Not just HP printers. Any machine which handled broadcast/multicast packets in software had problems.
The first versions not only used broadcast packets, but they sent them as fast as the sender could handle, which was far faster than many receivers could handle. And everyone on the same network segment was a receiver.
* give end users a world with lots of free websites with ads, and a few pay websites that few people use.
I don't like ads either, but I'm honest enough to admit that I'd rather have ads and websites, rather than no ads and almost no websites. Until someone comes up with a better way to pay for the web, we use what we have.
Who didnâ(TM)t deliberately set up a private email server and spread classified and top secret documents like it was confetti to swathes of people without clearance.
This will probably surprise people who only get news from Infowars, Breitbart and Fox, but Hillary sent classified documents to exactly zero people without clearance. But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance and hatred. Ivanka probably did the same, though without an investigation we won't be sure. And (unlike Hillary), neither Ivanka nor Jared had high security clearances at the time, so if might be illegal if they had or knew any classified information, no matter what email they use.
Those who are found in violation of this crime against the government face broad and wide-ranging criminal sanctions
People who mishandle classified information but who don't leak it (accidentally or deliberately) almost always get a slap on the wrist. But explain again how Hillary should be in jail. Bonus points if you spray spittle over your screen.
I've absolutely no idea how I'm going to store that kind of volume of data, it's not like Google will offer.
Are you sure? Google says that they'll store unlimited pictures at up to 16MP, which is better quality than most older film. So.... yeah, they did offer. Maybe not in an uncompressed format or in your preferred format, but probably with way more metadata than you can reasonably add. I don't know if there is a way to tell Google the date of an old photo, but if so, then a search for "photos from the 1930s of people at a beach" suddenly becomes trivial.
I also bet that if those thousands of families could be persuaded to get those images scanned, if they'd be willing to contribute to the cost of the collating and storage costs, that it would seriously change the way the past is seen by historians, family history fans and archivists.
Sounds to me like Google does offer, but thousands of families don't want to share their photos. Seems like someone should start encouraging people to do so.
But almost none of the potentially fraudulent votes were in-person, so showing ID won't help. Nobody needs an ID to stick 2000 fake ballots in a box. I think what you are saying is that you want more government regulation to solve a theoretical problem, when the real problem is caused by other stuff, correct? That's your choice, of course, but I think it's a poor one.
Courts determined that the number of fraudulent votes was over 10 times the margin of victory.
Looks like there were lots of potentially fraudulent votes, but nobody could show that they were in-person. It doesn't matter who is on the voter rolls if malicious or incompetent officials screw it up. And there was very little evidence of malicious activity (though lots of incompetence).
Back to TFA: Kemp's office purged 700K registrations, did not notify them that they were purged, and (from this article):
After he received the list, Palast said he analyzed it and discovered that 340,134 voters were purged when they shouldn’t have been. To do this, he consulted experts who cross-referenced voter data with a number of other databases including cell phone bills and tax filings to see if, in fact, any of these voters had actually moved. Many had not.
I'm curious what system of voter purging you support which has a 50% false positive rate? I mean, government can be incompetent, but that level of incompetence is downright presidential.
Not every one. In this jurisdiction there are more voters registered than live bodies (including babies).
But so what? When people move, nobody remembers to de-register themselves from an old location, and because all voting is handled by the states (and in many states by the county) there is no way to cross-reference when they register at their new address. But that mostly matters if someone fraudulently votes as someone else, which seems to almost never happen.
Microsoft is fighting back with its best product. VisualStudio.
Yay, but 99% of students won't be programmers, so why would they care about (the apparently amazing, wonderful, life-altering, floor-cleaning, and world-peace-bringing) VisualStudio?
Already Microsoft is supporting ssh daemon and incoming ssh connections,
Seems like the first thing I would disable on student devices, but maybe you envision a school full of perfectly-behaved programmers?
