Many states still have the legal doctrine that you must attempt to flee before you are allowed to respond with deadly force.
Depends on your definition of "many". It's really only a few.
Most states, even those without explicit stand-your-ground laws, have legal language to the effect that a person is not required to attempt to flee. Often it is something like how "a person of normal courage" can defend themselves, their friends, and their property. Washington is an example. Although it does not have an explicit stand-your-ground law, it does say that a person has a right to defend themselves or someone else, and in some cases property, with deadly force if necessary. A requirement that one must attempt to flee contradicts an explicitly stated right to defend; they are mutually exclusive.
Any pas key easily readable from looking at a person can be copied in the same way, now you do not just have to worry about paying in a dodgy machine but also waking down the wrong street.
DNA shares the same problem. While DNA can go a long way toward identifying someone from the crowd (odds that are often greatly inflated), they tend to overlook the fact that it is incredibly easy to strew bits of someone else's DNA around.
The only one "desperately begging for attention" here is you. It's the only rational explanation for your lengthy rantings. I'm hardly looking for attention... in fact I'd be very happy if you just went the hell away.
And your links to "lecturing scientists" are rather amusing... including the one where after all you had done was try to attack the messenger, I called you out on it.
The discussion here was not about the hotspot, and you didn't "debunk". You quoted one person's opinion.
Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
I didn't lecture you about what you think. I asked you a question. Which you did not answer.
And you're the one here spouting about time machines, not me. I don't know what your schedule is, nor do I care. You didn't give me (or anyone) any actual evidence that it wasn't you. You just made the claim. I still find it strange how you project your own imaginings on others. It's an interesting (if unsociable) habit.
Now, if you wanted FINALLY get to the actual subject that was under discussion, then by all means: show me that John Cook is not in fact a cartoonist. Or show us that...
Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters.
... as claimed in the paper was true. Show us that the #3 author did not write this in their online forum:
"We have already gone down the path of trying to reach a consensus through the discussions of particular cases. From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow."
Or that Jose Duarte's summation is false:
There appears to be no question that they knew, well before submitting the paper, that they had not implemented independent ratings, since as she mentioned, they were discussing particular papers in the forums the whole time. Yet, they still reported in their article that they used independent raters. What is this?
Those are the only relevant issues discussed in my comments, and you haven't addressed one of them. Yes, you did lose the argument. So what did you do as a result? Admit you were wrong? Apologize? NO, you came here and wrote a page of whines like a child, trying to make me look bad again.
Pathetic.
And finally, stop sock-puppeting as Anonymous Coward. It makes even you look bad.
Oops. Time to correct myself. After a quick glance over (which is all this is worth), I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2).
I thought I had seen such, but it seems I was mistaken.
Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think?
It could be that you are finally seeing the true way of ethical behavior, and replying to my previous Slashdot comment, in the same medium in which you were addressed the other day.
But from experience, I think that's about as likely as contracting leprosy from a wild armadillo... in Vermont.
More likely -- again just my opinion but justified by circumstances -- you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably.
Your comments DO have something to do with comments of mine in recent days which have been misrepresented, out of context. Yet again.
Your incessant postings of things which are completely irrelevant and not even roughly comparable (in context), is just more proof of the impression of "clueless nutcase" your presentation of yourself screams to others.
I am aware that you were not happy of my showing how ridiculous your arguments were on Twitter. But this isn't Twitter. If you're going to discuss Twitter, why don't you copy ALL of what I said here?
The obvious answer is that yet again you want the advantage of misrepresenting things, outside the real context in which you were shown to be acting and writing foolishly.
No sympathy here. As I stated earlier, you have been reported. Your blatantly unethical behavior is being recorded for posterity. Have a day.
No, you don't even have a single solitary example of me using that d-word.
Admittedly it was a paraphrase. Far be it from me to intentionally put words in the mouth of someone else. However, the gist remains... I have you on record belittling nearly every scientist I mention who disagrees with your belief, and putting on pedestals those who agree with it. I also have you on record telling me all about your apparently unshakable belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and that someone who disagrees is endangering humanity.
I also enjoyed (no, "enjoyed" is not the right word, "got some satisfaction out of" would be more accurate) your tacit admission above that by harassing people, you feel you're acting as the point man for the Climate Police Goon Squad. Pretty rich, that one. Not your exact words, of course, but as you do seem to realize, actual context is very important.
