Mitsubishi Lancer. You can still get one with only two led displays (radio/dash) and no Bluetooth, I think.
Many other entry level cars probably lack such features. God help you if you want an SUV, though.
These stories will stop when they stop getting 200+ comments. Don't feed the trolls.
"Curses! Foiled again!" says the NSA. Why in the heck aren't they doing this research again? Oh, because security is only for the strong.
(Sorry for the slightly off-topic post guys, but it really riles me up that people aren't doing their jobs)
Yup. "State of the art" keeps moving forward in malware. It may well outpace security research. That's the reality. Who's next? Who can best address this issue? Do we need to fundamentally redesign computer systems with a security first mindset, and how long will that last against tomorrow's threats?
I don't know who started the cyberwar, but I do know that the West is fully committed to perpetrating it, especially the US. Even against our own people. This was bound to come round and bite us in the ass. You reap what you sow.
Another pathetic attempt to override political sensibility with claims of "I know better." People who don't think climate change is a big deal are now somehow deficient. People who deal with and process global warming *politically* are "deniers" and out of touch with reality. What utterly hysterical nonsense will we hear next from our self-proclaimed, much wiser overlords? When will anyone realize that to get something done on a global scale, you need to build a *consensus* with humanity, not look down your nose at them.
Politics is the way global change gets done, not the crude demands of the cognoscenti. For example, Barack Obama got something (very little, in fact, but something) done with China. That's the way it happens. I wish the self-proclaimed cognoscenti would stop making themselves look like they lack the sensibilities of an average, petulant teenager. It's getting annoying.
Climate change "deniers" is a misnomer. Everyone with a lick of sense knows we're in a rising temperature period. We're coming out of an ice age. We all know the climate changes, and may change for the warmer. Remember this next time you use a politically calculated term that doesn't describe most of the people involved.
Support nuclear power. That'll fix carbon emissions by a lot.
Hate to tell you, but you're stereotyping. There are plenty of skeptics who simply think the scientists involved have no good idea how to model the climate and that their attempts are crude at best, dismal at worst. The climate does seem to be getting warmer, but it doesn't take much to prove that. Everything else is half-baked, IMHO. Do we need to take drastic measures that will destroy the Western world's economy? Probably not.
Most people in support of drastic intervention fail to grasp that we have no real alternative to fossil fuels in the pipe. Furthermore, renewables research isn't moving fast enough for their sensibilities, and they tend to overestimate the possibility of an imminent solution. A very common aversion to nuclear power alongside global warming extremism just puts in the last nail. We should go nuclear. That would fix carbon emissions. Most warming interventionists don't want that either.
Still, I'm glad the renewables research is happening. Fossil fuels are decidedly finite. So is nuclear. We need a means to survive, I'm just doubtful that we need to flail about with solutions that may cause more harm than good.
Not anti-science, not a creationist, never owned a gun, am very good with math, and independent as far as political leanings go. Don't stuff me into your box. Thanks.
It's nice to see someone with such a closed mind and a sense of superiority on Slashdot. Good luck with that. Let me know how it turns out for you.
And, mind you, they're mostly men. Go figure.
I just stuck it into "Additional Tools and Features" like "Share this page," "Hello," and "Apps." I took "Forget" off the main toolbar, where it intruded one day, and stuffed it in the hamburger menu, as a feature that I rarely going to use.
Like everything they're adding, it inconvenienced me for all of three seconds.
Now, it does raise questions as to whether the Mozilla philosophy is still a "lightweight browser that you can customize with extensions," and including these features by default defeats the feeling that you have a choice of adding potentially unnecessary functionality by extensions. Lightweight does not seem to be the objective any longer.
For the people for whom this is an ideology, they are very irritated.
No half-assed bureaucrat at the CIA wipes his nose without the authority of the US Congress. The authors of this report should be looking in the mirror. The Congress of the United States has completely failed this country. Both parties. They all knew it, they represent us, and they did nothing but for half of them writing a report pointing the finger at the other party, leaving out the obvious fact of their complete dereliction of their duty. They should have all resigned in ignominy when they published this. Right after the War Crimes tribunal for both sides. That would be justice.
This. Someone forgot that troll protocol 101 is to ignore the troll. No matter how outrageous the slur. Someone is equating internet trolling with credible threats. The silence is therefore not misongynic assent, it is years of Internet culture training.
I'm a man, I've been threatened directly by trolls, and the only way to make them go away was to set up a kill filter and forget what a remailing bastard's ethics eventually spiral down toward. The severity of the outburst is belied by its impotence. CF: Gabriel's Internet Fuckwad Theory.
Things also tend to get exaggerated in text forums; this is a natural symptom of text medium discussions. A mildly worded response of displeasure is not enough to express severe displeasure in text. So things get "fuckity," at the very least. Nobody thinks it should get to the level of death threats, but sometimes it does, because someone wants to get a rise out of someone in text.
Now what gamers, and other internet board goers, have to understand is that feminist protocol 101 is go after anyone who threatens a woman, no matter how non-credible the threat, in order to silence her. This is a foregone conclusion to anyone who is a feminist. They are doing what their culture indicates they should do, as an automatic reaction. In face-to-face, physically close communication, it is a foregone conclusion. You must not back down from it, because historically women have been intimidated out of social spaces in exactly this way. It is part of making the world a safe space for women. The record is a winning one, and isn't about neutering men, it's about fighting gender based domination plays.
What we have here is a culture clash. Internet 101 meets feminism 101. Both views work in different ways that are fundamentally in conflict. The only way it goes away is to stop telling the women to "toughen up," take them seriously by their cultural touchstone, and tell them personally that physical threats are intolerable, but best ignored on the Internet. If a threat is viewed to be particularly credible, it is better to go to the police than to petition the greater Internet community to "shame" them, as if shaming would stop a credible threat in the first place.
And various people have had to go to the authorities over GG. The threats have been perceived as credible, no matter what your opinion. If you cannot wrap your skull around that, sit it out and don't tell people to "get over" what they perceive to be real threats. Support them.
Formally known as argument from authority. Devious indeed. I'll give them this: these folks at least know exactly which authority they have chosen and trust, and have thousands of years of historical evidence with which to judge its fruits, which is more than I can say for a lot of very bright people, who readily trust socially untested knowledge. I find that intelligent people are also very adept at rationalizations that blind themselves to their own authority fallacies, or to even believe that they have not accepted authority in any way.
But the fact is that everyone accepts authority at some point, as you cannot be an expert in everything. The difference between a creationist and a non-expert evolution proponent is their criteria for choice of authority. In the case of creationists, it is the purported age of the authority and the social consequences of the authority (as seen through rose-colored glasses IMHO) that make their chosen authority appealing. In practice, they're trusting traditional wisdom, handed down tribally. It is perhaps old-fashioned, and outdated, but not entirely without benefit. It just isn't very useful for the furtherance of scientific knowledge. It is not useless, however. It gives them social benefits which the less socially attuned lack. You find very strong communities amongst the faithful, with a well known set of social pitfalls.
Evolutionary theory did in fact lead to social Darwinism, and the only argument against that is a no-true scottsman claim that it wasn't "real" evolution. The idea that the superior are wealthy and/or more successful, and should pass on that success only to their progeny, directly follows the logic of the original theory of natural selection. The theory had dangerous social consequences, that have, to my opinion, never really been fully debunked. We just looked at the results of it, and decided it was a misapplication on moral grounds, not logical ones.
Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan