Google hasn't been the subject of obviously-fake praise on here. Microsoft is the most obvious shilling, such as Asksa here. The pro-Apple camp is pretty prevalent, though with the Reality Distortion Field still holding strong, it's more difficult to say whether they're paid shills or just annoying (but genuine) Slashdotters. I personally can't recall any blatant pro-Google or pro-Facebook posts matching the pattern (high UID, short post history, quick-posted long praising rants), but that may just mean that the Google shills are more subtle, and disguise their astroturfing within constructive comments (or I'm just not noticing it).
Not being able to say for sure why one has cancer or some birth defects doesn't make it any less sad or less of a burden on families and healthcare.
Neither does knowing for certain. Cancer and birth defects are terrible illnesses, but the radiation levels from Fukushima are so low as to get lost in the background noise of, say, radiation from a nearby kumquat. There's no way to say the cancer was caused by Fukushima, and no way to say it wasn't caused by a nice sunny day.
No doubt many of the cancers we've had in the U.S. that were a result of the nuclear testing era weren't identified either.
Given that cancer cases have been recorded since before any nuclear tests, and all nuclear tests and fallout have been recorded, it's actually possible to figure out the probable death tolls from testing. Spoiler: they're somewhere between "nobody" and "fewer than have died this year from cholera".
Maybe the nuclear deterrent saved us, but it wasn't without a price.
Of course not. The United States dropped a 15-kiloton bomb on Hiroshima, killing 125,000 people. A few days later, a 21-kiloton bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, killing about 45,000. That's around 170,000 people who died for the "deterrent". Does it really matter that those people died from a nuclear bomb, or would it somehow be better if we'd dropped a ton of regular ol' incendiary bombs, then kept fighting the war for a few more years?
Say, why did the head of the NRC resign? Bad choices with Yucca Mountain? A bit slow to deal with some vulnerability? Someone under his desk? Poor health or another personal issue?
Maybe it was death threats from anti-nuclear Luddites, or, simply exhaustion from the pressure of being a public figure, or annoyance with the continual ignorance of the masses fighting against one of the most promising technologies of the 20th century.
Exactly right. Functional self-driving cars aren't really innovations like a fancy coffee table is!
People don't really need silly things like augmented reality glasses or street-level pictures of their mapped destinations - they need internally-inconsistent UIs that change at every major OS version! Thank God we have Microsoft to innovate for us!
The choices are to use a key (easy), pick the lock (time-consuming, requires skill, and may be embarrassing to the client), or drill out the plug (time-consuming and destructive).
For a home, it depends on the lock and needs (Another disclaimer: I have a relative who installs and rekeys locks). If someone just wants a lock and a key, they can easily do it themselves. If they want one key to open several doors, some of which can be opened by another key that is the only one to open still other doors, that's probably going to need custom work.
It seems either you're trolling badly, or just misunderstand me.
Here's my viewpoint, with all sarcasm and attempts at wit removed:
Google and Microsoft provide a service for sale, and it's absolutely kindhearted and nice of them to offer some usage for free, so small projects can use their massive resources. I think that Google in particular, by basing a significant part of its business model on "give stuff away for free, and sell to the big users," has vastly improved the ability for individual developers to make more capable software.
If one of those developers starts seeing success, and certainly to the extent of DuckDuckGo as the shill brought up, the site will very quickly exceed the free offering, and enter into the paid tier, whose placement has (I expect) been carefully considered by people with far more knowledge than me at both Google and Microsoft. At that point, where the site has reached success, and its usage are indeed putting a drain on the providers' resources, it is ridiculous to expect Microsoft or Google to give away their services for free. It is also ridiculous to expect that the free tier will be sufficient to support a successful site. The only option that I don't see as ridiculous is that busy sites pay for their use.
There is a middle ground, between the rare queries of personal use (like my aforementioned IRC bot) and the constant use that a publicly-successful site would need, where very few projects reside. This area (between 100 and 200 queries/day, apparently) is where the difference is between Google and Microsoft, with that the shill is trying to emphasize. Since I see that as a space occupied by very few projects, the notion that Microsoft's higher free cap will be the sole enabler of a major project also strikes me as ridiculous.
The locks on your door are also a security hole. Did your company change the locks when they moved in? Maybe that locksmith who did the work made a spare "just in case you ever lock yourself out".