I don't care what your religion is. That doesn't give you license to harass or libel people.
"And by the way, if you really wanted me to go away, you wouldn't have written back again [archive.is]." Repeatedly. On both Twitter and Slashdot.
The circumstances are not remotely comparable. I haven't deliberately and incessantly intruded into YOUR conversations in order to harass you, or any other individual. You clearly have been doing so to me. I reply simply to defend myself from your misrepresentation and libel.
Your behavior is nothing like mine. In any significant way. Dream on.
John Cook is not a "mainstream scientist". He's a cartoonist. Get real. But of course, you have seldom let facts get in the way of your libel.
According to many past statements of yours, anybody on "your side" of the argument is a "scientist". Anybody else is a denier.
I have reams of examples.
Further, your statement that I have "harassed" those people, as opposed to just making occasional critical comments of their work, is libel. It's utterly false. And rather egregious libel at that. You're projecting your own behavior on to me, when in fact (again there are reams of documented evidence): I have not "harassed" these people. You, on the other hand, clearly HAVE harassed people. As you're doing now.
Every time you make comments like this, you dig a deeper hole for yourself.
I will not discuss tweets with you here on Slashdot. If you want to respond appropriately, you will do so in the same medium you are supposedly responding to.
Doing otherwise is strong evidence that you intend (just as you did here) to misrepresent statements out of context. It is also evidence of harassment. Which brings up: why have you been so obsessed with my comments to other people?
Cross-media posting is one of the characteristic hallmarks of cyberstalkers.
If?! IF the quote I showed him which I labeled "2013" wasn't from a 2015 paper, then Lonny's comment about a 2015 paper wasn't what this entire exchange has been about!
Yes, "if". Do you really expect me to be interested enough in your BS to check dates on the incessant quotes you make? What a laugh.
But since YOU brought it up: that paper has ALSO been criticized for its low-credibility theory of how low clouds and a new model of convective atmospheric mixing could (unverified and currently unverifiable) explain discrepancies in model sensitivities.
Yawn.
Yep. 2 papers (2013 and 2015) = 2 new unverifiable climate models that disagree with everyone else's climate models.
Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. So what the hell are you ranting about? There is nothing more to be said.
I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. Which by now any reasonable person would have to conclude is 100% deliberate misrepresentation. You can talk about lapse rate here all you want, but that wasn't I was referring to on Twitter, mistakenly or not.
If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT.
You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?
Since my comment about the paper is what this entire exchange has been about, which YOU started by the way, how could it be irrelevant?
It's so utterly, bizarrely illogical that you would rant for so long about something that you say yourself is irrelevant, I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY.
Again, your baseless hatred of Sherwood et al. is completely irrelevant.
Pure libel. Wrong on both counts. First, the things I say aren't "baseless", and second, I have no "hatred" for Sherwood. I've made no such statement, and you're making false accusations again. That's just not despicable behavior, it's illegal.
Lonny, I just showed that your ad hominem is completely irrelevant, unless you want to start accusing Carl Mears, William Ingram and Soden and Held (etc. etc.) of having credibility problems as well?
You showed nothing of the sort. I repeat: my comment was about the paper's credibility problems in the climate science community. It had nothing to do with the authors themselves. No ad-hominem existed. If you don't understand that there is indeed a credibility problem with the paper, a few minutes on Google will explain it to you.
Once again, you out-of-context misrepresent my statements. It's a shameful practice, and the only likely motivation I see for it is harassment.
It's probably important here to distinguish between Selenium, Selenium Webdriver, and Watir Webdriver.
Selenium by itself is more of a passive testing framework. For years, Watir enabled testing by "driving" (automating) the browser, so that you could actually interact with the page (click buttons, select from dropdowns, etc.).
Originally, that was done only in Internet Explorer using the COM interface. Later, a JavaScript interface layer was developed which worked with more browsers (and other OSes), and eventually became the mainstream Watir.
In the meantime, Selenium was developing their Selenium Webdriver, which now does what Watir once did internally.
The decision (a questionable one, IMO) was made by the Watir lead developer to switch out the core webdriver to Watir webdriver. This allows some more flexibility than the old Watir (like the ability to go headless with Ghost), but at the same time it lost many of its important features (like the ability to examine the HTML response directly, which Selenium Webdriver team has long refused to do for misguided "philosophical" reasons).
