Slashdot Mirror

If you search Black Couple you get black couples.

If you search White Couple you get a bunch of mixed race couples. This is racist bullshit / SJW propaganda.

This is because the elites plan to breed Europeans out of existence. No one is saying that Africa needs to be more diverse. It's only the white countries that need to be "culturally enriched" with hoards of migrants. When Barbara Spectre says crazy shit like this it makes you wonder who is really pushing the policies that caused the migrant crisis?

If you don't think that Google is pushing SJW propaganda and manipulating results for political reasons then you're dumb. Just look at the differences in auto-complete between Bing and Google for Hillary Clinton related searches.

The CEO of Alphabet, Eric Schmidt, is the founder of campaigning organization “The Groundwork,” the sole purpose of which is to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, by putting Silicon Valley’s technological prowess at the campaign’s disposal. Schmidt is also an active adviser to the current administration, serving as the head of the Defence Innovation Advisory Board, which provides tech advice to the Pentagon.

If you search Black Couple you get black couples.

If you search White Couple you get a bunch of mixed race couples. This is racist bullshit / SJW propaganda.

This is because the elites plan to breed Europeans out of existence. No one is saying that Africa needs to be more diverse. It's only the white countries that need to be "culturally enriched" with hoards of migrants. When Barbara Spectre says crazy shit like this it makes you wonder who is really pushing the policies that caused the migrant crisis?

If you don't think that Google is pushing SJW propaganda and manipulating results for political reasons then you're dumb. Just look at the differences in auto-complete between Bing and Google for Hillary Clinton related searches.

The CEO of Alphabet, Eric Schmidt, is the founder of campaigning organization “The Groundwork,” the sole purpose of which is to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, by putting Silicon Valley’s technological prowess at the campaign’s disposal. Schmidt is also an active adviser to the current administration, serving as the head of the Defence Innovation Advisory Board, which provides tech advice to the Pentagon.

Yes, it reflects that America (and more accurately, website and search content regarding American black people) is kind of racist -- not Google.

Search for "Three African teenagers" and you get quite a more reasonable (similar to "Three White teenagers") result: https://www.google.com/search?...

It's not some kind of huge conspiracy.

Many Chromebook applications are front ends to cloud based services. If Google decides to end of life one of those services then you're screwed. And this has happened before such as when YouTube end-of-lifed an older client API. So yeah your chromebook might work for a while and then gradually bitrot and break as one service after another is withdrawn.

Aside from the cloud services, chances are the browser will be start breaking over time too. Sites that expect chrome won't be happy about some 2 or 3 year old version and will start throwing up errors to upgrade and so on. Except of course you can't upgrade.

That's an answer to my question that makes me very sad. Apparently, the misuse has become common enough in this context that it's now in the dictionary, so the answer to my question is "yes, we've given up".

The article was talking about acoustic vibrations (sound). Lessening vibration is called damping. Dampening has connotations related to emotion that do not apply in the same way, but the words are similar enough and dampen misused enough that now it doesn't matter, apparently.

Comparative graph for usage of "acoustic damping" and "acoustic dampening" since 1920

Discussion of this topic.

Director: Benjamin William Stubbs
https://www.linkedin.com/in/be...
https://www.facebook.com/ben.s...

Born 7 November 1991 and is 24 years old
Mother : Andrea Stubbs
Father : Graham Stubbs
Siblings : Lucy https://www.facebook.com/lucy.... and Jessica https://www.facebook.com/xXStu....
Home Address: Yew Tree Farm, Wetton, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, DE6 2AF
United Kingdom
https://www.google.com/maps/@5...

Director: STEPHEN PAUL THORNHILL
Born October 1964 and is 51 years old
https://www.linkedin.com/in/st...
https://www.facebook.com/steve...
Father: Roger Thornhill
Mother: Zandra Knight https://www.facebook.com/zandr...
Children: Alice Thornhill, Emily Thornhill https://www.facebook.com/emily...

