Slashdot Mirror

Would you rather Trump later on passes some kind of regulation that all ISPs must send all customer data to the RNC for targeting voters? I don't see any reason he could not do so, since after all he controls appointments to the FCC.

Oh, so what you're saying is that Trump has power that cannot be questioned, or challenged? Sounds like that to me.

Fortunately, you're wrong, and there are dozens of checks upon the President, including who he can appoint to the FCC, as well as what the FCC can do.

I could see how you might argue that it's not enough, but what are you going to do? Huh?

Act like Felix Frankfurter? Or John M. Harland?

Now he has not done so and probably would not, but you are supporting the kind of system that makes that reality way more possible than I personally am comfortable with.

You're the one that supports it, by virtue of you being the one who says you can't see any reason he could not take an action that you purport is offensive. Me, I suggest you consider what you want to do to prevent Trump from having that kind of unquestioned power, some way to make him answerable to somebody, to put him under the scrutiny of many others.

The rest of us have. It's one of those things, we know he's not a dictator, a tyrant, and is subject to all sorts of measures.

You should never support a system that is so powerful where it actually matters who gets elected to control it.

Then nobody can have any power, because it always matters who has their hand on the trigger. I guess we're going to have to repeal the Second Amendment too. Nobody can be trusted with a gun, let alone telling anybody else with a gun who to shoot.

Oh well. I suppose you should have insisted on a more robust electoral scheme.

Or to reduce the point to something you might be able to comprehend I give you The Link Of Clarity.

Perhaps you need something to comprehend the Trump Presidency.

Would you rather Trump later on passes some kind of regulation that all ISPs must send all customer data to the RNC for targeting voters? I don't see any reason he could not do so, since after all he controls appointments to the FCC.

Oh, so what you're saying is that Trump has power that cannot be questioned, or challenged? Sounds like that to me.

Fortunately, you're wrong, and there are dozens of checks upon the President, including who he can appoint to the FCC, as well as what the FCC can do.

I could see how you might argue that it's not enough, but what are you going to do? Huh?

Act like Felix Frankfurter? Or John M. Harland?

Now he has not done so and probably would not, but you are supporting the kind of system that makes that reality way more possible than I personally am comfortable with.

You're the one that supports it, by virtue of you being the one who says you can't see any reason he could not take an action that you purport is offensive. Me, I suggest you consider what you want to do to prevent Trump from having that kind of unquestioned power, some way to make him answerable to somebody, to put him under the scrutiny of many others.

The rest of us have. It's one of those things, we know he's not a dictator, a tyrant, and is subject to all sorts of measures.

You should never support a system that is so powerful where it actually matters who gets elected to control it.

Then nobody can have any power, because it always matters who has their hand on the trigger. I guess we're going to have to repeal the Second Amendment too. Nobody can be trusted with a gun, let alone telling anybody else with a gun who to shoot.

Oh well. I suppose you should have insisted on a more robust electoral scheme.

Or to reduce the point to something you might be able to comprehend I give you The Link Of Clarity.

Perhaps you need something to comprehend the Trump Presidency.

Would you rather Trump later on passes some kind of regulation that all ISPs must send all customer data to the RNC for targeting voters? I don't see any reason he could not do so, since after all he controls appointments to the FCC.

Oh, so what you're saying is that Trump has power that cannot be questioned, or challenged? Sounds like that to me.

Fortunately, you're wrong, and there are dozens of checks upon the President, including who he can appoint to the FCC, as well as what the FCC can do.

I could see how you might argue that it's not enough, but what are you going to do? Huh?

Act like Felix Frankfurter? Or John M. Harland?

Now he has not done so and probably would not, but you are supporting the kind of system that makes that reality way more possible than I personally am comfortable with.

You're the one that supports it, by virtue of you being the one who says you can't see any reason he could not take an action that you purport is offensive. Me, I suggest you consider what you want to do to prevent Trump from having that kind of unquestioned power, some way to make him answerable to somebody, to put him under the scrutiny of many others.

The rest of us have. It's one of those things, we know he's not a dictator, a tyrant, and is subject to all sorts of measures.

You should never support a system that is so powerful where it actually matters who gets elected to control it.

Then nobody can have any power, because it always matters who has their hand on the trigger. I guess we're going to have to repeal the Second Amendment too. Nobody can be trusted with a gun, let alone telling anybody else with a gun who to shoot.

Oh well. I suppose you should have insisted on a more robust electoral scheme.

Or to reduce the point to something you might be able to comprehend I give you The Link Of Clarity.

