Not sure if you read it, but the article argues against this exact point. The longer a demographic is a part of the American political process, the more politically diverse (and less predictable) they become. The article gives the remarkably high percentage of latinos who voted for Trump.
I read it but I disagree. Identity is not just wrapped up in race--age matters too. History has shown that political change comes with generational change--one funeral as a time. "Latinos" may become more diverse and less predictable year after year, but people (and their political views) don't tend to come back from the dead.
I don't think you're disagreeing with the author. His statement was equivalent to "If you are not a high risk target, SELinux may be a bad choice". Since he used 'unless', I'm assuming his intent was the same as yours, "If you are a high risk target, SELinux is a great option."
I was simply disagreeing with the title of "SELinux is beyond saving." SELinux doesn't need saving for those who have a strong use-case. There are some great lesser alternatives like AppArmor, grsec, TOMOYO, and AKARI if SELinux can't work for you. :)
I did a quick review of available solutions some time ago, and what you're listing (apart from apparmor) is not an alternative. I'm assuming that if you're serious about security and capable of digging into complexity, you can just stay with selinux. So if you lack those:
grsec (rbac) - distributions don't really include it apart from arch, gentoo, and other high-maintenance ones; default targetted configs not included
tomoyo - easy to use for developers, but also often not available in default kernel; for normal users? start by explaining to them what syscalls and ioctls are; default targetted configs not included
akari - you're on your own to compile it in, and the tools, and figure out which version you want, and ... (not simple process); default targetted configs not included
apparmor - the only user-friendly alternative right now
Of course, there's the flip side to this; you can offer constructive criticism to someone without being a dick and they can still take it personally. Some people just can't take any criticism.
Bingo. People need to be able to both offer and receive criticism without involving their ego. Both of these are hard, but i think the latter is considerably harder.
Why would we care about the number of crashed people? You said it yourself, the number of deaths for commercial flight is higher because there are more people on board. If I'm on a plane, I don't care about how likely I am to be one of the people who died in airline crashes this year, I care about how likely it is that this plane is going to crash.
I understand it's not intuitive, but the statistics are clear: If you have 100 times more people on commercial flights, then the flights would have to be 100 times less likely to crash to have the same risk to each passenger.
Let's break this into two specific questions (assuming the source is correct):
1) How likely is it that a specific flight will crash?
Answer: it's more likely that a private flight will crash than a commercial flight.
2) How likely is it that I will die on a private vs commercial flight?
Answer: your likelihood of dying is the roughly the same for both private and commercial flights.
I'm not sure you're reading the replies here. Nobody is arguing that your likelihood of dying is significantly higher on a private flight. We're arguing that the thing you should care about is whether the specific flight that you are on will crash, which has a significantly higher likelihood in general aviation.
Nobody is arguing that your likelihood of dying is significantly higher on a private flight.
I might be wrong, but this is indeed what I am arguing, and I think 'jacquesm' is saying the same. 'nostromo' says your likelihood of dying is the roughly the same for both private and commercial flights, and I don't think this is true if the metric is getting from point A to point B without dying.
If my memory of previous research is correct, a passenger on a private plane has approximately the same risk per mile travelled as a passenger on a motorcycle[1], which is something much greater than the risk per passenger mile of a normal automobile, which is in turn something significantly riskier than traveling the same number of miles by a commercial jet.[2]
We're arguing that the thing you should care about is whether the specific flight that you are on will crash, which has a significantly higher likelihood in general aviation.
Yes, each flight you take in a private plane is significantly more likely to end in a crash than each flight you take on a commercial airline. Your chances of being killed if the plane is involved in an accident are greater in a private plane (fatalities per accident are greater on the commercial flight, but risk to each passenger is lower). Therefore, your chances of dying per flight taken are greater in private flight than in commercial aviation. Is this the same as what you are saying?
[1] Edit: Found a seeming good source at http://www.nianet.org/ODM/presentations/Overview%20SVO%20Ken..., page 8. Looks like I was slightly wrong to say that motorcycles and GA are comparable risks. If we trust their estimates, motorcycles are about 2x more dangerous per hour than GA, and 3x more dangerous per mile.
Keep in mind the context of this conversation is about regulation, not about individual decision making.
From an individual stand-point, you are correct: "will my flight crash?" is a question that the individual would ask. But from a regulatory stand-point, the question is, "what is the safest way to transport people?" and those questions are not the same statistically.
This is similar to Taleb's "black swans" conundrum. You're comparing likely events with small ramifications to unlikely events with large ramifications.
My thoughts exactly. I don't live in a Time Warner serviced area so I can't watch the games unless I pay ridiculous fees. I've also been attending more games in-person because of this, so maybe that was their intention all along.