Company Secretary: VICTORIA LOUISE EVANS
Born February 1966 and is 50 years old
66 Allport Road, Cannock, United Kingdom, WS11 1DY
https://www.facebook.com/vicky...
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/...

I don't know about "recent", but you can see Google's latest here.

I may be mistaken (and please tell me if so) but that sure looks like a couple of dredge ships and floating pipes to build a new pile of dry land. Other Chinese-claimed islands show large piles of dirt and earth-moving equipment. One island does not appear quite so dry or quite so developed in older pictures.

I don't know about "recent", but you can see Google's latest here.

I may be mistaken (and please tell me if so) but that sure looks like a couple of dredge ships and floating pipes to build a new pile of dry land. Other Chinese-claimed islands show large piles of dirt and earth-moving equipment. One island does not appear quite so dry or quite so developed in older pictures.

It was thrown out with the bathwater for the war on drugs.

You misspelled blacks and hippies there.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It was thrown out with the bathwater for the war on drugs.

The perception was that drug dealers were living high off of their ill-gotten gains: owning houses, boats, off-road trucks... and flaunting their wealth in the community.

We didn't have enough evidence to charge them with drug-related crimes, so we invented civil asset forfeiture to compensate: if you even *looked* like you could be a drug dealer, you could have your assets confiscated and sold.

And the proceeds can go directly to the police department to further their anti-drug campaign. Under this new law, drug crime became a self-correcting problem as the proceeds went to fund ever-more expanded police operations. ...except that it didn't. Drug use is as high as it ever was, police can confiscate anything you own on a whim, and the action is not tied to evidence or charges, and neither the police nor the prosecutors can be held liable for mistakes and errors.

This was a problem for 20 years, and eventually the US attorney general made a ruling that in general, you can't sieze cash as civil-asset forfeiture.

(But the OP is apparently about state-sponsored seizure, not federal.)

This will to go to the supreme court, will cost about $2 million in wasted effort for some poor schmuck, cost about 10 years wasted time for some poor schmuck, and be overturned. In the meantime, OK state cops get a free pass to steal money from anyone.

And of course, when the government is eventually found doing something illegal, they are told to stop. When a company is found doing something illegal, they pay a small fine and don't admit to any wrongdoing. When a citizen is found doing something illegal, they go to jail.

And when a citizen is wrongly accused, it costs a lifetime of wages and a year or two of life effort just to escape the state's error.

What I don't understand is why more police aren't being shot in this nation. The police are trashing lives on a whim, and some of those trashed lives will have nothing to lose. I haven't had a polite interaction with a cop in 20 years, and most people say that the best policy is to avoid them at all costs. Parents are starting to teach their children not to call the police for help.

The police hurt a lot of people, unnecessarily, and a lot of people are getting desperate.

It surprises me that we're not in full-out revolt.

Why be nice to a machine — a mere syntactic device?

Parents ought to teach kids to be polite to the sentient — yes. Unfortunately, lack of good manners there well predates any AI.

It might help when Skynet becomes self-aware.

Stupid article, anyway. Being called in for IT support for family can cause the same kind of rudeness towards machines.

Why be nice to a machine — a mere syntactic device?

Parents ought to teach kids to be polite to the sentient — yes. Unfortunately, lack of good manners there well predates any AI.

Well, there's this guy.

For Android 5 and earlier there's this option -- which works on my older devices -- so I'm in the positive: https://play.google.com/store/...

We don't have an energy source adequate to do electric flying propulsion

Shh, don't tell these people!

A flying car is a FAR more difficult problem to solve than a self driving car

Yes, all of those flying pedestrians darting out into your path, other commuters slamming on the brakes to avoid a flying cat, drivers going the wrong way down a one-way air lane, your maximum rate of cornering varying by a couple orders of magnitude depending on conditions just like an icy vs. dry road...

