Slashdot Mirror

An excerpt from Robin Williams regarding Libya.

In case you were wondering, Reagan crossed the hell out of that line - shooting down Libyan fighters, and bombing [G,K,Q]uaddafi's complex. We killed at least one of his children if my recollection is correct.

Then you obviously missed https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - which is not even much less credible than the usual press coverage on "blood thirsty sharks hunting men". But jokes aside, creatures are posing the very least risk to you, down there.

Do you do so when he invades Latvia? Or do you wait until he goes into Poland? Or even wait until he crosses the German border?

Ah, salami tactics. I always figured watching Yes, Prime Minister was equivalent to a political science degree.

mmm, afaict there is only one somewhat decent public video of the event and it goes from normal on one frame to a substantial explosion on the next and the insiders aren't talking.

Scott Manly took a look at the video frame by frame https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . It's clear that whatever happened started in the second stage, potentially in the vicinity of the fueling connection.

Also interesting is that the payload seemed to remain attatched to the tower and largely intact for some time after the explosion. This suggests that had it been a dragon 2 with a launch abort system on the top of the stack the incident may have been survivable.

Weaponizing your pets

Okay, for some reason, I copied the url to the wrong video... here is the right one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

How do you "distinctly recall" something happening but fail to provide any useful details?

I was (apparently falsely) assuming that the person had enough noteriety that I did not need to. For reference, here's a video from just before last year's election that I was talking about.

I distinctly recall Justin Beiber being a douche-bag but that doesn't mean I think all Canadians are like that.

Fair enough, and perhaps Mr. Oliver doesn't represent a majority of Americans either... although I don't believe it was his intent to be a douchebag to Canadians (heck, I'm Canadian but I still found the segment to be funny as hell), but rather driven by the sheer audacity that such a law would have ever been made. Do you honestly think that he would be just as blase about the USA not wanting Russia to influence their election as he seemed to be that Canada has a law against residents of other countries trying to influence a Canadian election? I'm not so sure...

By the way, how would you even enforce a law like that?

Honestly, I have no idea.... but that's not the point of my question. My point is that it seems kind of strange to make fun of another country's dislike for something when the prevalent attitude is suddenly "it's none of their fucking business" when it happens to them.

In the past months I've seen a lot of Democrat action to disrupt the US elections and cause distrust in a result that does not favor them. Including this "news" article that claims that the DNC hack is Russian government backed even though the US doesn't acknowledge the fact.
It's the Russians are invading our election system, the Russians are invading the DNC and working with Wikileaks, the Russians have covert plan...
It seems that if the Republicans win they will claim that it was the Russians and that the results should not count. And if the Democrats win, the Russian plan was just to cause disturbance and they should be attacked anyway, militarily.

Public Service Announcement from the Obama Adminstration:

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

I closed my node after reading those news. Jacob is a very outspoken enemy of the surveillance state. His speech To protect and infect part 2 was one of the best about the Snowden revelations.

Jacob was expelled from Tor based on several types of accusations made in a website, including rape, intense kisses and crude language (they went for all the audiences). His friends here sort of expelled too when they didn't believe all the accusations or pointed some of them were false (indirectly by claiming they were covering for a rapist and making personal attacks). They went after his other businesses and his doctorate too. It was textbook character assassination.

Write a blog purpoting to be one of their victims
Email/text their colleagues, neighbours, friends etc

For those who are interested on what happened to Jacob former face of Tor that is also involved with Wikileaks:
The weaponising of social (Analysis from some person on the internet)
What has this man done? (On the German Magazine Zeit online - in English)

"I am not a victim of Jake," she told Die Zeit. She says she told a friend about the intense kiss in confidence. This story was not merely used on the website without her permission – she says the story was also "heavily manipulated."

I should warn that they are very long reads.

Now there is an "ex-cia" agent working on Tor.

The person responsible for a questionable website with at least some false accusations and the exit of several developers holds a key position.

There is increased development on usage statistics (that does make sense and is a response on attacks being used against tor - I am being paranoid here, but I wasn't a paranoid enough before Snowden and was proven a fool).