So, after that background: while Selenium testing framework has been around longer, Watir was the original "webdriver" which allowed your code to automate pages by interacting with the page as though you were sitting at the keyboard. Selenium has caught up a lot in that regard with its Selenium Webdriver (which again is separate from the Selenium IDE), and Watir now (unfortunately) utilizes that webdriver within "Watir Webdriver", which is essentially a Ruby wrapper.
There used to be more difference than just "Ruby or something else". Incorporating Selenium Webdriver relieved some pressure on development of the "driver core" for Watir, at the expense of some the former superior functionality of Watir.
Short answer: not much difference in capability these days.
I was going to reply to you here, as I do have a reply. But I'm going to make it a point to not bother.
If you, Bryan Killett (aka "khayman80") continue to harass me in Slashdot threads that have nothing to do with the subject, or if you reply here on Slashdot to comments made on Twitter, those comments (like this one) will not be accepted. They will be flagged as inappropriate and likely reported as harassment.
ESPECIALLY if you can't bother to stop sock-puppeting as Anonymous Coward. You've been told before that's disgraceful behavior. Figure out why.
They have those millions because people hate cab companies, and Uber offers a better alternative. So it must not be a piece of crap, if people are voting that heavily for it with their $$$.
Hint: It's not the *people* of the municipalities that don't want Uber, it's the *cab companies* and the *politicians owned by the cab companies* who don't want them.
While this is true to a large degree, there are other factors involved.
I agree that taxi companies and municipalities have long been in each others' drawers, to the detriment of the general populace. But there is also some justification for some of the laws.
For example: making sure a driver had commercial-grade liability insurance. (I don't want to go into the general concept of insurance here; I'm not a big fan. But that is the current system, no matter how much it needs to be changed.)
One of the big problems with Uber is that it has wanted to operate on the cheap, while at the same time charging a rather steep rate for its service. And not only that... it was recently ruled (was it California) that Uber drivers are employees, not contractors, because of the way Uber tells them what to do. And I saw that coming a mile away. I mentioned it here on/. months ago.
Uber tells its drivers what to do WAY too much, if it wants to call them "independent contractors". It tells them they must not get commercial insurance, for example... that is grounds for cancellation. It tells drivers they can't have guns... something you might tell an employee but have no authority to tell a contractor. I am frankly surprised this ruling was made so soon.
It isn't just municipalities. The IRS has guidelines for determining who is a contractor vs who is an employee. And Uber was very obviously way over that line.
If they simply put more storage in the damn thing, app sizes would stop being a problem.
That is exactly the attitude GP was referring to.
The easy availability of storage and memory today has made programmers extremely wasteful of resources. As a result, many programs today could literally run 10 times as fast and take up 1/10 as much space, if the developers really wanted to concentrate on that.
It's easy to be a programmer today. It's much harder to be a good programmer.
think about your OS and installed software, and really, think hard if you explicitly asked for them to them to do everything they do. you don't even know everything they do.
You opted in to your OS when you bought or installed it. That's not quite the same thing.
If a piece of software writes persistent-id-cookie-type information to my hard drive, and I did not explicitly give it permission to do that (as I do with my OS and any DRMed purchased software I install... which is damned little), it's malware. I don't give a damn about any other definition.
If I am mistaken, them I am only slightly so. It may be that the standards weren't meant for consumers, but then it's idiotic to use them as consumer standards.
That's basically what I meant: for the most part it makes little sense to use it for consumer products.
The real problem is the utter idiocy of the "IP" standards. They're just not meaningful for consumers.
In fact, real waterproof dive watches are not even covered under this bullshit standard. The scale pretty much stops beyond 1.5M water pressure.
I'm not sure exactly what body makes up the "IP" standards board, but what does seem apparent is that the standard scales have been designed such that the industry can claim things to be "waterproof" without having to actually be waterproof by any standard the average consumer would accept as "waterproof".
Slashdot Mirror
Many states still have the legal doctrine that you must attempt to flee before you are allowed to respond with deadly force.
Depends on your definition of "many". It's really only a few.