Yes https://play.google.com/store/... That's what I use in my airplane (although usually on a tablet).

This is a silly justification. The first problem is you listed Chromebooks, and this is EXACTLY what Chrome does. The RAM usage is still low for a rational number of tabs, a few hundred meg, and nobody is going to have 100 tabs open on a phone.

I noticed on Android and 32bit (low RAM) Windows systems Chrome seems to kill old background tabs. They will reload if selected, but they are little more than a bookmark.

In any case I rather use Chrome on these systems than Firefox on any system, as Firefox will bloat up to 1.5-1.9GB RAM usage, even when all tabs except about:blank are closed. Open one more page and everything will crash.

Google currently have the 70/30 as Apple had. https://support.google.com/goo...

Glad they are picking the better side.

Easy to say that if you do most of your research using Google.

To see the bias in an easy visible way, just look at the candidate photos they use for Hillary vs Trump on the primary results page.

And then click on the candidates and see the 3 pics they have on the side to represent
Hillary
https://www.google.com/search?...
Trump
https://www.google.com/search?...

Glad they are picking the better side.

Easy to say that if you do most of your research using Google.

To see the bias in an easy visible way, just look at the candidate photos they use for Hillary vs Trump on the primary results page.

And then click on the candidates and see the 3 pics they have on the side to represent
Hillary
https://www.google.com/search?...
Trump
https://www.google.com/search?...

I'm really wondering how people can sustain such strong negative emotions towards Hillary ...

She's an amoral, crooked, corrupt, lying dirtbag without a single accomplishment outside of marrying Bill.

She slut-shamed women her husband may very well have raped - attacking any woman who made any claim that Bill harassed or raped her with a "nuts-and-sluts" attack. THEN she turns around and says, "Every woman's accusation of rape or harassment needs to be believed."

She has continuously lied about her ILLEGAL email server - "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying headings and send nonsecure" - hrod17@clintonemail.com. Of COURSE there were no classified emails with classification markings on them on her server - SHE TOLD HER AIDES TO REMOVE THE MARKINGS!. Oh yeah, that email is pretty much proof that Hillary committed multiple felonies with her ILLEGAL server. She lied about other Secretaries of State using private email. She's lied when she said the FBI isn't conducting a CRIMINAL investigation of her server.

The Clinton Foundation is crooked as the day is long. Secretary of State Hillary! took millions of dollars in "donations" from foreign states WHILE MAKING DECISIONS ON THINGS LIKE WHETHER TO SELL THEM WEAPONS.

The REAL question is, "How much are you getting paid to ask your question?"

A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all personal income with no deductions. The reduction of overhead there, thus, is that you do not try to have it progressively increase or reduce according to your income.

A tax rate is a percentage of income taxed. A flat tax means everyone pays the same percent on their income. You still need to know how much they made.

Deductions is an entirely separate question of how to count how much someone made. That's the topic of that "I have proposals for simplifying the tax code too" that I briefly mentioned at the end of one of my earlier posts. I agree that there could be a lot of overhead saved on simplifying how we count someone's income, but that's a separate issue entirely. Whether or not who can deduct what has nothing to do with whether the rate, the percent, taxed on however much they made, is flat or not. And whether there are complicated deductions or not, whether the rate is flat or not, you still need to know how much people made.

That is, because in essence, you're making exemptions for it; one says 'this group with this income gets this much', 'this group gets only so much', etc.

Not at all. I'm proposing that everyone gets the same, uniform, amount (set to some fraction of the average income); and everyone pay the same, flat, tax rate to fund it (of the same fraction, so the funding equals the cost, because that's how averages work). I listed, for illustration only, what that would end up meaning for people in certain income brackets, but the rule underlying it is ridiculously simple. I literally gave the formula in simple math last post. Everyone is taxed r(i-m), where r = the rate, i = their income, and m = the mean income. For most people, that comes out to be a negative number, so they get some money back. And that formula is just a simplification of the formula ri - rm, which means everyone is taxed at the same rate, r, on their income, i, and also everyone gets the same uniform credit (or if you will, universal income) back, rm.

