Airlines losing money waiting for new planes
Nothing to the money they'll lose when passengers refuse to fly on any 737 MAX 8, or whatever they get rebranded as.
1949 posts • joined 6 Feb 2015
No. It isn't. The carbon is clearly where it's meant to be (since it's, well, there). It's just being spread through the universe by natural processes which we, in this case, don't yet understand.
I feel that using clickbait headline-grabbing terms like "carbon pollution" cheapens an otherwise interesting study.
That doesn't mean there was anything illegal either. Could have been some contractual obligation whtat was misunderstood or not noticed which had particular weight in Oregon state law. Which agains doesn't necessarily imply they'd done something illegal. It can equally mean they were about to but not delivering on their contract obligations.
I'm sure Crapita will have the contract locked down tight to indemnify them against any and all ineptitude / incompetence / calculation errors. If there's one thing management likes to cover it's their own collective arse.
Also remember, the end customer is not the poor benefits claimant who get's fucked over, it's the local authority, who usually give even less of a shit about benefits claimants than Crapita. Trust me, almost no one in local authority will care about this because they aren't the one's getting shafted when something goes wrong. Maybe the odd person with some actual integrity, but they'll be shouting at deaf ears.
This kind of thing bugs me. Like it's the hacker's fault they were forced to spend that money to investigate something that - in this day and age - really shouldn't happen in the first place.
I've zero sympathy for large organisations cheaping out on security. Had they invested in better defences to begin with, there's a good chance this couldn't have happened. They're responsible for having adequate security.
Probably would have cost less than 200k to implement too. Either the figure's inflated for effect, or that's a lot of expensive specialist hours. I'm inclined to believe the former, unless they're paying the IT intern 200k to eaxmaine the logs for unauthorised access.
The clue is in "your home". Wanna try again?
Here's what the people that have ability to think do. Turn it off when you have finished using it.
Shit happens, people get distracted. Even the ones that can think. Not sure whether to congratulate or pity you if nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever distracted you.
I too detest the current trend of insisting everything be "smart", but you really seem to enjoy overreacting.
You would need to cite evidence that anyone who buys a Tesla believes that it is 'fully self driving' regardless and you can leave it to drive itself.
Pretty sure that's not what was said.
Clearly some Tesla owners believe it is 'fully self driving', otherwise they'd have been paying attention instead of heedlessly ploughing headlong into whatever they happened to hit (trailer, cop car, whatever).
Cruise control doesn't claim to be anything other than cruise control i.e. it maintain the speed it's been set to. It's not deliberately misleading.
ABS doesn't claim to do anything other than reduce brake lock-up. It's not deliberately misleading.
Autopilot has the ingrained meaning of doing the piloting automatically, even if that's not what it does in a Tesla. That is deliberately misleading, and as such Tesla should be banned from calling it's advanced cruise control an "Autopilot".
The twat in the RV activating cruise control and making a cuppa is solely the responsibility of that twat. Nothing to do with cruise control, purely another moronic driver.
People are stupid, and they do stupid things. Deliberately misleading people by naming a feature as something it's not only gives stupid people more opportunity to be stupid.
This guy took his attention completely off the road and was dealing with his dog. If he did that in any car, he'd crash. Yet, because it's a Tesla on Autopilot, it's suddenly the car at fault rather than the nut behind the wheel?
It's a mix of both. Tesla for calling it Autopilot when it's not, the driver for believing it.
Doesn't have to the driving the car autonomously to be useful...
The system could:
1) Still collect real-world driving data without actually doing the driving;
2) Compare what it would do with what a meatbag driver does in the same situation;
3) Note where there are differences between system- and human-derived outcome;
4) Use the continual analyses to gradually work toward a genuinely capable autonomouse driving system.
But that's not disruptive, doesn't bring in the punters. "Autopilot" and overblown claims of autonomous abilities bring in the punters.
Guess at that point Deyo felt he had nothing to lose, so what the hell it's worth a shot. And it paid off. Yeah it could easily have gone the other way, but maybe he wanted to go out fighting instead of just waiting to be murdered.
Defence lawyer serves a few purposes, regardless of the defendant's guilt/culpability:
1) Present the defendant's version of events;
2) Advise the defendant of their rights under law;
3) Inform the court of any mitigating circumstances, such as self-defence, duress, mental illness/instability;
4) Cross-examine any witnesses;
5) Keep the prosecution in check regarding points of law, questionable evidence, inadmissable testimonies etc.
6) Try to secure a sentence which is balanced within the law, rather than excessive punishment.
Probably several other points I've missed but you get the idea.
So even if the defendant did it and it's plainly obvious he/she did it, they're still entitled to a defence lawyer.
Doesn't make the jury right, just makes the judge wrong for thusly instructing the jury. Had Musk simply left it as a singular insult thrown in the heat of the moment, the decision would arguably be correct. But no, Musk then went out of his way to try to prove his original assertion. That's when it stops being an insult and becomes a libelous accusation.
This is the best, you know everyone is happy about it, everyone I spoke to is happy about it, this really is a great law, great law. It's going really well I think, and I think everyone is really happy about it. Really. Drain the swamp, Make Relational Laws Great Again!
Seems like the only way it could work is to swap the target's phone with one that's already been 'customised'. Which presents its own set of problems (matching the condition (markings, dirt, smears etc.), cloning the contents, cloning the sim etc.) all in short enough order the target wouldn't have time to notice. And you'd do it not to gain access to what's currently on the phone necessarily (since you've already cloned its content), but future content or secure operations.
So Holywood level of spying, makes for a reasonable plot line, but not real-life.
Such "settlements" should never be allowed.
Antitrust probes should always go to trial, otherwise it's just a thinly veiled bribe to make the allegations go away and does nothing to protect consumers or promote competitive behaviour.
Bollocks. You're telling us Amazon don't know exactly how much income is generated in each country, what the costs are, and therefore what the remaining profit is? Of course they do.
No international business could operate effectively without knowing income and costs in all operating countries.
They may pretend that's too hard to figure out, but for a business with their resources it just isn't.
Sure, it can be approximated to a sphere.
At the same time, over short distances (a few hundred metres) relative height change due to curvature is so small it could be considered locally flat within a small tolerance.
Of course the Earth isn't flat. Except where it is. Tolerance is a funny thing.
Depends where you want/need your loop termination check, which depends on what you're trying to do in the loop. Do you need to check before the loop iterates its content, or after?
Do you need:
to do something only if a clause permits it (while loop i.e. before), or...
to do something and then check the outcome (do-while loop i.e. after), ?
Do something only if it's permitted:
while( clause == true )
clause = DoSomething();
Do something and loop on the outcome:
clause = DoSomething();
while( clause == true )
Either form can usually satisfy both requirements with a little excess biolerplate, which makes it a matter of personal preference or enforced coding standards, and how much boilerplate you need to make it happen.
It's a bizzare stretch to interpret “speak up if you see something that you think isn’t right” as "provided ample justification for tracking and scrutinizing their colleagues.". Though I suspect working for a company with blatant ehtical disregard and a wanton desire to track everyone and everything will bring out the same traits in certain individuals.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022