. If you give these people free money, believe me, they don't move on unless they are literally evicted. I'm sure you guys have heard the horror stories about video game addiction where such and such person loses their job, their wife, and their house, while they were playing video games.
A term used in parts of Europe, heavily in Japan (especially within the last 10 years or so), but that's virtually non-existent in the US is "NEET" -- "Not in Education, Employment, or Training (school)". There's a little bit of overlap with the Hikikomori.
The take-away is that we really do have to consider there there's a higher case of actual psychological dysfunction associated with these groups (including "Failure-to-launch" Millennials in the US, etc...) . Whether it's caused by, exacerbated by, or simply correlates with the unemployment is almost beside the point -- once afflicted, any social policy for "fixing" the problem needs to take this into account.
Two years? That's outrageous. Any vendor that takes that long to patch their holes *deserves* to get zero-day'd.
Newsflash: Fixing a problem like this in the field is harder than making a git commit and telling people to recompile.
Also, only a dipshit with no ethics equates "vendor" with "customer" when life or limb is on the line.
Whistle-blowing is releasing information. Without it, your consolation prize is a hat made of tinfoil and a ruined reputation.
Whistle-blowing is releasing information about the internal process, and *PERHAPS* demonstrating it opaquely. Not releasing the exploit itself.
Releasing an exploit down the road may be ethical for a generic security issue or bug. Not when lives are on the line.
It seems to me that it is similar to a whistle-blower, than the security through obscurity model of not releasing the information.
I question your ability to know that no one is actively doing this. Proving a negative is difficult at best.
I'm all for whistle-blowing. But if sufficient results are not achieved, the response should be *more whistle-blowing*... NOT releasing the information.
The latter may (may!) be ethically justified in other situations; not here.
This is the kind of problem that doesn't get solved unless you have people demanding answers on mass.
If your answer to "How do we get people demanding answers en masse?" is "demonstrate to unethical 12 year olds how to easily kill people", then allowing the aforementioned dead people as a cause for more action, then you should probably re-evaluate your ethics.
Find another way besides treating "Crashing a car" the same way you treat "crashing a computer"
Frankly, I'd put this more along the lines of the folks who DoS'd 911 PNAPs. The fact that its possible doesn't excuse your doing it, and doesn't excuse intentional efforts to make it easier for others to do so.
Pressed, yes. More pressure = call your Congressman.
When "more pressure" = "demonstrate to script kiddies how to easily kill people", the value judgement changes.
... unethical to be releasing detailed information on an exploit.
It doesn't matter that the argument is that "Without exposure, car companies won't fix it!"... At the moment, no one is actively *doing* this or using this exploit. Simply being told that it's possible should be the limits of what an ethical hacker should release.
The cost-benefit analysis going into the value judgement of a release of more details for hacks is VERY different from the analysis of some HTTP flaw or kernel bug. Actual lives are at risk, and the ability of your work to be used to cause accidents and kill people by remote control changes things.
In Korea, single-path TCP is only for old people.
It's not obsolete if it's still capable of performing its function within specifications.
The ability to *alter* it to match *new* specifications should be taken into account (if it's written in a language no one speaks any more), but that doesn't prevent it from functioning.
Systems that have to deal with altered specifications because the environment around (physical or virtual) them changes can become obsolete faster than systems that are disconnected from their environment.
Note: That's an excellent reason to keep your systems disconnected from the environment.
Jonathan Gruber wasn't a member of Congress, and didn't vote on the passage of the ACA. As such, his intentions regarding the legislation are irrelevant. The Supreme Court need only concern themselves with the intentions of the legislators that actually voted on the legislation.
Actually "intentions" are only relevant when the text is unclear or irrational. The fact that this statement was made during the passing period (and not immediately rejected) indicates that it was a *plausible* or *rational* intention. It's only when something doesn't make sense that you should have to go to intent.
The text is essentially a hunk of code describing how to execute the law.
The controversial section is a bug.
Do you think the courts should faithfully execute the buggy code, crashing part of the country in the process, or do you think they should fix or ignore the bug and allow the law to execute successfully?
Well, according to one of the law's architects, it was a Feature, not a Bug: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rttqLh12U&feature=youtu.be
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. (via NB
So to answer your question: Yes.
If SCOTUS can twist these words what stops them from twisting ANY words?
Except that if "State", only means individual states, then many of the constitutional amendments - including the second - fall apart on the federal level.
That's why in laws (especially 2400 page monstrosities like this one) they have sections on Definitions to specifically say whether "State" means "50 States", "50 States + US Territories like Puerto Rico", or "50 States + Territories + District of Columbia", etc.
In this case, the law was originally drafted to deal with State-level exchanges. A Federal exchange was an afterthought one they didn't expect/hope would be used. (And according to Gruber, was intentionally left out of this clause.) Whatever the case, the courts should be rewriting when it's a clear cut, cut-and-dried case of an error. As long as there's a plausible rationale for why the text is the way it is ("To discourage States from relying on the Federal exchange, at the cost of the Federal funding that we'd otherwise be giving to the citizens of that State to help with the insurance fee we're forcing them to pay"), we should be relying on the text.
Typos can indeed lead to ludicrous conclusions that can be corrected judicially. This was not one of them.
Is that the greater city area or just the centre portion zoned as being the local government district. I have noticed more and more fudging going on, where positive propaganda calls up greater city statistics and negative reports are down played by only calling up the specific city centre local government.
Want safer cities with regards to cars, have less cars and that means substantively bigger buildings, where people can work, live and play within the one structure and receive services support from directly adjoining major structures. Arcologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would have to become the norm else, cities will choke to death with traffic problems and making traffic flow worse will certainly no solve problems just lead to permanent traffic jams and economic avoidance of problem traffic areas.
That phrase / metric refers to the City of San Diego, although I guess we've dropped down to 8th at this point.
That being said, unless you're comparing jurisdictions or running for office we refer to the overall area as just "San Diego". The city of San Diego is huge and broken up into about 100 different neighborhoods, some of which are just as large as the smaller cities that the City of San Diego now adjoins but which were once 10 miles away. cf http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/index.shtml vs https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=San_Diego_County,_California#Communities
Between having a strong County government system in California, a surprisingly effective regional planning council known as SANDAG, and a huge 20 mile desert and/or 80 mile national forest separating the county/region from surrounding areas, we don't care too much. Non San Diegans barely think of San Diego in the first place, so they're definitely not going to know what you're talking about if you say you're from "Santee" instead.
Also, we hate dense urban development. The vast majority of San Diego county is composed of single family homes, aside from the downtown core, where there are lot of condos. Pretty sure San Diego is the last urban place that's going to become an Arcology... the people that want that will move up to the Bay Area, or the blurry mass that is Greater Los Angeles.
says studies show smaller streets help slow traffic
Make the streets too small to drive down.
Zero vehicle fatalities if everyone has to walk.
Never lived in So-Cal, eh?
Real Users hate Real Programmers.