The rest of your post is ranting under that misconception, so let me state more clearly what my proposal is:

- Everyone in the whole country gets the same $X per month.
(What that "X" is is precalculated as some percentage Y of the average income).

- Everyone in the whole country pays the same Y% of their income to fund it.
(Because of how averages work, this exactly funds that Y% of the average income basic income).

Only when you do the math on those two steps does there emerge something that looks like progressive taxation and welfare. Let me show you in pictures exactly why, assuming we have about $50k mean income and want to give people around 25% of that as a universal basic income:

Here is a graph showing how much basic income people get per income: y=0.25*50.
You'll note that it's a straight horizontal line. That means everyone gets the same, universal, basic income.

Here is a graph showing how much taxes to fund it people pay per income: y=0.25x.
You'll note that it's a straight diagonal line. That means everyone pays the same, flat, tax rate.

Here's a graph showing the second minus the first, or the net cost per income: y=0.25x-0.25*50.
You'll note that it's still a straight diagonal line, but now it starts below zero for incomes below the mean, meaning those people get money out of the deal in the end.

And here's a graph showing that, divided by income, to show you the effective tax rate per income that emerges from this: y=(0.25x-0.25*50)/x.
You'll note that it

A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all personal income with no deductions. The reduction of overhead there, thus, is that you do not try to have it progressively increase or reduce according to your income.

A tax rate is a percentage of income taxed. A flat tax means everyone pays the same percent on their income. You still need to know how much they made.

Deductions is an entirely separate question of how to count how much someone made. That's the topic of that "I have proposals for simplifying the tax code too" that I briefly mentioned at the end of one of my earlier posts. I agree that there could be a lot of overhead saved on simplifying how we count someone's income, but that's a separate issue entirely. Whether or not who can deduct what has nothing to do with whether the rate, the percent, taxed on however much they made, is flat or not. And whether there are complicated deductions or not, whether the rate is flat or not, you still need to know how much people made.

That is, because in essence, you're making exemptions for it; one says 'this group with this income gets this much', 'this group gets only so much', etc.

Not at all. I'm proposing that everyone gets the same, uniform, amount (set to some fraction of the average income); and everyone pay the same, flat, tax rate to fund it (of the same fraction, so the funding equals the cost, because that's how averages work). I listed, for illustration only, what that would end up meaning for people in certain income brackets, but the rule underlying it is ridiculously simple. I literally gave the formula in simple math last post. Everyone is taxed r(i-m), where r = the rate, i = their income, and m = the mean income. For most people, that comes out to be a negative number, so they get some money back. And that formula is just a simplification of the formula ri - rm, which means everyone is taxed at the same rate, r, on their income, i, and also everyone gets the same uniform credit (or if you will, universal income) back, rm.

The rest of your post is ranting under that misconception, so let me state more clearly what my proposal is:

- Everyone in the whole country gets the same $X per month.
(What that "X" is is precalculated as some percentage Y of the average income).

- Everyone in the whole country pays the same Y% of their income to fund it.
(Because of how averages work, this exactly funds that Y% of the average income basic income).

Only when you do the math on those two steps does there emerge something that looks like progressive taxation and welfare. Let me show you in pictures exactly why, assuming we have about $50k mean income and want to give people around 25% of that as a universal basic income:

Here is a graph showing how much basic income people get per income: y=0.25*50.
You'll note that it's a straight horizontal line. That means everyone gets the same, universal, basic income.

Here is a graph showing how much taxes to fund it people pay per income: y=0.25x.
You'll note that it's a straight diagonal line. That means everyone pays the same, flat, tax rate.

Here's a graph showing the second minus the first, or the net cost per income: y=0.25x-0.25*50.
You'll note that it's still a straight diagonal line, but now it starts below zero for incomes below the mean, meaning those people get money out of the deal in the end.

