History is full of scaremongering (often termed FUD) where a group with a major financial interest in maintaining some status-quo tries to make an argument about how bad some looming decision will be "for everyone", and how some industry will be destroyed and vanish if regulated. But upon closer inspection, the "industry" they are referring to is currently operating in coordinated, abusive behaviors that are making it hugely profitable, and the proposed regulation or oversight is threatening to rein that in to a more reasonable and fair practice. This isn't going to "destroy" the industry, but will end the heyday they're currently enjoying, and restore balance to the market they're in. And that's actually what they're fighting to prevent, or at least slow down.

Scientific publishing is the industry in question here, and it ticks all the boxes. It's hugely profitable, is standing on the shoulders of hard-working people, and is siphoning huge money from both the supply and demand sides of the industry to fatten the publishers. None of this is serving the public good. Their "happy times" are coming to an end, and they'll be fighting us tooth-and-nail to make it last as long as they can before the balance is restored and their cash cow wanders off into the sunset. This isn't about protecting an industry, it's about squeezing as much bonus profit as possible out of a broken system before someone manages to repair it.

Here in "corn country" Iowa, the farmers are LOVING wind. It wasn't too long ago that farmers were getting propositioned with leasing their land for a cell tower. Now it's wind turbines, and those are A LOT more dense than cell towers. (plus they extend way back from say, highways, where the cell towers tend to congregate)

They lose a little land from the tower base itself, and the access roads to the towers, but it's not a big hit to their crop yield. The money they get for leasing the land more than makes up for it. So "NIMBY" doesn't really apply here. Solar wouldn't work like that for the farmers of course, but we love wind.

Sure, it's a variable source, but when you have that many of them going at once, it averages out and the power doesn't rise and fall as fast. It gives the other generating methods (nuclear or natural gas for example) time to spin up when they see the wind production is starting to fall. Solar is the same way - sure, a group of panels may find themselves suddenly shaded, but on the average the changes are pretty gradual and predictable.

Solar is on the rise everywhere, and we've got massive new commercial wind generation in these parts too.

hello, customer service? Can you send a tech to come out and look at my space craft, I think something's wrong with it.

The PLATES are a much bigger problem than the electrolyte. Look at a car battery... LEAD plates and sulfuric acid. The acid isn't the environmental problem, the lead is. It's the plates you need to be looking at, not the electrolyte. Also,

the technology could replace bulky lead-acid batteries within a few years.

Lead-acid plates are almost always used in cars right now, where you need rugged and high current batteries. Two things that these "water batteries" perform very poorly at.

that's why I said it smells like "click-bait"

In my opinion, "zero-day" should be reserved for security holes that the Bad Guys found first and are actively exploiting, that the developers have just been informed about and are rushing to develop, test, and release a patch for, but haven't had enough tiime yet, leaving a *short* window of opportunity for the bad actors to take advantage of the opening before it gets closed on them. The "zero" in "zero-day" was intended to represent the amount of NOTICE a developer has gotten that the hole exits, highlighting how recently it was made public. I can accept that this process takes a little time, but develoopment should be urgent, and it should be as brief as possible.

I've seen a few comments offering the definition of "zero-day" to any hole that simply doesn't have a patch available for it yet, but I think there needs to be a separtate category/name for bugs that the devs have known about for longer than it should take for them to have issued a patch (call it a "neglect-day"?) and also possibly another name for holes in software (or firmware I suppose) where the company is out of business and so the hole is going to be permanent unless it gets crown-sourced. (call that one a "perma-day"?)

definitely mono

I thought "zero-day" meant it was a new, previously unknown vulnerability? Once it's been discovered and reported to microsoft, doesn't that make it NOT a zero-day anymore?

Sure, it WAS a "zero-day", but so is every other vulnerability - until it's noticed and reported.

Calling a vulnerability that was reported six months ago a "zero-day" seems to fall somewhere between click-bait and outright dishonest reporting.

I don't think we have a tidy name for a vulnerability that's been languishing for months waiting for a patch though - and that's exactly what this is. Just a vendor dragging their feet about patching a reported hole in their system. (and in this case, trying to down-play the severity)

I also think the down-play is pretty disappointing - don't most Windows users run as admins? So for example. this would affect 98% of users that were sent an attachment? I don't buy "this only affects 98% of our users, so its not urgent"?

While "cell-phone zombines" walking into poles on sidewalks is a problem, it's nowhere near as unsafe as taking your eyes off the road while driving.

The switch back to physical buttons on cars can't come fast enough.

The only acceptable place for driver touch-controls is right along the top of the dash, where the driver can still see the road in their peripheral vision.
That's where I keep my GPS on my 2005 Escape - up on the dash where I don't have to take my eyes off the road to see the map.

just google it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I was always confused when someone told me to "visualize" something. The only time it ever works is if I'm helping someone over the phone and need to walk them through steps. At that point, I seem to be able to pull up images of what they're seeing and can walk them through it. (usually computer screens) Unfortunately, this seems to be almost purely conceptual, I don't actually "see a picture" of anything in my head, ever.

And if someone asks me to try to picture something I haven't seen before, I can't just "imagine it" into my head.

On the other hand, I have a very strong "internal dialog" and always "think with my voice". I don't have anything even remotely approaching a "photographic memory", but learned very early on to spell words by "remembering hearing someone spell them out aloud" and literally writing down the letters as I hear them being read back to me in my head. I've never ran into anyone else that experiences this though.

On the plus side, those "I before E, except after C" sort of memory tricks work extremely well for me. As long as I never hear it wrong, even once. Or else I'm doomed to never forget it wrong, and then I have to keep track of which was the "right way".

If I want to sell my product, and Walmart refuses to carry it, can I sue them for being a monopoly on what they sell at their own store?

Because that sounds completely silly to me, and yet it's what I think of when these developers try to pull it with a digital store.

Maxar was "no longer profiting from their work on OSAM-1," after which the xproject appeared not "to be a high priority for Maxar in terms of the quality of its staffing."

Well yeah that'll do it. It "appeared" to not be a priority now that it was losing money. Thank you Cpt. Obv.

Space is hard. But spacce is also expensive.

It's a "dark day for the India internet,

... when big companies start getting forced to pay for services they've been stealing for years.

yeah, truly dark. Companies being held accountable for the kind of behavior that they otherwise tend to send armies of lawyers out to protect themselves from.

Over in India, enforcement is especially lax, and companies are used to getting away with all kinds of things. They're just plain not used to having to follow the law.

cry me a river.