I'm so glad that someone wrote an article telling me how to turn off smart compose. I was afraid that I'd have to type "how do I turn off smart compose" into my browser's bar, but this article has saved me all that effort.
He belongs to a party that prioritizes the protection of basic human rights
They say that "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog." But your words show that you're a white straight male, probably christian.
Is marrying the person you love a basic right? Is being able to work, have a house, and buy things a basic right? Cause if you're not heterosexual, that party is pretty sure they're not.
Your right not to be oppressed by your own government is more important than eliminating government regulation.
We agree, which is why I don't want the government saying who I can marry.
Political pressure on companies to preserve basic decency and human rights is okay.
I'm glad you agree with the MeToo movement. Too bad most in your party don't.
A human driver kills another human: the human driver goes to jail.
Almost never happens, except in extreme negligence or intentional homicide. Instead, insurance companies throw settlement money around.
Besides, most deaths due to cars are because humans drive too fast, or too tired, or too drunk, or too upset, or whatever. Computers don't do any of that. There will still be deaths; multi-ton vehicles moving at 50+ mph cannot be safe. But a lot fewer.
Also, if a particular model of self-driving car has a flaw that causes multiple accidents, there will be massive pressure to fix it. The pressure may come from a government decertifying that model, or it may come from liability issues, I'd be happy with more government involvement here (governments are slow but faster than the free market in these cases), but either way it will be fixed. Taking away someone's license for a year doesn't make them a better driver.
It is inevitable that they pass laws allowing machines to kill x number of people. It can be no other way. And that will be a major devaluing of human life.
The question is, will it be more or less devaluing than the currently allowed rate of 40K+ people a year killed by human-driven cars in the US?
And the car owner, and the manufacturer of the car and of the software. There may be many problems with self-driving cars, but finding lawsuit-targets ain't one.
I wouldn't trust those cars one bit until they have been shown to be able to handle freak situations in a reasonable way.
That statement should apply to both self-driving and human cars: No human-driven cars should be allowed on the road until humans have been shown to handle freak situations in a reasonable way. Sadly, this is provably not the case.
Words are hard. And confusing classical liberalism with current liberals probably works on gullible folks who want to believe the worst of their "enemies", but is pretty laughable to most people.
Also, wow, I'm a leftist, but I agree with almost nothing that that video claims leftists believe and support. It's kinda like if someone made a video claiming practicing Christians were cannibals. You can see how they get from point A to point Crazy, but it's not a path anyone reasonable would use.
I agree. And given that the only speech which is "censored" is bigoted tirades and laughably-faked news, saying "conservatives are censored" is the same as saying "all conservatives are bigots and gullible idiots", which is clearly false but should probably annoy conservatives.
This is my favorite quote. It turned out that less than 1.5% of people had to change their insurance plans due to the ACA. Which means that Obama's biggest lie was when he was only 98.5% correct. Compare/contrast with what the current president says this week. (I don't know what he'll say, and it doesn't matter; we all know it will be far less than 98.5% correct).
Back to the original point: certain people and organizations lie because their followers will believe them no matter how ludicrous their claims may be. In the case of most ISPs, the people who matter (lawmakers) believe them because their campaign contributions depend on it. In the case of politicians, well, you can tell a lot about a person by seeing what political folks they vote for.
On one side there are people thinking Google is the new Big Brother incarnate and is driven by leftist censorship
On the other side there are pople thinking Trump is lying, always
You mention those as if they were both equally probable. That doesn't seem a useful way of looking at the world. "Well, if I wrap my head in plastic wrap, some people say I'll die and some say I'll survive. Wow, that's how wars start!"
Slashdot Mirror
Not just HP printers. Any machine which handled broadcast/multicast packets in software had problems.
The first versions not only used broadcast packets, but they sent them as fast as the sender could handle, which was far faster than many receivers could handle. And everyone on the same network segment was a receiver.