And here's a graph showing that, divided by income, to show you the effective tax rate per income that emerges from this: y=(0.25x-0.25*50)/x.
You'll note that it

A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all personal income with no deductions. The reduction of overhead there, thus, is that you do not try to have it progressively increase or reduce according to your income.

A tax rate is a percentage of income taxed. A flat tax means everyone pays the same percent on their income. You still need to know how much they made.

Deductions is an entirely separate question of how to count how much someone made. That's the topic of that "I have proposals for simplifying the tax code too" that I briefly mentioned at the end of one of my earlier posts. I agree that there could be a lot of overhead saved on simplifying how we count someone's income, but that's a separate issue entirely. Whether or not who can deduct what has nothing to do with whether the rate, the percent, taxed on however much they made, is flat or not. And whether there are complicated deductions or not, whether the rate is flat or not, you still need to know how much people made.

That is, because in essence, you're making exemptions for it; one says 'this group with this income gets this much', 'this group gets only so much', etc.

Not at all. I'm proposing that everyone gets the same, uniform, amount (set to some fraction of the average income); and everyone pay the same, flat, tax rate to fund it (of the same fraction, so the funding equals the cost, because that's how averages work). I listed, for illustration only, what that would end up meaning for people in certain income brackets, but the rule underlying it is ridiculously simple. I literally gave the formula in simple math last post. Everyone is taxed r(i-m), where r = the rate, i = their income, and m = the mean income. For most people, that comes out to be a negative number, so they get some money back. And that formula is just a simplification of the formula ri - rm, which means everyone is taxed at the same rate, r, on their income, i, and also everyone gets the same uniform credit (or if you will, universal income) back, rm.

The rest of your post is ranting under that misconception, so let me state more clearly what my proposal is:

- Everyone in the whole country gets the same $X per month.
(What that "X" is is precalculated as some percentage Y of the average income).

- Everyone in the whole country pays the same Y% of their income to fund it.
(Because of how averages work, this exactly funds that Y% of the average income basic income).

Only when you do the math on those two steps does there emerge something that looks like progressive taxation and welfare. Let me show you in pictures exactly why, assuming we have about $50k mean income and want to give people around 25% of that as a universal basic income:

Here is a graph showing how much basic income people get per income: y=0.25*50.
You'll note that it's a straight horizontal line. That means everyone gets the same, universal, basic income.

Here is a graph showing how much taxes to fund it people pay per income: y=0.25x.
You'll note that it's a straight diagonal line. That means everyone pays the same, flat, tax rate.

Here's a graph showing the second minus the first, or the net cost per income: y=0.25x-0.25*50.
You'll note that it's still a straight diagonal line, but now it starts below zero for incomes below the mean, meaning those people get money out of the deal in the end.

And here's a graph showing that, divided by income, to show you the effective tax rate per income that emerges from this: y=(0.25x-0.25*50)/x.
You'll note that it

A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all personal income with no deductions. The reduction of overhead there, thus, is that you do not try to have it progressively increase or reduce according to your income.

A tax rate is a percentage of income taxed. A flat tax means everyone pays the same percent on their income. You still need to know how much they made.

Deductions is an entirely separate question of how to count how much someone made. That's the topic of that "I have proposals for simplifying the tax code too" that I briefly mentioned at the end of one of my earlier posts. I agree that there could be a lot of overhead saved on simplifying how we count someone's income, but that's a separate issue entirely. Whether or not who can deduct what has nothing to do with whether the rate, the percent, taxed on however much they made, is flat or not. And whether there are complicated deductions or not, whether the rate is flat or not, you still need to know how much people made.

That is, because in essence, you're making exemptions for it; one says 'this group with this income gets this much', 'this group gets only so much', etc.