Perhaps you need something to comprehend the Trump Presidency.

Would you rather Trump later on passes some kind of regulation that all ISPs must send all customer data to the RNC for targeting voters? I don't see any reason he could not do so, since after all he controls appointments to the FCC.

Oh, so what you're saying is that Trump has power that cannot be questioned, or challenged? Sounds like that to me.

Fortunately, you're wrong, and there are dozens of checks upon the President, including who he can appoint to the FCC, as well as what the FCC can do.

I could see how you might argue that it's not enough, but what are you going to do? Huh?

Act like Felix Frankfurter? Or John M. Harland?

Now he has not done so and probably would not, but you are supporting the kind of system that makes that reality way more possible than I personally am comfortable with.

You're the one that supports it, by virtue of you being the one who says you can't see any reason he could not take an action that you purport is offensive. Me, I suggest you consider what you want to do to prevent Trump from having that kind of unquestioned power, some way to make him answerable to somebody, to put him under the scrutiny of many others.

The rest of us have. It's one of those things, we know he's not a dictator, a tyrant, and is subject to all sorts of measures.

You should never support a system that is so powerful where it actually matters who gets elected to control it.

Then nobody can have any power, because it always matters who has their hand on the trigger. I guess we're going to have to repeal the Second Amendment too. Nobody can be trusted with a gun, let alone telling anybody else with a gun who to shoot.

Oh well. I suppose you should have insisted on a more robust electoral scheme.

Or to reduce the point to something you might be able to comprehend I give you The Link Of Clarity.

Perhaps you need something to comprehend the Trump Presidency.

Would you rather Trump later on passes some kind of regulation that all ISPs must send all customer data to the RNC for targeting voters? I don't see any reason he could not do so, since after all he controls appointments to the FCC.

Oh, so what you're saying is that Trump has power that cannot be questioned, or challenged? Sounds like that to me.

Fortunately, you're wrong, and there are dozens of checks upon the President, including who he can appoint to the FCC, as well as what the FCC can do.

I could see how you might argue that it's not enough, but what are you going to do? Huh?

Act like Felix Frankfurter? Or John M. Harland?

Now he has not done so and probably would not, but you are supporting the kind of system that makes that reality way more possible than I personally am comfortable with.

You're the one that supports it, by virtue of you being the one who says you can't see any reason he could not take an action that you purport is offensive. Me, I suggest you consider what you want to do to prevent Trump from having that kind of unquestioned power, some way to make him answerable to somebody, to put him under the scrutiny of many others.

The rest of us have. It's one of those things, we know he's not a dictator, a tyrant, and is subject to all sorts of measures.

You should never support a system that is so powerful where it actually matters who gets elected to control it.

Then nobody can have any power, because it always matters who has their hand on the trigger. I guess we're going to have to repeal the Second Amendment too. Nobody can be trusted with a gun, let alone telling anybody else with a gun who to shoot.

Oh well. I suppose you should have insisted on a more robust electoral scheme.

Or to reduce the point to something you might be able to comprehend I give you The Link Of Clarity.

Perhaps you need something to comprehend the Trump Presidency.

Would you rather Trump later on passes some kind of regulation that all ISPs must send all customer data to the RNC for targeting voters? I don't see any reason he could not do so, since after all he controls appointments to the FCC.

Oh, so what you're saying is that Trump has power that cannot be questioned, or challenged? Sounds like that to me.

Fortunately, you're wrong, and there are dozens of checks upon the President, including who he can appoint to the FCC, as well as what the FCC can do.

I could see how you might argue that it's not enough, but what are you going to do? Huh?

Act like Felix Frankfurter? Or John M. Harland?

Now he has not done so and probably would not, but you are supporting the kind of system that makes that reality way more possible than I personally am comfortable with.

You're the one that supports it, by virtue of you being the one who says you can't see any reason he could not take an action that you purport is offensive. Me, I suggest you consider what you want to do to prevent Trump from having that kind of unquestioned power, some way to make him answerable to somebody, to put him under the scrutiny of many others.

The rest of us have. It's one of those things, we know he's not a dictator, a tyrant, and is subject to all sorts of measures.

You should never support a system that is so powerful where it actually matters who gets elected to control it.

Then nobody can have any power, because it always matters who has their hand on the trigger. I guess we're going to have to repeal the Second Amendment too. Nobody can be trusted with a gun, let alone telling anybody else with a gun who to shoot.

Oh well. I suppose you should have insisted on a more robust electoral scheme.

Or to reduce the point to something you might be able to comprehend I give you The Link Of Clarity.