I know. After years of just playing games that I don't care about, AI is finally doing something useful that improves my life!
* give end users a world with lots of free websites with ads, and a few pay websites that few people use.
I don't like ads either, but I'm honest enough to admit that I'd rather have ads and websites, rather than no ads and almost no websites. Until someone comes up with a better way to pay for the web, we use what we have.
Who didnâ(TM)t deliberately set up a private email server and spread classified and top secret documents like it was confetti to swathes of people without clearance.
This will probably surprise people who only get news from Infowars, Breitbart and Fox, but Hillary sent classified documents to exactly zero people without clearance. But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance and hatred. Ivanka probably did the same, though without an investigation we won't be sure. And (unlike Hillary), neither Ivanka nor Jared had high security clearances at the time, so if might be illegal if they had or knew any classified information, no matter what email they use.
Those who are found in violation of this crime against the government face broad and wide-ranging criminal sanctions
People who mishandle classified information but who don't leak it (accidentally or deliberately) almost always get a slap on the wrist. But explain again how Hillary should be in jail. Bonus points if you spray spittle over your screen.
That might be because France won't allow Google to give it away for free.
I've absolutely no idea how I'm going to store that kind of volume of data, it's not like Google will offer.
Are you sure? Google says that they'll store unlimited pictures at up to 16MP, which is better quality than most older film. So.... yeah, they did offer. Maybe not in an uncompressed format or in your preferred format, but probably with way more metadata than you can reasonably add. I don't know if there is a way to tell Google the date of an old photo, but if so, then a search for "photos from the 1930s of people at a beach" suddenly becomes trivial.
I also bet that if those thousands of families could be persuaded to get those images scanned, if they'd be willing to contribute to the cost of the collating and storage costs, that it would seriously change the way the past is seen by historians, family history fans and archivists.
Sounds to me like Google does offer, but thousands of families don't want to share their photos. Seems like someone should start encouraging people to do so.
But almost none of the potentially fraudulent votes were in-person, so showing ID won't help. Nobody needs an ID to stick 2000 fake ballots in a box. I think what you are saying is that you want more government regulation to solve a theoretical problem, when the real problem is caused by other stuff, correct? That's your choice, of course, but I think it's a poor one.
Courts determined that the number of fraudulent votes was over 10 times the margin of victory.
Looks like there were lots of potentially fraudulent votes, but nobody could show that they were in-person. It doesn't matter who is on the voter rolls if malicious or incompetent officials screw it up. And there was very little evidence of malicious activity (though lots of incompetence).
Back to TFA: Kemp's office purged 700K registrations, did not notify them that they were purged, and (from this article):
After he received the list, Palast said he analyzed it and discovered that 340,134 voters were purged when they shouldn’t have been. To do this, he consulted experts who cross-referenced voter data with a number of other databases including cell phone bills and tax filings to see if, in fact, any of these voters had actually moved. Many had not.
I'm curious what system of voter purging you support which has a 50% false positive rate? I mean, government can be incompetent, but that level of incompetence is downright presidential.
Not every one. In this jurisdiction there are more voters registered than live bodies (including babies).
But so what? When people move, nobody remembers to de-register themselves from an old location, and because all voting is handled by the states (and in many states by the county) there is no way to cross-reference when they register at their new address. But that mostly matters if someone fraudulently votes as someone else, which seems to almost never happen.
Simple. The GOP used to serve nobody but the uber rich. They still do, but they used to, too.
Close. If you read the article, Google Maps has more detail than Apple Maps in 96.9 percent of the US, but more accuracy in only 100% or so.
Microsoft is fighting back with its best product. VisualStudio.
Yay, but 99% of students won't be programmers, so why would they care about (the apparently amazing, wonderful, life-altering, floor-cleaning, and world-peace-bringing) VisualStudio?
Already Microsoft is supporting ssh daemon and incoming ssh connections,
Seems like the first thing I would disable on student devices, but maybe you envision a school full of perfectly-behaved programmers?