Not at all. I'm proposing that everyone gets the same, uniform, amount (set to some fraction of the average income); and everyone pay the same, flat, tax rate to fund it (of the same fraction, so the funding equals the cost, because that's how averages work). I listed, for illustration only, what that would end up meaning for people in certain income brackets, but the rule underlying it is ridiculously simple. I literally gave the formula in simple math last post. Everyone is taxed r(i-m), where r = the rate, i = their income, and m = the mean income. For most people, that comes out to be a negative number, so they get some money back. And that formula is just a simplification of the formula ri - rm, which means everyone is taxed at the same rate, r, on their income, i, and also everyone gets the same uniform credit (or if you will, universal income) back, rm.

The rest of your post is ranting under that misconception, so let me state more clearly what my proposal is:

- Everyone in the whole country gets the same $X per month.
(What that "X" is is precalculated as some percentage Y of the average income).

- Everyone in the whole country pays the same Y% of their income to fund it.
(Because of how averages work, this exactly funds that Y% of the average income basic income).

Only when you do the math on those two steps does there emerge something that looks like progressive taxation and welfare. Let me show you in pictures exactly why, assuming we have about $50k mean income and want to give people around 25% of that as a universal basic income:

Here is a graph showing how much basic income people get per income: y=0.25*50.
You'll note that it's a straight horizontal line. That means everyone gets the same, universal, basic income.

Here is a graph showing how much taxes to fund it people pay per income: y=0.25x.
You'll note that it's a straight diagonal line. That means everyone pays the same, flat, tax rate.

Here's a graph showing the second minus the first, or the net cost per income: y=0.25x-0.25*50.
You'll note that it's still a straight diagonal line, but now it starts below zero for incomes below the mean, meaning those people get money out of the deal in the end.

And here's a graph showing that, divided by income, to show you the effective tax rate per income that emerges from this: y=(0.25x-0.25*50)/x.
You'll note that it

Sightly to the northeast of the center is this facility with some kind of circular clearing around it and antennas inside. What looks like military trucks and/or trailers are parked just outside to the northwest:

https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

So, here is just a little bit of amateur desk research into some things we might be able to gather from the information:

The FAA flight advisory provides the coordinates and the nature of the GPS signal disruption, which is centered near China Lake, and has expanding rings of area, each of which rises in altitude. For the pilots out there, imagine the classic upside-down wedding cake shape. Or cone with its point at the ground.

This would seem to indicate some kind of broadcast or interference from a source that is located at the ground, propagating line of sight with larger radii with altitude. Rather than something to do with the satellite itself.

The center of the coordinates are 360822N, 1173846W, which is in a big empty desert area, just south (SSW of Darwin, California), see here: https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

It could of course be some kind of antenna, or even a flight that is producing this signal. But there's also an interesting long V-shaped two-legged testing(?) facility just to the east of these coordinates, which you can see in the Google Earth image. I might be mistaken about what that facility is, because aeronautical sectional charts also show a mine in that area, but this doesn't look like a mine site. Also there are a bunch of vehicles that look like Humvees on the pad nearby. And there are three antenna looking structures at the north end of the paved line.

Anyway, it's interesting to speculate about.

I'm curious if this will utterly destroy IPv6's reputation among Internet users at large.

Check this graph again in a month and you should have your answer.

According to Google, about an eighth of all their traffic today is IPV6, the percentage is growing, and the rate is accelerating. If you were waiting for a clear sign from the heavens that it's time to finally start supporting IPv6 as at least equal to IPv4, then you can stop waiting. While almost all of those systems currently also have native IPv4, it's absolutely insane to ignore v6 traffic in 2016. Do it at your and your employer's own peril.

You would use the fob the same way you use it with a computer. You enter your password, and you enter the number displayed on the fob to log in to the system the fob is configured for.

There is even an app that turns your android phone into an RSA key fob:

https://play.google.com/store/...