Most states, even those without explicit stand-your-ground laws, have legal language to the effect that a person is not required to attempt to flee. Often it is something like how "a person of normal courage" can defend themselves, their friends, and their property. Washington is an example. Although it does not have an explicit stand-your-ground law, it does say that a person has a right to defend themselves or someone else, and in some cases property, with deadly force if necessary. A requirement that one must attempt to flee contradicts an explicitly stated right to defend; they are mutually exclusive.
Any pas key easily readable from looking at a person can be copied in the same way, now you do not just have to worry about paying in a dodgy machine but also waking down the wrong street.
DNA shares the same problem. While DNA can go a long way toward identifying someone from the crowd (odds that are often greatly inflated), they tend to overlook the fact that it is incredibly easy to strew bits of someone else's DNA around.
And your links to "lecturing scientists" are rather amusing... including the one where after all you had done was try to attack the messenger, I called you out on it.
The discussion here was not about the hotspot, and you didn't "debunk". You quoted one person's opinion.
Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
I didn't lecture you about what you think. I asked you a question. Which you did not answer.
And you're the one here spouting about time machines, not me. I don't know what your schedule is, nor do I care. You didn't give me (or anyone) any actual evidence that it wasn't you. You just made the claim. I still find it strange how you project your own imaginings on others. It's an interesting (if unsociable) habit.
Now, if you wanted FINALLY get to the actual subject that was under discussion, then by all means: show me that John Cook is not in fact a cartoonist. Or show us that...
Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters.
... as claimed in the paper was true. Show us that the #3 author did not write this in their online forum:
"We have already gone down the path of trying to reach a consensus through the discussions of particular cases. From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow."
Or that Jose Duarte's summation is false:
There appears to be no question that they knew, well before submitting the paper, that they had not implemented independent ratings, since as she mentioned, they were discussing particular papers in the forums the whole time. Yet, they still reported in their article that they used independent raters. What is this?
Those are the only relevant issues discussed in my comments, and you haven't addressed one of them. Yes, you did lose the argument. So what did you do as a result? Admit you were wrong? Apologize? NO, you came here and wrote a page of whines like a child, trying to make me look bad again.
Pathetic.
And finally, stop sock-puppeting as Anonymous Coward. It makes even you look bad.
Oops. Time to correct myself. After a quick glance over (which is all this is worth), I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2).
I thought I had seen such, but it seems I was mistaken.
Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think?
It could be that you are finally seeing the true way of ethical behavior, and replying to my previous Slashdot comment, in the same medium in which you were addressed the other day.
But from experience, I think that's about as likely as contracting leprosy from a wild armadillo... in Vermont.
More likely -- again just my opinion but justified by circumstances -- you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably.
Wait... I will amend that.
Your comments DO have something to do with comments of mine in recent days which have been misrepresented, out of context. Yet again.
Your incessant postings of things which are completely irrelevant and not even roughly comparable (in context), is just more proof of the impression of "clueless nutcase" your presentation of yourself screams to others.
I am aware that you were not happy of my showing how ridiculous your arguments were on Twitter. But this isn't Twitter. If you're going to discuss Twitter, why don't you copy ALL of what I said here?
The obvious answer is that yet again you want the advantage of misrepresenting things, outside the real context in which you were shown to be acting and writing foolishly.
No sympathy here. As I stated earlier, you have been reported. Your blatantly unethical behavior is being recorded for posterity. Have a day.
Your rantings have nothing to do with anything that has been said by me in recent days. I can only conclude that your sole purpose is harassment.
Your comment has been reported as such.
No, you don't even have a single solitary example of me using that d-word.
Admittedly it was a paraphrase. Far be it from me to intentionally put words in the mouth of someone else. However, the gist remains... I have you on record belittling nearly every scientist I mention who disagrees with your belief, and putting on pedestals those who agree with it. I also have you on record telling me all about your apparently unshakable belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and that someone who disagrees is endangering humanity.
I also enjoyed (no, "enjoyed" is not the right word, "got some satisfaction out of" would be more accurate) your tacit admission above that by harassing people, you feel you're acting as the point man for the Climate Police Goon Squad. Pretty rich, that one. Not your exact words, of course, but as you do seem to realize, actual context is very important.
I don't care what your religion is. That doesn't give you license to harass or libel people.
"And by the way, if you really wanted me to go away, you wouldn't have written back again [archive.is]." Repeatedly. On both Twitter and Slashdot.