Also, as much as I admire Schneier for his work and would like his addition if it was in other circumstances, something that always bothered me about him is that he always focused on the NSA violations against Americans and American companies. I don't remember him criticizing the NSA for spying on innocent foreigners and on other countries (despite international agreements and the fact that foreigners are people too), I would like to be shown otherwise, but if he did it was tangentially. His discourse has always been that they should do a better job at protecting American national security and companies (and not that such military powers shouldn't exist).

Or even "IN A GADDA DA VIDA"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCkHanF4v1w

Hillary Threatens War With Russia

Seems like she's not the one to deescalate the cyber warfare arms race.

Or this one?

This. -PCP

Yes, it's not completely applicable, but still classic and cathartic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

He did have a quick vibrato, but not *that* quick!

This pop song?

It's livin' in the fridge!

It's just like the trojan horse. The first was a huge success. The trick hasn't ever worked since.

Ahem. You might be surprised.

"Obmam"[sic] did not go easy on executive orders - he started issuing them as soon as he got into power, and unlike previous presidents who used them for small things, Obama has issued a smaller NUMBER of them BUT they have been very large and sweeping in their effects. He has also issued a flood of executive memos (a difference in name only) which has allowed him to do far more orders but provide his obamabot supporters a very dishonest "talking point" abut his using fewer "executive orders".

Since you referred to my world relative to kill lists: I have absolutely NO problem with the bold slaughter of huge numbers of terrorists, and doing it with drones/robots is just all the better. I do however draw the line at killing US citizens (or foreign national CIVILIANS) without due process. Obama could have gone to congress and tried something he has never tried yet - negotiate. The congress and president should have negotiated a deal to change the laws to make it so any American who joins a terror outfit could be publicly named and accused, and then put on trial in court after a suitable delay (allowing time for the accused to get a lawyer and peacefully appear for trial) and if convicted (probably in absentia for all but the truly innocent) with the result being that they are stripped of citizenship and designated as combatants after which time they could be legitimately droned. Obama has no experience with negotiation or compromise. In every fight with congress he just refuses to deal and waits for the establishment Republican morons to wet their pants and give in to his demands. To be fair to Obama: the GOP leaders in congress always fold, so they have taught him that this behavior always works to his benefit. Rather than compromise with congress and create a law that attempts to honor the Constitutional niceties and honor the rights of citizens, Obama gets out his pen and writes a "kill list". Typical, and in-your-face psychopathy.

Funny that when Democrats announce that they are out to block Republican presidents and do everything they can to stymie Republican presidents they claim to be "the loyal opposition" and can be regularly seen proclaiming the patriotism of opposing a President - but when Republicans announce that they are out to stop a Democrat president and weakly feign opposition to him, while actually giving him every budget and funding his every action, Democrats whine about conspiracies and "do-nothing obstructionists". By "do nothing" they basically mean: fail to help the Democrat fulfill left-wing fantasies. The current "do nothing" congress has actually done nothing to stop Obama and he and his supporters should not be complaining at all.

The basic point remains however: If Trump is elected and uses all of Obama's precedents in ways that oppose what the left want, the left will have no legitimate moral or intellectual right to oppose him or even to complain, having cheered through 8 years of Obama flagrantly setting every single precedent, only for his different partisan ends. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Base income to increase employment rate? How is that supposed to happen?
Robots are replacing humans left right and center at an ever increasing rate.
Base income is there to mitigate the effects of increased machine productivity and preventing a rare few from being the only ones reaping the benefits of increased productivity. That's what gouvernments should be seeking to do. But I guess shit will have to hit the fan before anything happens addressing that problem.

Somebody didn't get "basic income". I hope they'll learn before it's too late.

Reference.

Is he any good as a biologist? I have met some seriously stupid people who graduated with degrees (and then promptly failed in the working world).

The capacity to accomplish something correctly is valuable. Proper speech is one indicator of this trait.

Here is a relevant video.

for 18 years.

source

Kill all mosquitos? There are other options...

Humor & insight will come along in future versions.

We're half way there

More info here: YouTube user Scott Manley has a 9-min video with frame-by-frame analysis. Well worth the time.