You're not replacing one kind of overhead with another kind of overhead. We currently have two kinds of overhead: the overhead of figuring out how much money people made and collecting some of it from them / sending something back to them; and separately, the overhead of many different programs each figuring out who deserves some kind of help in some specific area, selecting people to provide that help, and paying them to help the people you've figured deserve it. An UBI eliminates the second kind of overhead. It still depends on the first, sure, but you're still getting rid of a ton of overhead in the switch.

And any UBI is going to have to collect more to fund itself from the people who have more, otherwise it ends up doing nothing at all (if you take and give the same amount from each person you may as well have not taken and not given to begin with). So while everyone gets the same basic income, universally, the burden of paying for is always going to be proportional to other forms of income, so the net effect of it is that you're giving more to those who have less.

Also, I think you don't know what a flat tax is. It's not "everyone pays the same $X in tax". It's "everyone pays the same X% of their income". (In contrast to a progressive tax, where at higher incomes you pay a higher percent of your income; although a flat tax combined with a universal income in the way I've proposed still produces the same effect of a progressive tax in the end; graph y=25(x-50)/x to see percent of income taxed per income, for a 25% mean UBI and a $50k median). With a flat tax, any flat tax, you still need to know how much everyone made.

If you're instead thinking of some kind of uniform tax, where everyone is charged the same amount rather than the same percent, that's nuts, because (to remain revenue-neutral) that would be the majority (over 70%) of the income of the majority (over 50%) of people, and over a quarter of people not even making enough money to pay that if they were taxed at 100%. A uniform tax is absolutely untenable, and any non-uniform tax, be it flat or progressive, will require that you know how much money people are making.

A stratum exists between zero and pinnacle

I think you mean "piqued"
https://www.google.com/search?...

Everybody should be using it, but nobody does.

Not nobody but certainly a lot less than is desirable.

This has been the steady state for what, 20 years?

Unfortunately people don't do stuff until there is real pressure to do so. As the IPv4 crunch has started to bite harder providers have started to take IPv6 more seriously. Theres still a long way to go but there has been a real increase in adoption over the past few years. https://www.google.com/intl/en...

We probably should re-do the thing and skip to IPv9 with a less grandiose than this second system but a nice and functional third.

Yes the IPv6 proponents had some grandiose but half-baked ideas. To name a few Heirachical routing, abandonment of NAT, mandatory IPsec, site local addresses, A6 and DNAME, Stateless mac-address based autoconfiguration.

But yet another new system isn't going to help anyone, the problems can and have been solved while keeping the core protocol compatible.

The heirachical routing crap has already been dropped in favor of using the same routing methods as are used for IPv4. A6 and DNAME have been abandoned in favour of letting companies get PI space like they can for IPv4. NAT is still discouraged but there are implementations available for those who want/need it and protocols have been put in place to delegate prefixes to customer networks automatically. Mandatory ipsec has been abandoned. Site local addresses have been replaced by the far more sensible "unique local addresses" which acknowlage that "site" is an ill-defined concept. Mechanisms have been put in place that allow running a V6 only access network while still providing limited IPv4 functionality for clients (there are two competing options for this DS-Lite and NAT64) . We have privacy extensions to avoid MAC address based tracking with stateless autoconfiguration or alteratively you can use DHCPv6 instead.

Perhaps with a different crew this time. That'd be nice.

I think we already have a different crew, we now have people who work at real ISPs designing IPv6 soloutions that really work.

What's a good way to [use two-factor authentication] in countries where it is common practice for cellular carriers to charge per received text message?

Generate codes ahead of time

https://www.google.com/intl/en...

The growth curve is clearly showing exponential growth here, and we're now well into the rapid adoption phase. Yes, the absolute value is 11% (now 12). but it will continue to grow with increasing speed. It *is* coming. It took a while, but it's a juggernaught which can't be stopped now. We'll all be using it in a couple of years at this rate. All the major ISPs have committed to do this, and network effects will drag the rest along in time.

