ChefDenominator

At least on the South Bay, I think that drivers are more impatient because the cities have failed to do anything real to improve traffic. They focus on highly visible things, like a new overpass or adding a lane to an onramp, or something of this nature.

Then they'll spend something like $1 billion on a new library or town hall or $100 million on a rec center or whatever.

Meanwhile, the actual road infrastructure cannot support the incredible increase on net new job creation. This makes for traffic jams, everywhere, so people become impatient and increases the number of irrational decisions they make.

I live in the hills, several miles down a very narrow, curvy country road. Nobody goes less than 10 mph above the speed limit, which is genuinely unsafe on this road. They do it because traffic is much lighter than the rest of their commute, and they just want to get home. Of course, they're only shaving somewhere around 28 seconds of travel time off of their total commute while increasing the probability of a deadly encounter with a hapless bicyclist who ignorantly thinks they are riding on a quiet, back-country road.

I am quite certain that the cost of adding a separate bicycle/pedestrian path is quite high, as it would require bulldozing parts of moderate sized hills, and compared with the fanfare of a new police station or city hall, a new bicycle lane for some back road just doesn't compare.

However, knowing the residents of this back road and the town in general, I'm quite certain such a path would generate a lot of real use and potentially save lives. But I'm quite certain this kind of project will not hapen in my lifetime.

The issue in my area is that the "push" is coming through social engineering tactics, such as reducing road capacity and granting special privilege on existing roads to bicyclists.

If the change in road infrastructure were to occur after the bicycles became a more popular mode of transportation, that would be fine, but doing it before makes the whole situation miserable, especially for those of us who simply do not have the option of switching.

What I truly hate about the bicycle push is that some of us cannot ride bicycles for very legitimate reasons including medical problems or a job that requires a vehicle.

This is a real shame. I am going to have to find a different solution, as it turns out that pfSense is one of those projects that happily moves on without you, and I just can't understand why.

My Atom board has been perfect, but there is no hardware upgrade option.

I guess I'll have to find another project. And, yes, I used to recommend this project to everyone I know, even donated. Oh, well.

They're passing a law.

Problem solved!

Why build layers at all? Urban concentrations too high?

This statement and others like it here seem to assume that the hacker has not been directly affected by the infected devices.

For example, maybe this person had a wife dying of cancer while Mirai destroyed his life's work, so in the same period he lost his wife and he lost his work.

Or, maybe he spent a lot of money trying to launch a new product through channels that were destroyed during one of the attacks, and unable to get his money back, had to close the venture.

Maybe he had to sleep in a data center for several months during the holidays and concluded the only reason he was doing this is because consumers and manufacturers aren't concerned with the damage they are doing, so he is going to make them become concerned about the damage they are doing.

The point is that we have no idea if this person has been harmed, and whether they have any other legitimate means of being made whole from harm done, as well as be able to protect themselves from future harm.

Clearly, the proposed solutions coming from industry "experts" is likely to make things worse, as the only other activities to "fight" Mirai seem to be to support legislation as a solution to a technical problem, and I'm really not clear on when this has ever worked, especially in a system that everything on the planet can connect to.

Interesting! I always thought lawyers did that...

For OMV, you did something wrong. I've been using the project since its first public release. Never had any real issues.

Link? I have to admit it has been some time since I compared services, but that sounds like the first TB, a highly unreliable CDN, some stupid low number of simultaneous connections, or some other such lame artificial resource limitation.

The popular free email providers do not like busy transactional mail service.

Even if they are doing all of those things, it does not mean that their actual activities are anything other than I stated (which, by the way included activities beyond pickling eggs, you cherry-picker).

You seem to be claiming that if someone is a prepper, then they are also planning to blow up buildings, poison populations, etc. Seems a bit of a stretch.

If some militia members are also computer programmers, can I go off and make a bunch of assumptions about computer programmers based solely on this?

I don't really understand the usage of the term "prepper" in relation to Anarchist Cookbook. I think of prepper as someone with an underground bunker with a large cache of vacuum-sealed stew and pickled eggs. If anything related to weapons, it's just the inventory and tools necessary to make reloads.

Similar with "gun nut" sites - these usually have content covering the latest innovation in trigger mechanisms, what the right carbon content of the steel is, etc.