One thing I learned was that, although the satellite was insured, technically the insurance doesn't "kick in" until the rocket is actually launched, so in this case, they probably won't pay out. (This would explain the lawsuit mentioned in my post above.)

However, I've read elsewhere that they could have done this test without the payload on board, but that would cost extra. It is up to the customer to decide if they want to pay extra to protect their asset. It will be interesting to see how this all works out.

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

Apple should ban cryptocurrencies altogether.

That would be true to form for Apple.

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

I manage an electronics recycling company. We are all hand disassembly, but even we have seen lithium battery fires. The companies which switched to shredding (to reduce labor costs) have had a serious and growing problem with fires from charged lithium batteries exposed to oxygen.

We use this youtube video for staff training

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

The same cult-like left-leaners were trying to scare people about Reagan. Top-of-the-charts music groups like The Police , Men at Work , and Genesis were doing music videos implying Reagan would end the world in a nuclear war. Hollywood was putting out TV shows (entertainment), faux news programs and movies implying Reagan would end the word with nukes. Democrats were running back-channel foreign policy actions to communist regimes all around the world and calling for a "nuclear freeze" to try to save the world from Reagan (had they succeeded, the Cold War would still be underway...)

Their hero, Obama, has given over a hundred billion dollars to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism (Iran) and given them a path to nuclear weapons within a decade. Their previous hero, Bill Clinton, used some of the same negotiators to cut nearly the same deal with north Korea that guaranteed that they would never get nukes - and we all know how THAT ended-up after a few years. Any future nuclear war or nuclear terrorism will almost certainly use weapons created in Iran or North Korea, thanks to Bill Clinton and/or Barack Obama, but that does not stop the left from heaping hate and nuke fears onto Reagan and Trump. The truly funny part is that the worst of the George W Bush anti-actual-conservative "neocon" war mongers (jerks with very bloody hands who should be living out their lives in shame and exile like Paul Wolfowitz), have publicly announced that they are backing Hillary!

The same cult-like left-leaners were trying to scare people about Reagan. Top-of-the-charts music groups like The Police , Men at Work , and Genesis were doing music videos implying Reagan would end the world in a nuclear war. Hollywood was putting out TV shows (entertainment), faux news programs and movies implying Reagan would end the word with nukes. Democrats were running back-channel foreign policy actions to communist regimes all around the world and calling for a "nuclear freeze" to try to save the world from Reagan (had they succeeded, the Cold War would still be underway...)

Their hero, Obama, has given over a hundred billion dollars to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism (Iran) and given them a path to nuclear weapons within a decade. Their previous hero, Bill Clinton, used some of the same negotiators to cut nearly the same deal with north Korea that guaranteed that they would never get nukes - and we all know how THAT ended-up after a few years. Any future nuclear war or nuclear terrorism will almost certainly use weapons created in Iran or North Korea, thanks to Bill Clinton and/or Barack Obama, but that does not stop the left from heaping hate and nuke fears onto Reagan and Trump. The truly funny part is that the worst of the George W Bush anti-actual-conservative "neocon" war mongers (jerks with very bloody hands who should be living out their lives in shame and exile like Paul Wolfowitz), have publicly announced that they are backing Hillary!

The same cult-like left-leaners were trying to scare people about Reagan. Top-of-the-charts music groups like The Police , Men at Work , and Genesis were doing music videos implying Reagan would end the world in a nuclear war. Hollywood was putting out TV shows (entertainment), faux news programs and movies implying Reagan would end the word with nukes. Democrats were running back-channel foreign policy actions to communist regimes all around the world and calling for a "nuclear freeze" to try to save the world from Reagan (had they succeeded, the Cold War would still be underway...)

Their hero, Obama, has given over a hundred billion dollars to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism (Iran) and given them a path to nuclear weapons within a decade. Their previous hero, Bill Clinton, used some of the same negotiators to cut nearly the same deal with north Korea that guaranteed that they would never get nukes - and we all know how THAT ended-up after a few years. Any future nuclear war or nuclear terrorism will almost certainly use weapons created in Iran or North Korea, thanks to Bill Clinton and/or Barack Obama, but that does not stop the left from heaping hate and nuke fears onto Reagan and Trump. The truly funny part is that the worst of the George W Bush anti-actual-conservative "neocon" war mongers (jerks with very bloody hands who should be living out their lives in shame and exile like Paul Wolfowitz), have publicly announced that they are backing Hillary!