Any time you outsource any work to anybody, it's a security hole. A smart company would negotiate a contract mandating particular security procedures, and recourse if the requirements aren't met. If a contract can't be worked out, the outsourcing doesn't happen, period. Now, in many cases, the security procedures are "whatever" and the recourse is "I don't care", because there's really little concern if your family vacation pictures are leaked online, or if the world finds out you haven't called your mother in a year.
Disclaimer: I worked at a secure cloud provider doing data analysis. When asked, we could isolate each customer's data on a separate system, with its own set of employees who had access.
I meant in the context of a popular site, which will get a few tens of thousands of hits a month... 3000/month is ridiculously more than what my little IRC bot needs, which usually gets about 5 queries a day.
Completely free, up to 5000 per month, which is still far under anything like DuckDuckGo's needs. For comparison, Google's 100-per-day is 3000 free queries per month. Microsoft's free offering is slightly less ridiculously limited than Google, but neither is usable for a successful site. If your site is popular, you're going to have to pay somebody.
Google has nothing of the sort, except its API, which allows only 100 queries per day per account, unless you pay at a rate of $5 per 1000 queries. That's well within most research budgets, and certainly within the needs of most individuals.
That may be a true statement, but this is a headline! It has to be sensational and scandalous, or it'll never get published by a respected journalism outfit like Slashdot!
So play the game, then... Go get your name on the ballot, and run for public office. Stick to your morals, refuse corruption, and play the politics game. Stand in awe as someone disagrees with you, and accuses you of rigging the polls. Hang your head as your opponent parades around that big mistake from college, and try to talk your way avoid talking to that longtime friend who's now asking you out to lunch to catch up and discuss that upcoming bill...
The real political game is more complicated than any conspiracy theory.
Most of my work-related searches ended with "-porn -sex", which I later found out often sent notifications to the IT admin because the AltaVista page itself would then be mentioning porn and sex. He apparently found it amusing.
Neither one is an absolute "governing body" of the Orthodox Jews who, as far as I know, do not actually have any form of central governance, being comprised of several distinct communities who all consider themselves "Orthodox".
And I'll add that this is important because, as a sighted developer who once worked on a website specifically intended for blind users, I know it's ridiculously easy to make really bad assumptions about what blind people want. That design with a list of options arranged to be read first is great for a front page, but gets really annoying after it's read on every page....
These are actual religious communities - not just groups of people lumped together because of some shared characteristics and referred to as communities in order to avoid charges of racism.
And yet, they're made up of separate people. The ones harboring child molesters aren't likely the same ones doing the internet filtering, but because they share the title of "Orthodox Jew", they're lumped together in one big at-fault bunch.
So in this case it's actually fair to ask why these communities focus on a topic like internet use, rather than addressing a wide-spread child abuse problem.
For the same reason you haven't fixed the problem of starvation in Africa, or war in the Middle East, or corruption in government. Those aren't your particular problems, so you work on something else. Similarly, the Jews that care about Internet filtering are working on Internet filtering, and the ones that deal with child molesters have to deal with the child molesters. This might seem crazy, but a group of a few million people can handle more than a single issue at a time.
This is not specific to one religious group - e.g. the catholic church has systematically covered-up child abuse by its priesthood, too. That shouldn't give any group or organization (religious or not) a free pass, though - quite to the contrary: any of them should be questioned whenever something like this comes to light.
We should be questioning the entire human race, then. After all, practically every murderer, thief, and child molester has been human. I'm not suggesting any sort of "free pass", but no group should be cast as a villain because of the actions of a few of its constituents.
Slashdot Mirror
Google hasn't been the subject of obviously-fake praise on here. Microsoft is the most obvious shilling, such as Asksa here. The pro-Apple camp is pretty prevalent, though with the Reality Distortion Field still holding strong, it's more difficult to say whether they're paid shills or just annoying (but genuine) Slashdotters. I personally can't recall any blatant pro-Google or pro-Facebook posts matching the pattern (high UID, short post history, quick-posted long praising rants), but that may just mean that the Google shills are more subtle, and disguise their astroturfing within constructive comments (or I'm just not noticing it).
That's some tasty FUD right there, yep...
Not being able to say for sure why one has cancer or some birth defects doesn't make it any less sad or less of a burden on families and healthcare.