Caricaturing people in the wrong way cannot serve any useful purpose.

I like how you removed all of my prerequisites so as to completely change my position.

Non-profit entity is not the same as "charity". Most of the large non-profits operate on a percentage of the interest earned on a large endowment. It's essentially a scam for the very rich and the banks. If the purpose of the entity were truly to benefit the needy, then they would operate directly on donations and not withhold so much funding from those in need.

I specifically discussed sellers who are on the margin. While it can be difficult to know exactly how many of these are, I'm willing to bet this would result in a very real and measurable reduction in investment opportunity for Berkshire. If it were 10 businesses in a year at Buffet's stated minimum of $10 million annual net profit, then that would represent $80 million in annual revenue for Berkshire.

In the world of big business, famous personalities, and politics, my position is to assume the worst case scenario, which is that the only reason someone like Buffet supports the death tax is because he profits from it. In this case, it is not a coincidence.

More non-points.

To summarize your statement: "I am correct because I have read the data. Since you have not read the data, you should go read the data, because then, and only then, will you see that I am correct. Until then, just accept that I am correct."

I still reject your claims because you have not provided any meaningful measure of support for them.

From this response I'm guessing you are communicating that you'd rather not consider what kinds of options the people of Cambodia are facing: pesticide-laced food or malnutrition/starvation.

It seems notable that you consider an unverified attempt to be an expert as acceptable, but pointing out someone engaging in this behavior is not.

You can always "sell a corporation." It is not necessary to go to a tax haven.

I think you missed my point, which was that if I own a corporation and it buys an asset, then I sell that corporation, are these things tied together?

If the corporation simply found a deal, then the owners of the corporation chose to sell, why would the corporation (or owners) get hit with a gain on asset (purchased by corporation) tax? The shareholders should be taxed as normal gain on assets (shares) and it should not be reflected in the taxes paid by the corporation, unless I am missing something.

That last part, death, is important, especially to Buffet. He supports the death tax because it strongly encourages business owners to sell to some outside investor.

My understanding is that many businesses cannot support providing the Government with amount of cash necessary pay the tax, or the net reduction in income makes running the business not worthwhile.

Note how the letter is worded to carefully state that the family members will still have some ownership and management will be maintained. While this is certainly wise acquisition tactic, it is also very appealing to a seller who is on the margin and primarily selling to avoid the death tax.

(If you are thinking, "but the inheritor will still have to pay the tax on the cash," you are correct, but paying tax on cash still provides immediate payback with what is left over, whereas running or even just owning a business or any investment asset for 10+ years and getting zero or close to zero is not going to be desirable to a great many people.)

So, if I own a corporation that buys an asset for $500,000, then I turn around and sell the corporation for $10,000,000, I'm in some kind of hot water?

What was everyone in Cambodia eating before the food with the pesticides on it?

An Internet with no net neutrality regulation means no one has a final say. An Internet with net neutrality regulation means the same people who enjoy slaughtering brown people will be in charge of the entire Internet.

Dumb question, but why not sell the asset to a newly formed corporation without the liability issues, then sell that corporation?

Which Internet rule is it which states that we can all claim we have been any occupation that suits the discussion, and without any additional evidence to support such claims?

If they don't like it, then they can use something else.

Why assume they are stupid and unable to make decisions for themselves?

Net neutrality, as promoted by this article's author, requires the elimination of an open Internet because it requires a central authority which will determine who can charge what and what they can charge for.

I wish people would stop using that title. They seem to think it is a clever click-grabber, which is probably true for most people, but for those even remotely familiar with the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values, opening up the article and finding no application of Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality is disappointing.

You're right: Going somewhere full of tech geeks and discussing the finer points of English should be expected to whoosh right over their heads and anger them.

Clearly the issue is that whooshes right over your and sundry down-voter's heads is within my point: the spacecraft failed and its operators could not find it. Stating that the craft vanished has the effect of moving the fault to something other than the operators.

If you don't think headlines matter, then the propagandists win.

Did it actually"vanish"? I mean, if they just weren't able to detect it, then it was still there, just undetected.

"Vanish" suggests to me it was portaled to an alternate universe, engaged its cloaking device, put on its ring of invisibility or something.