The same cult-like left-leaners were trying to scare people about Reagan. Top-of-the-charts music groups like The Police , Men at Work , and Genesis were doing music videos implying Reagan would end the world in a nuclear war. Hollywood was putting out TV shows (entertainment), faux news programs and movies implying Reagan would end the word with nukes. Democrats were running back-channel foreign policy actions to communist regimes all around the world and calling for a "nuclear freeze" to try to save the world from Reagan (had they succeeded, the Cold War would still be underway...)

Their hero, Obama, has given over a hundred billion dollars to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism (Iran) and given them a path to nuclear weapons within a decade. Their previous hero, Bill Clinton, used some of the same negotiators to cut nearly the same deal with north Korea that guaranteed that they would never get nukes - and we all know how THAT ended-up after a few years. Any future nuclear war or nuclear terrorism will almost certainly use weapons created in Iran or North Korea, thanks to Bill Clinton and/or Barack Obama, but that does not stop the left from heaping hate and nuke fears onto Reagan and Trump. The truly funny part is that the worst of the George W Bush anti-actual-conservative "neocon" war mongers (jerks with very bloody hands who should be living out their lives in shame and exile like Paul Wolfowitz), have publicly announced that they are backing Hillary!

The same cult-like left-leaners were trying to scare people about Reagan. Top-of-the-charts music groups like The Police , Men at Work , and Genesis were doing music videos implying Reagan would end the world in a nuclear war. Hollywood was putting out TV shows (entertainment), faux news programs and movies implying Reagan would end the word with nukes. Democrats were running back-channel foreign policy actions to communist regimes all around the world and calling for a "nuclear freeze" to try to save the world from Reagan (had they succeeded, the Cold War would still be underway...)

Their hero, Obama, has given over a hundred billion dollars to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism (Iran) and given them a path to nuclear weapons within a decade. Their previous hero, Bill Clinton, used some of the same negotiators to cut nearly the same deal with north Korea that guaranteed that they would never get nukes - and we all know how THAT ended-up after a few years. Any future nuclear war or nuclear terrorism will almost certainly use weapons created in Iran or North Korea, thanks to Bill Clinton and/or Barack Obama, but that does not stop the left from heaping hate and nuke fears onto Reagan and Trump. The truly funny part is that the worst of the George W Bush anti-actual-conservative "neocon" war mongers (jerks with very bloody hands who should be living out their lives in shame and exile like Paul Wolfowitz), have publicly announced that they are backing Hillary!

Not to worry, Hillary has promised military retribution for cyber attacks. I guess she'll either start wars with Russia and China on day one of her presidency or draw red lines and then run away from them like Obama has.

I did find it interesting. Not much said on the statistical probabilities of such chemical interactions randomly building on one another, but interesting.

I find this interesting also.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You really think that shipping people at supersonic speeds in a ground-based platform of vacuum tubes is ever going to happen? Given the engineering "issues" (lol, to put it mildly) and the delicious soft-target nature of this thing, I can tell you that it's 100% pie-in-the-sky.

Oh sure, they'll fuck around with it and burn through millions if not billions of sucker-bucks, but in reality it's never going to materialize.

See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Cool idea for sure, but it's never going to happen.

Watch this first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Ignore Drew if you like. Just pay attention to Johnson.

The last time a NASA blew up on its landing pad was a Titan 1 in December 1959. Numerous other rockets have blown up in other situations, however on the launchpad during a pretest may be unprecedented.

I hope SpaceX find out what happened.

Oh a good type -1 bare metal hypervisor like KVM and not crappy virtualbox can handle gaming VM's just fine :-)

Linus tech tips tested this out no this ran the real GPU.

With unraid which a version of KVM you can watch the freaky most ultimate nerd porn of all time with 7 gamers 1 CPU with a $30,000 gaming system. Unraid is a distro with a custom version of KVM with GPU bypass.