The circumstances are not remotely comparable. I haven't deliberately and incessantly intruded into YOUR conversations in order to harass you, or any other individual. You clearly have been doing so to me. I reply simply to defend myself from your misrepresentation and libel.
Your behavior is nothing like mine. In any significant way. Dream on.
For instance: John Cook
John Cook is not a "mainstream scientist". He's a cartoonist. Get real. But of course, you have seldom let facts get in the way of your libel.
According to many past statements of yours, anybody on "your side" of the argument is a "scientist". Anybody else is a denier.
I have reams of examples.
Further, your statement that I have "harassed" those people, as opposed to just making occasional critical comments of their work, is libel. It's utterly false. And rather egregious libel at that. You're projecting your own behavior on to me, when in fact (again there are reams of documented evidence): I have not "harassed" these people. You, on the other hand, clearly HAVE harassed people. As you're doing now.
Every time you make comments like this, you dig a deeper hole for yourself.
I will not discuss tweets with you here on Slashdot. If you want to respond appropriately, you will do so in the same medium you are supposedly responding to.
Doing otherwise is strong evidence that you intend (just as you did here) to misrepresent statements out of context. It is also evidence of harassment. Which brings up: why have you been so obsessed with my comments to other people?
Cross-media posting is one of the characteristic hallmarks of cyberstalkers.
You have been reported. Again.
If?! IF the quote I showed him which I labeled "2013" wasn't from a 2015 paper, then Lonny's comment about a 2015 paper wasn't what this entire exchange has been about!
Yes, "if". Do you really expect me to be interested enough in your BS to check dates on the incessant quotes you make? What a laugh.
But since YOU brought it up: that paper has ALSO been criticized for its low-credibility theory of how low clouds and a new model of convective atmospheric mixing could (unverified and currently unverifiable) explain discrepancies in model sensitivities.
Yawn.
Yep. 2 papers (2013 and 2015) = 2 new unverifiable climate models that disagree with everyone else's climate models.
You have been reported. Again.
Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. So what the hell are you ranting about? There is nothing more to be said.
I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. Which by now any reasonable person would have to conclude is 100% deliberate misrepresentation. You can talk about lapse rate here all you want, but that wasn't I was referring to on Twitter, mistakenly or not.
If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT.
You have been reported yet again.
You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?
Since my comment about the paper is what this entire exchange has been about, which YOU started by the way, how could it be irrelevant?
It's so utterly, bizarrely illogical that you would rant for so long about something that you say yourself is irrelevant, I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY.
Again, your baseless hatred of Sherwood et al. is completely irrelevant.
Pure libel. Wrong on both counts. First, the things I say aren't "baseless", and second, I have no "hatred" for Sherwood. I've made no such statement, and you're making false accusations again. That's just not despicable behavior, it's illegal.
Again, you have been reported. GO AWAY.
Lonny, I just showed that your ad hominem is completely irrelevant, unless you want to start accusing Carl Mears, William Ingram and Soden and Held (etc. etc.) of having credibility problems as well?
You showed nothing of the sort. I repeat: my comment was about the paper's credibility problems in the climate science community. It had nothing to do with the authors themselves. No ad-hominem existed. If you don't understand that there is indeed a credibility problem with the paper, a few minutes on Google will explain it to you.
Once again, you out-of-context misrepresent my statements. It's a shameful practice, and the only likely motivation I see for it is harassment.
It's probably important here to distinguish between Selenium, Selenium Webdriver, and Watir Webdriver.
Selenium by itself is more of a passive testing framework. For years, Watir enabled testing by "driving" (automating) the browser, so that you could actually interact with the page (click buttons, select from dropdowns, etc.).
Originally, that was done only in Internet Explorer using the COM interface. Later, a JavaScript interface layer was developed which worked with more browsers (and other OSes), and eventually became the mainstream Watir.
In the meantime, Selenium was developing their Selenium Webdriver, which now does what Watir once did internally.
The decision (a questionable one, IMO) was made by the Watir lead developer to switch out the core webdriver to Watir webdriver. This allows some more flexibility than the old Watir (like the ability to go headless with Ghost), but at the same time it lost many of its important features (like the ability to examine the HTML response directly, which Selenium Webdriver team has long refused to do for misguided "philosophical" reasons).