I've been on native v6 for three years now.

Plenty of people are using IPv6

Especially at the weekend. Last weekend more than 11% of Google users were using IPv6. It's higher at the weekends because IPv6 is coming much faster to residential broadband and mobile, with corporate networks migrating more slowly.

Note wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, which for a bicycle is almost anywhere.

Not right here, but yes, almost anywhere else.

It's unfortunate that the road wasn't designed well for everyone who might want to use it. Planners in the USA are laughably bad at their profession.

What tiny fraction of the functionality? What is the difference the app gives? To me the user, the Facebook and messenger app didn't appear much different than the mobile site other than lacking notifications. The app also gives Facebook more permissions.

Disa so far still works as a third party client. On a PC (or a mobile set to "Get desktop site"), www.messenger.com seems to give most useful features of the app

Because Messenger (as a service) is the only way I get messages from some people. I either stop talking to those people, piss those people off by constantly cajoling them into switching services, or just talk to them the way they want to talk to me.

But Messenger (as an app) is a hateful piece of programming. I haven't had the battery issues others do, but it consumes too much memory, and causes other parts of my phone to misbehave (camera, etc.) so I'm happier not using it.

I migrated to Disa for my Facebook messenger needs a few months ago. So far so good. I got pissed off at the ever increasing notifications from the main Facebook app (itself old because I refused to upgrade to a newer version with more permissions) "Do you know so an so?" "Wish so and so a happy birthday" Fuck off and don't bother me unless someone is specifically engaging me (message, tag me in a post, or write on my wall).

I use Disa for Facebook messaging, because for some friends it is the best way to contact them. However I'm using Facebook less and less. It used to be people posting individual ideas, and sharing photos of something (party, trip), now it's all resharing memes or Buzzfeed articles. I'd rather look at baby and puppy pictures than this!

I've used XMPP in the past, but since Facebook Chat disabled XMPP support and I don't wat to use theirs IM, I've closed my account there (used FB just to use the chat to talk to family members...)

~~~Astrology~~~~ Horoscope, Python, GPLv3 -- https://sites.google.com/site/...

Who do you think is running these companies if not "people"

https://www.google.com/search?...

Why do you think that with the economic collapse we just went through that these companies were advertising so heavily?

When was that? ubuntu and the like have long had the USB image writer utility that has litterally two fields (one to choose your iso, one your USB drive), a Close and a Write buttons and a progress bar.

You can't do much simpler than that.

California, where rioters waving the Mexican flag want to "Make California Mexico again".

And the Crooked Hillary!-supporting mayor blamed Trump!:

The mayor, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, criticized Trump for coming to cities and igniting problems that local police departments have to deal with.

"At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign," Liccardo said.

TRUMP needs to take responsibility for the RIOTERS who openly say they want to "Make California Mexico again"?!?!?!

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!

That's no different than saying the Jews who were murdered at Auschwitz need to take responsibility for their irresponsible behavior too.

Let me google that for you.

https://www.google.com/webhp?c...

Basically, it means being needlessly exagerating, over the top, or employing puffery.

So you're saying increasing the minimum wage would increase per person productivity and make it so fewer people are wasting their lives flipping burgers... I don't really see the downside. As long as technology keeps getting cheaper/better and people stay the same price automation WILL happen where it can happen eventually. The question is only "when it will happen". If we try to slow automation then that just give places like China who will automate every chance they get a greater comparative advantage than they already have. Yes in the short run fewer people will have jobs but that issue is also solvable by automation.

The failing is mine however, as while I can't understand what patents try to say it seems plenty of other people can.

I don't know about that. Years ago, my company decided to patent something I had worked on. Even I can't understand the language of the patent that has my own name on it! I know what it is because I worked on it. But could I build it based on the description in the patent? Probably not.

https://sites.google.com/site/...

https://sites.google.com/site/...

https://sites.google.com/site/...

https://sites.google.com/site/...