Perhaps you need something to comprehend the Trump Presidency.

Would you rather Trump later on passes some kind of regulation that all ISPs must send all customer data to the RNC for targeting voters? I don't see any reason he could not do so, since after all he controls appointments to the FCC.

Oh, so what you're saying is that Trump has power that cannot be questioned, or challenged? Sounds like that to me.

Fortunately, you're wrong, and there are dozens of checks upon the President, including who he can appoint to the FCC, as well as what the FCC can do.

I could see how you might argue that it's not enough, but what are you going to do? Huh?

Act like Felix Frankfurter? Or John M. Harland?

Now he has not done so and probably would not, but you are supporting the kind of system that makes that reality way more possible than I personally am comfortable with.

You're the one that supports it, by virtue of you being the one who says you can't see any reason he could not take an action that you purport is offensive. Me, I suggest you consider what you want to do to prevent Trump from having that kind of unquestioned power, some way to make him answerable to somebody, to put him under the scrutiny of many others.

The rest of us have. It's one of those things, we know he's not a dictator, a tyrant, and is subject to all sorts of measures.

You should never support a system that is so powerful where it actually matters who gets elected to control it.

Then nobody can have any power, because it always matters who has their hand on the trigger. I guess we're going to have to repeal the Second Amendment too. Nobody can be trusted with a gun, let alone telling anybody else with a gun who to shoot.

Oh well. I suppose you should have insisted on a more robust electoral scheme.

Or to reduce the point to something you might be able to comprehend I give you The Link Of Clarity.

Perhaps you need something to comprehend the Trump Presidency.

Would you rather Trump later on passes some kind of regulation that all ISPs must send all customer data to the RNC for targeting voters? I don't see any reason he could not do so, since after all he controls appointments to the FCC.

Oh, so what you're saying is that Trump has power that cannot be questioned, or challenged? Sounds like that to me.

Fortunately, you're wrong, and there are dozens of checks upon the President, including who he can appoint to the FCC, as well as what the FCC can do.

I could see how you might argue that it's not enough, but what are you going to do? Huh?

Act like Felix Frankfurter? Or John M. Harland?

Now he has not done so and probably would not, but you are supporting the kind of system that makes that reality way more possible than I personally am comfortable with.

You're the one that supports it, by virtue of you being the one who says you can't see any reason he could not take an action that you purport is offensive. Me, I suggest you consider what you want to do to prevent Trump from having that kind of unquestioned power, some way to make him answerable to somebody, to put him under the scrutiny of many others.

The rest of us have. It's one of those things, we know he's not a dictator, a tyrant, and is subject to all sorts of measures.

You should never support a system that is so powerful where it actually matters who gets elected to control it.

Then nobody can have any power, because it always matters who has their hand on the trigger. I guess we're going to have to repeal the Second Amendment too. Nobody can be trusted with a gun, let alone telling anybody else with a gun who to shoot.

Oh well. I suppose you should have insisted on a more robust electoral scheme.

Or to reduce the point to something you might be able to comprehend I give you The Link Of Clarity.

Perhaps you need something to comprehend the Trump Presidency.

Homomorphic encryption is well suited for this situation - you can even perform operations on the data stored in the cloud, and the cloud provider isn't able to eavesdrop on anything, because decryption isn't required.

Even without homomorphic encryption, there are plenty of HSM (hardware security module) devices which are widely used to handle encryption in a way that the cloud provider doesn't have access to the encryption key, nor do they have the ability to decrypt data.

He'll go back to his old career.

What comes next will be "Urine computing", where we all get on our knees and receive a golden shower from a government-corporate consortium that will save $1 trillion dollars (over the next ten years).

Already answered, starting at 1:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Gf0mGJfP8

Billy Dee Williams was only hired because there were ZERO black guys in Star Wars. Seriously, you can't find a single one. So they affirmatively actioned a guy to be Lando Calrissian. Now who associates Billy Dee Williams with smoothness, or suaveness?

Billy Dee Williams was only hired because there were ZERO black guys in Star Wars. Seriously, you can't find a single one. So they affirmatively actioned a guy to be Lando Calrissian. Now who associates Billy Dee Williams with smoothness, or suaveness?

Billy Dee Williams was only hired because there were ZERO black guys in Star Wars. Seriously, you can't find a single one. So they affirmatively actioned a guy to be Lando Calrissian. Now who associates Billy Dee Williams with smoothness, or suaveness?