In the second video each VM did 4K with AMD nano running close to full speed ran games like Crysis 3 at max at 120 FPS and ran 3d mark benchmarks in Windows 10 guests with 4 cores for each user.

So my guess is the answer is yes with the setup like Linus had with Unraid flavor of KMS with running CAD, games, etc. For the record I have not run KMS. I do hyper-V and VMware Workstation. Hyper-V has GPU bypass too and is also a type 1 hypervisor on the latest WIndows 10 anniversary build. I have not tested games yet but after writting this post sounds like a fun thing to try out :-)

Linus tech tips tested this out no this ran the real GPU.

With unraid which a version of KVM you can watch the freaky most ultimate nerd porn of all time with 7 gamers 1 CPU with a $30,000 gaming system. Unraid is a distro with a custom version of KVM with GPU bypass.

In the second video each VM did 4K with AMD nano running close to full speed ran games like Crysis 3 at max at 120 FPS and ran 3d mark benchmarks in Windows 10 guests with 4 cores for each user.

So my guess is the answer is yes with the setup like Linus had with Unraid flavor of KMS with running CAD, games, etc. For the record I have not run KMS. I do hyper-V and VMware Workstation. Hyper-V has GPU bypass too and is also a type 1 hypervisor on the latest WIndows 10 anniversary build. I have not tested games yet but after writting this post sounds like a fun thing to try out :-)

It's a bit depressing the way so many otherwise intelligent people get starry-eyed about this impractical pipe dream. I get that the idea of a vacuum tube travel is awesome to think about, particularly for long distances, but the hyperloop has all kinds of issues that must be overcome so that... what? So that we can travel at a measly 2x faster than existing Maglev trains on a path that's just a few hundred miles long, in a tube that is much more expensive than Maglev track and is much more vulnerable to accidents or terrorist attacks?

Meh. Wake me up when they've figured out how to (economically) build a tube that can convey vehicles at 5,000 MPH all the way to Beijing.

That really doesn't sound anything like a dial-up modem, but I think I know what it is.

It's just the newest Aphex Twin release.

Or Lynx shower gell if you're down under. :)

Oh, and I forgot to add: Trolling on the internet can and does spill out IRL, and no amount of government money can stop it. Case in point:

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

It is fascinating to me that people seem to be advocating that YouTube should force its customers, which are the advertisers; to pay to have their ads placed on videos which the advertisers perceive as a bad juxtaposition with their ads. Do you really think that Pepsi wants to have their product associated with a video titled "Leaked Video of SJW LOSING IT Blows Up In Her Face"?

Look, it's simple. YouTube content creators are not entitled to monetization through YouTube's advertising system. They can still post their videos for free and YouTube will pay for all the bandwidth for serving their video. They are also free to monetize their videos in other ways. Patreon is probably a good fit for video creators with large fan bases and controversial content. They can also still find their own sponsors, but I object to the idea that sponsors should be forced to be associated with any and all videos on YouTube regardless of content.

Here are a couple of videos on the topic that give some context:
Eli the Computer Guy
The Young Turks

Eli points out one problem, though, which is that YouTube makes it hard for people to find out what the rules actually are. It would be nice if they could be make things more transparent.

It is fascinating to me that people seem to be advocating that YouTube should force its customers, which are the advertisers; to pay to have their ads placed on videos which the advertisers perceive as a bad juxtaposition with their ads. Do you really think that Pepsi wants to have their product associated with a video titled "Leaked Video of SJW LOSING IT Blows Up In Her Face"?

Look, it's simple. YouTube content creators are not entitled to monetization through YouTube's advertising system. They can still post their videos for free and YouTube will pay for all the bandwidth for serving their video. They are also free to monetize their videos in other ways. Patreon is probably a good fit for video creators with large fan bases and controversial content. They can also still find their own sponsors, but I object to the idea that sponsors should be forced to be associated with any and all videos on YouTube regardless of content.

Here are a couple of videos on the topic that give some context:
Eli the Computer Guy
The Young Turks

Eli points out one problem, though, which is that YouTube makes it hard for people to find out what the rules actually are. It would be nice if they could be make things more transparent.