Neither does knowing for certain. Cancer and birth defects are terrible illnesses, but the radiation levels from Fukushima are so low as to get lost in the background noise of, say, radiation from a nearby kumquat. There's no way to say the cancer was caused by Fukushima, and no way to say it wasn't caused by a nice sunny day.
No doubt many of the cancers we've had in the U.S. that were a result of the nuclear testing era weren't identified either.
Given that cancer cases have been recorded since before any nuclear tests, and all nuclear tests and fallout have been recorded, it's actually possible to figure out the probable death tolls from testing. Spoiler: they're somewhere between "nobody" and "fewer than have died this year from cholera".
Maybe the nuclear deterrent saved us, but it wasn't without a price.
Of course not. The United States dropped a 15-kiloton bomb on Hiroshima, killing 125,000 people. A few days later, a 21-kiloton bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, killing about 45,000. That's around 170,000 people who died for the "deterrent". Does it really matter that those people died from a nuclear bomb, or would it somehow be better if we'd dropped a ton of regular ol' incendiary bombs, then kept fighting the war for a few more years?
Say, why did the head of the NRC resign? Bad choices with Yucca Mountain? A bit slow to deal with some vulnerability? Someone under his desk? Poor health or another personal issue?
Maybe it was death threats from anti-nuclear Luddites, or, simply exhaustion from the pressure of being a public figure, or annoyance with the continual ignorance of the masses fighting against one of the most promising technologies of the 20th century.
You're obviously not a real anti-nuke activist. If you were, you'd know it's pronounced "nuke-yu-lar", as in "these power plants will nuke you!"
Hence embarrassment... consider the client's surprise if anybody with an easily-purchased tool could just walk up, pull a trigger, and open the door.
Then consider the client's fury when they realize they've paid for a lock that doesn't actually secure anything...
As someone who once got approval to build a computer-controlled catapult "for research", I agree. Research is good. Shills aren't.
Exactly right. Functional self-driving cars aren't really innovations like a fancy coffee table is!
People don't really need silly things like augmented reality glasses or street-level pictures of their mapped destinations - they need internally-inconsistent UIs that change at every major OS version! Thank God we have Microsoft to innovate for us!
Not real keen on the meaning of "publicly traded", are you?
at least then you know it isn't made from vegetable oil and chemistry
In a modern kitchen, everything is made from vegetable oil and chemistry.
Does HM Revenue & Customs (or any country's tax entity for that matter) report to the IRS?
Probably, if asked. You're just not important or wealthy enough for them to care.
The choices are to use a key (easy), pick the lock (time-consuming, requires skill, and may be embarrassing to the client), or drill out the plug (time-consuming and destructive).
For a home, it depends on the lock and needs (Another disclaimer: I have a relative who installs and rekeys locks). If someone just wants a lock and a key, they can easily do it themselves. If they want one key to open several doors, some of which can be opened by another key that is the only one to open still other doors, that's probably going to need custom work.
It seems either you're trolling badly, or just misunderstand me.
Here's my viewpoint, with all sarcasm and attempts at wit removed:
Google and Microsoft provide a service for sale, and it's absolutely kindhearted and nice of them to offer some usage for free, so small projects can use their massive resources. I think that Google in particular, by basing a significant part of its business model on "give stuff away for free, and sell to the big users," has vastly improved the ability for individual developers to make more capable software.
If one of those developers starts seeing success, and certainly to the extent of DuckDuckGo as the shill brought up, the site will very quickly exceed the free offering, and enter into the paid tier, whose placement has (I expect) been carefully considered by people with far more knowledge than me at both Google and Microsoft. At that point, where the site has reached success, and its usage are indeed putting a drain on the providers' resources, it is ridiculous to expect Microsoft or Google to give away their services for free. It is also ridiculous to expect that the free tier will be sufficient to support a successful site. The only option that I don't see as ridiculous is that busy sites pay for their use.
There is a middle ground, between the rare queries of personal use (like my aforementioned IRC bot) and the constant use that a publicly-successful site would need, where very few projects reside. This area (between 100 and 200 queries/day, apparently) is where the difference is between Google and Microsoft, with that the shill is trying to emphasize. Since I see that as a space occupied by very few projects, the notion that Microsoft's higher free cap will be the sole enabler of a major project also strikes me as ridiculous.