Toaster: Howdy doodly do. How's it going? I'm Talkie, Talkie Toaster, your chirpy breakfast companion. Talkie's the name, toasting's the game. Anyone like any toast?

Lister: Look, I don't want any toast, and he doesn't want any toast. In fact, no one around here wants any toast. Not now, not ever. No toast.

Toaster: How 'bout a muffin?

Lister: Or muffins. Or muffins. We don't like muffins around here. We want no muffins, no toast, no teacakes, no buns, baps, baguettes or bagels, no croissants, no crumpets, no pancakes, no potato cakes and no hot-cross buns and definitely no smegging flapjacks.

Toaster: Aah, so you're a waffle man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRq_SAuQDec

Those jobs where lost to regulation, not automation.
33k jobs have already returned.
Global warming alarmism is about justifying more government meddling and has nothing to do with science http://www.petitionproject.org... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The US need for fossil fuels is no less when you implement regulations.
So any less production in the US will have to be compensated by imports from foreign countries.
Lovely countries like Saudi Arabia, what do you think they care about the environment?
Of course all government meddling causes misery, even in the rare case where it achieves the stated goal instead of causing the opposite result. Which is the common result of regulation.

And you're perpetuating a common falsehood, that's been thoroughly debunked.

It's a nice story, but it's not true. The origin of the scale comes from Ole Romer who set freezing of water at 7.5, and human body temperature at 23.5, and boiling point at 60. Fahrenheit didn't like this scale because of the fractions so he just bumped everything up by 0.5. Freezing at 8, body temperature at 24. Later on he multiplied everything by 4. Freezing now becomes 32, body temperature 96, boiling at 212.

But there's probably more to the story, since 1oF increase in temperature increases the volume of Mercury by 1 part in 10,000. Did this play into it? No one knows.

Interesting story. I highly recommend Veritasium's video on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Similarly Celsius is also based on the Rømer scale, because French Reumer thought the numbers were wierd and made a his own scale with freezing at 0Ri and boiling at 80Ri. And then a crazy Swedish guy decided that was all silly and freezing should be at 100C and boiling at 0C. People copying his scale ignored the crazy part and turned it back the right way around, but kept attributing the crazy Swede.

WE WERE ON A BREAK!

and they are going to rape Indy in Indiana Jones 5.

The reward for this is that the mouse get's an other copyright extension.

south park knows the mouse is doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Everything has social consequences

You realize there's a big world outside of the web browser, right?

It's not so big. More than half of YouTube views were from mobile in 2016. Regardless of whether that's mobile browser or mobile app, it's bigger than any other electronics category.

Google's WebRTC

It isn't "Google's" WebRTC. All browsers implement WebRTC, even Safari 11. Here's a blog post about Microsoft's WebRTC implementation in Edge.

More than half of YouTube views came from mobile devices in 2016. The embedded market for video isn't bigger than mobile.

Just don't be too fat to fly.

John Oliver's take https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6RsUhw1Q8

And you're perpetuating a common falsehood, that's been thoroughly debunked.

It's a nice story, but it's not true. The origin of the scale comes from Ole Romer who set freezing of water at 7.5, and human body temperature at 23.5, and boiling point at 60. Fahrenheit didn't like this scale because of the fractions so he just bumped everything up by 0.5. Freezing at 8, body temperature at 24. Later on he multiplied everything by 4. Freezing now becomes 32, body temperature 96, boiling at 212.

But there's probably more to the story, since 1oF increase in temperature increases the volume of Mercury by 1 part in 10,000. Did this play into it? No one knows.

Interesting story. I highly recommend Veritasium's video on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Rich dumbass ignores safety warning whilst speeding and it is the manufacturers fault?

When the company says in their marketing that you don't need to pay attention when you really do you better believe they are negligent.

Why would the car continue to operate for 37.5 minutes of the trip if the driver didn't have his hands on the steering wheel? If that's a requirement, why didn't the car just pull over and shut off? It seems like Tesla failed to implement some common sense safety protocols here.

It's because they are purposely trying to deceive the public in to believing the car is actually self driving when it really isn't.

Given the high heat required for the process, no one is going to be home printing machine parts in their basement any time soon.

You say that... but there are people that already smelt steel at home. It's only a matter of time before a DIY DMLS machine is made. Most likely not long after someone figures out how to make laser diodes cheaply.

Magic Leap created such a convincing tech demo video that every CEO got sold on it and now wants to build it. Apple's Tim Cook got caught up in it too.

It kind of reminds me of 3D desktops environments: cool in principle, lame in practice. Maybe someone will figure out a way to make it non-lame.