I was worried that consumers were not paying enough to Google for their phones. Fortunately, the EU has fixed the glitch.
I'm so glad that someone wrote an article telling me how to turn off smart compose. I was afraid that I'd have to type "how do I turn off smart compose" into my browser's bar, but this article has saved me all that effort.
He belongs to a party that prioritizes the protection of basic human rights
They say that "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog." But your words show that you're a white straight male, probably christian.
Is marrying the person you love a basic right? Is being able to work, have a house, and buy things a basic right? Cause if you're not heterosexual, that party is pretty sure they're not.
Your right not to be oppressed by your own government is more important than eliminating government regulation.
We agree, which is why I don't want the government saying who I can marry.
Political pressure on companies to preserve basic decency and human rights is okay.
I'm glad you agree with the MeToo movement. Too bad most in your party don't.
A human driver kills another human: the human driver goes to jail.
Almost never happens, except in extreme negligence or intentional homicide. Instead, insurance companies throw settlement money around.
Besides, most deaths due to cars are because humans drive too fast, or too tired, or too drunk, or too upset, or whatever. Computers don't do any of that. There will still be deaths; multi-ton vehicles moving at 50+ mph cannot be safe. But a lot fewer.
Also, if a particular model of self-driving car has a flaw that causes multiple accidents, there will be massive pressure to fix it. The pressure may come from a government decertifying that model, or it may come from liability issues, I'd be happy with more government involvement here (governments are slow but faster than the free market in these cases), but either way it will be fixed. Taking away someone's license for a year doesn't make them a better driver.
It is inevitable that they pass laws allowing machines to kill x number of people. It can be no other way. And that will be a major devaluing of human life.
The question is, will it be more or less devaluing than the currently allowed rate of 40K+ people a year killed by human-driven cars in the US?
And the car owner, and the manufacturer of the car and of the software. There may be many problems with self-driving cars, but finding lawsuit-targets ain't one.
I wouldn't trust those cars one bit until they have been shown to be able to handle freak situations in a reasonable way.
That statement should apply to both self-driving and human cars: No human-driven cars should be allowed on the road until humans have been shown to handle freak situations in a reasonable way. Sadly, this is provably not the case.
It may, or it may not. Salt and vinegar are both very good at killing plants, but I do like my chips!
And it doesn't look like this study proves much.
Words are hard. And confusing classical liberalism with current liberals probably works on gullible folks who want to believe the worst of their "enemies", but is pretty laughable to most people.
Also, wow, I'm a leftist, but I agree with almost nothing that that video claims leftists believe and support. It's kinda like if someone made a video claiming practicing Christians were cannibals. You can see how they get from point A to point Crazy, but it's not a path anyone reasonable would use.
I agree. And given that the only speech which is "censored" is bigoted tirades and laughably-faked news, saying "conservatives are censored" is the same as saying "all conservatives are bigots and gullible idiots", which is clearly false but should probably annoy conservatives.
This is my favorite quote. It turned out that less than 1.5% of people had to change their insurance plans due to the ACA. Which means that Obama's biggest lie was when he was only 98.5% correct. Compare/contrast with what the current president says this week. (I don't know what he'll say, and it doesn't matter; we all know it will be far less than 98.5% correct).
Back to the original point: certain people and organizations lie because their followers will believe them no matter how ludicrous their claims may be. In the case of most ISPs, the people who matter (lawmakers) believe them because their campaign contributions depend on it. In the case of politicians, well, you can tell a lot about a person by seeing what political folks they vote for.
On one side there are people thinking Google is the new Big Brother incarnate and is driven by leftist censorship
On the other side there are pople thinking Trump is lying, always
You mention those as if they were both equally probable. That doesn't seem a useful way of looking at the world. "Well, if I wrap my head in plastic wrap, some people say I'll die and some say I'll survive. Wow, that's how wars start!"