The locks on your door are also a security hole. Did your company change the locks when they moved in? Maybe that locksmith who did the work made a spare "just in case you ever lock yourself out".
Any time you outsource any work to anybody, it's a security hole. A smart company would negotiate a contract mandating particular security procedures, and recourse if the requirements aren't met. If a contract can't be worked out, the outsourcing doesn't happen, period. Now, in many cases, the security procedures are "whatever" and the recourse is "I don't care", because there's really little concern if your family vacation pictures are leaked online, or if the world finds out you haven't called your mother in a year.
Disclaimer: I worked at a secure cloud provider doing data analysis. When asked, we could isolate each customer's data on a separate system, with its own set of employees who had access.
I meant in the context of a popular site, which will get a few tens of thousands of hits a month... 3000/month is ridiculously more than what my little IRC bot needs, which usually gets about 5 queries a day.
Now, now... let the shill do his job and get his paycheck, for the good of the economy!
Completely free, up to 5000 per month, which is still far under anything like DuckDuckGo's needs. For comparison, Google's 100-per-day is 3000 free queries per month. Microsoft's free offering is slightly less ridiculously limited than Google, but neither is usable for a successful site. If your site is popular, you're going to have to pay somebody.
Google has nothing of the sort, except its API, which allows only 100 queries per day per account, unless you pay at a rate of $5 per 1000 queries. That's well within most research budgets, and certainly within the needs of most individuals.
No, no, no.
That may be a true statement, but this is a headline! It has to be sensational and scandalous, or it'll never get published by a respected journalism outfit like Slashdot!
So play the game, then... Go get your name on the ballot, and run for public office. Stick to your morals, refuse corruption, and play the politics game. Stand in awe as someone disagrees with you, and accuses you of rigging the polls. Hang your head as your opponent parades around that big mistake from college, and try to talk your way avoid talking to that longtime friend who's now asking you out to lunch to catch up and discuss that upcoming bill...
The real political game is more complicated than any conspiracy theory.
The newspaper's advertising policies creates the problem. A filter solves it.
Most of my work-related searches ended with "-porn -sex", which I later found out often sent notifications to the IT admin because the AltaVista page itself would then be mentioning porn and sex. He apparently found it amusing.
The event is organized and supported by the governing bodies of these communities.
The rally was organized by Ichud HaKehillos LeTohar HaMachane, led by Rabbi Moshe Drew.
The most recent protection of child molesters (that I've heard of) is organized by the office of District Attorney Charles Hynes.
Neither one is an absolute "governing body" of the Orthodox Jews who, as far as I know, do not actually have any form of central governance, being comprised of several distinct communities who all consider themselves "Orthodox".
And I'll add that this is important because, as a sighted developer who once worked on a website specifically intended for blind users, I know it's ridiculously easy to make really bad assumptions about what blind people want. That design with a list of options arranged to be read first is great for a front page, but gets really annoying after it's read on every page....
Sighted people suck.
These are actual religious communities - not just groups of people lumped together because of some shared characteristics and referred to as communities in order to avoid charges of racism.
And yet, they're made up of separate people. The ones harboring child molesters aren't likely the same ones doing the internet filtering, but because they share the title of "Orthodox Jew", they're lumped together in one big at-fault bunch.
So in this case it's actually fair to ask why these communities focus on a topic like internet use, rather than addressing a wide-spread child abuse problem.
For the same reason you haven't fixed the problem of starvation in Africa, or war in the Middle East, or corruption in government. Those aren't your particular problems, so you work on something else. Similarly, the Jews that care about Internet filtering are working on Internet filtering, and the ones that deal with child molesters have to deal with the child molesters. This might seem crazy, but a group of a few million people can handle more than a single issue at a time.
This is not specific to one religious group - e.g. the catholic church has systematically covered-up child abuse by its priesthood, too. That shouldn't give any group or organization (religious or not) a free pass, though - quite to the contrary: any of them should be questioned whenever something like this comes to light.
We should be questioning the entire human race, then. After all, practically every murderer, thief, and child molester has been human. I'm not suggesting any sort of "free pass", but no group should be cast as a villain because of the actions of a few of its constituents.
I guess that depends whether publicly wearing bondage gear is considered pornographic...