So, after that background: while Selenium testing framework has been around longer, Watir was the original "webdriver" which allowed your code to automate pages by interacting with the page as though you were sitting at the keyboard. Selenium has caught up a lot in that regard with its Selenium Webdriver (which again is separate from the Selenium IDE), and Watir now (unfortunately) utilizes that webdriver within "Watir Webdriver", which is essentially a Ruby wrapper.
There used to be more difference than just "Ruby or something else". Incorporating Selenium Webdriver relieved some pressure on development of the "driver core" for Watir, at the expense of some the former superior functionality of Watir.
Short answer: not much difference in capability these days.
Is that ad hominem really the best you can do?
It was a comment about the paper "Sherwood et al.", not the author Sherwood, you bozo.
Now get stuffed. This comment, like the one before, is getting flagged as inappropriate.
I was going to reply to you here, as I do have a reply. But I'm going to make it a point to not bother.
If you, Bryan Killett (aka "khayman80") continue to harass me in Slashdot threads that have nothing to do with the subject, or if you reply here on Slashdot to comments made on Twitter, those comments (like this one) will not be accepted. They will be flagged as inappropriate and likely reported as harassment.
ESPECIALLY if you can't bother to stop sock-puppeting as Anonymous Coward. You've been told before that's disgraceful behavior. Figure out why.
What I want to know is: with all this tech, why haven't they learned make a good website?
Forget Lynda.com. Use Selenium, all the cool kids are doing it for QA.
Not really. The coolest kids still use Watir (although admittedly it is now built around Selenium WebDriver.)
They have those millions because people hate cab companies, and Uber offers a better alternative. So it must not be a piece of crap, if people are voting that heavily for it with their $$$.
Hint: It's not the *people* of the municipalities that don't want Uber, it's the *cab companies* and the *politicians owned by the cab companies* who don't want them.
While this is true to a large degree, there are other factors involved.
/. months ago.
I agree that taxi companies and municipalities have long been in each others' drawers, to the detriment of the general populace. But there is also some justification for some of the laws.
For example: making sure a driver had commercial-grade liability insurance. (I don't want to go into the general concept of insurance here; I'm not a big fan. But that is the current system, no matter how much it needs to be changed.)
One of the big problems with Uber is that it has wanted to operate on the cheap, while at the same time charging a rather steep rate for its service. And not only that... it was recently ruled (was it California) that Uber drivers are employees, not contractors, because of the way Uber tells them what to do. And I saw that coming a mile away. I mentioned it here on
Uber tells its drivers what to do WAY too much, if it wants to call them "independent contractors". It tells them they must not get commercial insurance, for example... that is grounds for cancellation. It tells drivers they can't have guns... something you might tell an employee but have no authority to tell a contractor. I am frankly surprised this ruling was made so soon.
It isn't just municipalities. The IRS has guidelines for determining who is a contractor vs who is an employee. And Uber was very obviously way over that line.
If they simply put more storage in the damn thing, app sizes would stop being a problem.
That is exactly the attitude GP was referring to.
The easy availability of storage and memory today has made programmers extremely wasteful of resources. As a result, many programs today could literally run 10 times as fast and take up 1/10 as much space, if the developers really wanted to concentrate on that.
It's easy to be a programmer today. It's much harder to be a good programmer.
think about your OS and installed software, and really, think hard if you explicitly asked for them to them to do everything they do. you don't even know everything they do.
You opted in to your OS when you bought or installed it. That's not quite the same thing.
If a piece of software writes persistent-id-cookie-type information to my hard drive, and I did not explicitly give it permission to do that (as I do with my OS and any DRMed purchased software I install... which is damned little), it's malware. I don't give a damn about any other definition.
You are mistaken.
If I am mistaken, them I am only slightly so. It may be that the standards weren't meant for consumers, but then it's idiotic to use them as consumer standards.
That's basically what I meant: for the most part it makes little sense to use it for consumer products.
and legal.
The real problem is the utter idiocy of the "IP" standards. They're just not meaningful for consumers.
In fact, real waterproof dive watches are not even covered under this bullshit standard. The scale pretty much stops beyond 1.5M water pressure.
I'm not sure exactly what body makes up the "IP" standards board, but what does seem apparent is that the standard scales have been designed such that the industry can claim things to be "waterproof" without having to actually be waterproof by any standard the average consumer would accept as "waterproof".