....and we roll the dice again ...

Go watch Eli the Computer Guy take a piss on vid.me (YouTube competitor).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xPp0IEamTo

Don't sit on a cinnabon.

Everytime I hear the word Fidget I think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Vertical Video Syndrome

I think this pretty much sums up cats.

pens and pencils aren't particularly good fidgets,

Koreans beg to disagree https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

> The C++ committee isn't "retarded" simply because you don't understand what they do or why. They are experienced and battle hardened.

BZZZT. Thanks for Playing.

1. C++ has become such over-engineered bloated crap that even the committee members themselves admit that they only uses a sub-set of it

2. This is the same committee that officially recognizes iostreams' performance is shit. When a committee member admits "... fixing iostreams which I hate in all its forms." you know something is rotten in Denmark.

3. The C++ committee is so far out of touch with reality that they wanted to add a 2D graphics API Cairo to the language. /sarcasm Gee, if only we had a cross-platform graphics library that has been around for 20+ years. Oh WAIT, we already do -- let's ignore OpenGL and invent Yet-Another-Standard that no one gives a fuck about.

4. When are modules coming again???

5. Bjarne Stroustrup was so far out-of-touch with modern hardware of the L1 cache that he was surprised to learn that doubly linked lists give shitty cache usage.

Here's a nickel kid, buy yourself a clue.

> They know full well that they simply can't drive through a change, because they have no power to ...

It is not fucking rocket science to standardize name mangling per (hardware) platform -- but keep making excuses for your ignorance.

> ... your a retard moran".

Pro-Tip: Only a moron misspells "moran"

Here's another nickel kid -- buy yourself a spelling and grammar checker.

Like this guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Didn't we already deal with computer nerds and click pens in the 90s?

Goldeneye click-pen explosion

There's some rhetoric floating around making the claim that the majority of people who have committed sexual crimes are that way by nature. In other words: the sex offender label is an inseparable part of their character, rather than just a description of something which they did in their past.

If you watch this lecture by David Lisak, for example, while he exudes rigor and professionalism, he does seem to hold to this viewpoint and does his best to defend it. The only qualifier in that lecture is a single sentence about prison, perhaps, changing people in this respect.

It feels like a familiar line of thinking, though I'm not sure what to call it. It's not eugenics, since no one is claiming that this is purely a genetic problem. Though Lisak, above, does claim that it's established at a young age.

As do Australia and New Zealand, Barbados, Fiji, Namibia, Nauru and Singapore, Solomon Islands and Zimbabwe.

It is doubtful that any of those places appear on US Maps though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

To Catch A Predator is a ratings gambit much like the Dateline shows that catch contractors scamming the public.

Nonetheless, the format clearly catches the entrapped in situations that might be uncomfortable to explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

If you want a really entertaining way of learning about exoplanetology, I suggest checking out this music parody by acapellascience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

See subject & Star Trek Continues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w/ - this episode's outstanding (titled "The Fairest of them all")

* "In every revolution, there's 1 man w/ a vision" & "Who told you that?" + "YOU did..."

(These guys have REAL potential...)

APK

P.S.=> It continues (pun intended) after the StarTrek TOS episode "MIRROR, mirror" (bearded Spock & all)... apk

Microsoft just caught up with Apple..

Microsoft caught up, flew past, went straight to plaid, and doesn't show any signs of stopping.

Apple aren't exactly saints here, but MS is doing their best to make apple look good by comparison. For reference, the iFixIt website gives most Apple phones a score of 6 or 7 out of 10. Not too shabby. Apple fairs a bit worse on their tablet repairability, with many of the devices down in the 2-3 range.

But, those scores are all better than the MS Surface, which has been pretty reliably scoring 1 out of 10 marks up until their most recent endeavor, which came in with a solid ZERO OUT OF TEN. I don't think I've ever seen a device score a zero.

You probably don't have the time for the whole series but the first few minutes of the first should be enough.

In the first lecture of this series, Prof. Sapolsky asks (among some other questions) who believes in free will.

There seems to be a majority of people raising hands.

He raises a finger and promises that that's gonna change. ;)

Add to this, the fact that you are completely made of atoms. There is no evidence for any secret life-force so far.

True, the final verdict on this is still out. But there are strong hints that we are indeed some kind of automata. ;)

Waahahha, too late: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I think the poster basically lives around the concept of Down with this sort of thing...

that one can conveniently sell their soul to? (Johnny Cash's rendition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...)

I have been given consent from time to time and I treated that gesture with respect.

Can't say that for some people.