Let's not forget the "patriots" who destroyed others' legal property in protest against their rightful government. What's the difference, anyway?
...the difference is that the patriots of the American Revolution spent a few decades lobbying and writing essays before any violence, pursuing a diplomatic resolution even after the fighting broke out.
In my opinion, patriots don't just promote some message. They stand for and live by the ideals of their country, even if their government doesn't. For an American, that means patriots are the ones promoting peace and democracy, respecting opponents' opinions and their right to express those opinions, and above all else ensuring that the governmental processes are fair, even if the outcome isn't.
There's nothing fair about the process of slaughtering civilians just so your manifesto is broadcast on TV.
If you're not used to exercising, your tissues aren't as elastic as they should be for typical workouts, especially in a gym setting where peer pressure encourages pushing limits. Pain is your body's warning that you've gotten a bit too close to those limits. With pain reliever, you don't get that early warning, so the first indication you have that something's wrong is a torn muscle or immobility the next day. After that, you'll need time to recover, allowing other nearby muscles to weaken again.
Heed your body's warnings. You don't get another one.
...but should a private prison be considered a rehab program when determining whether it's a charity deserving of special price breaks and benevolence?
Again, I'd rather not weigh in my opinion, but I can definitely see some grey area. Sure, ideally, prison is going to the noble cause of rehabilitating criminal members of our society. On the other hand, is it really just for prisoners to get early access to movies and other special treatment?
I don't find it unlikely at all. It's amazing what can be pulled off in the name of a "good cause".
Somewhere in the chain, a distributor says to give the movies to somewhere good, intending charities or schools. Someone further down the chain considers a rehabilitation program to be a good charity, and somebody then considers the prison to be just as good as a rehab program. I'm not going to opine on whether these equivalencies are correct, but when you have a supply chain as long as that of a prison (or any other large program) no individual really has to stretch reason too far.
A drone's life is never at stake*. A drone is never in a kill-or-be-killed situation. If the suspect shoots down a drone, we tack on a charge of vandalism and send in another to watch. Any mounted weaponry can stay safely deactivated unless the suspect threatens a civilian. Then, with a few levels of commanding officers overseeing the situation, the order to fire can be given to protect the civilians.
Giving armed drones to police isn't an issue of having more heavily-armed cops... they already have all the firepower they need. Rather, the goal is to be able to keep officers out of danger, and separate the weapon and emotions. Those of us in that voting chorus want a world where the use of force is not decided by fear or heat-of-the-moment judgement, but rather by deliberate consideration by those who never have to worry about having a target on their foreheads.
* Let's not start making sentient drones... that's just begging for problems.
Congress votes for what it thinks is in the best interest of the general public.
The symptom you see is a result of corporations coming in and saying "we have 250,000 employees, and they benefit from this", which is then weighed against your one signature on a petition. There's also the bias in that no politician wants to be the guy who pushed a major employer out of the region, so there's a lot of pressure to accept the lesser of two evils between "my constituents lose their jobs" and "everybody (mostly outside my region) has slightly worse Internet service". Given that perspective, the politician naturally has a duty to vote for the greater good of their constituents.
We're not losing to the big corporations... we're winning a Pyrrhic victory.
Scratched glass is still glass. There are century-old glass sidewalks that still let plenty of light into the tunnels below. As long as the tile only needs a sufficiently-small percentage of the energy it receives, it will continue to function. Display visibility from vehicles would be the biggest problem, but that would function much like the paint under a hockey arena. Even though the lines may not have perfect edges and appear beautiful, they'll still be functional to show where the edge of a lane is.
So of the (relatively) few people who bought my product, fewer are embedded programmers, and fewer still would be interested in making community updates, and even fewer of those would be likely to release the updates to others - and there's no guarantee as to the quality of those updates. From a security perspective, your EOL device is now far more open to targeted attacks, and you're just plain out of luck unless you install "Abednego Breakinski's Uberpatch 57 (w/ awesomesauce mod)". Sounds like a great improvement.
From a manufacturer's perspective, that would also mean open-sourcing the foundation for current versions of my products, giving my trade secrets away to my competitors. Especially under the BSD license, they'd be free to incorporate my optimized implementations and my secret algorithms into their own products, making not-quite-compatible knockoffs.to dilute my brand.
I might be modded down for my opinion on a technology loving website
With all due respect, I think you're mistaken. Slashdot is a website where experts in one area of technology complain about how terrible another area of technology is, and how it's risky and doesn't bring much benefit.
We Slashdotters often really hate technology, but we make exceptions for our own fields.
I'm actually fully aware that humans are terrible at assessing risk. It's obvious whenever someone complains about the price of milspec parts, which are expected to function perfectly for a very long time.
My point is that it's just not reasonable to dump the cost of eternal support onto the manufacturers, out of some perverse sense of entitlement granting you free fixes forever. There are vendors out there that offer the very-long-term support packages, but they charge for it. The $25 you paid for a router just won't sustain a business if it's expected to eat the cost of eternal support.
If I, as a manufacturer, want to make cheap parts with a limited support life, and you, a a consumer, want to buy them precisely because they are within your budget and fit your stated needs, then what exactly is the problem that we require protection from?
If you can't manage your own risk analysis to determine that you need (and therefore should pay for) eternal updates, that's not my problem.
Or to put it another way, why the hell should I, as a manufacturer, be forced to pay, pay, and pay again for people to make updates for a cheap piece of hardware that barely covered its own cost in the first place?
If you want eternal support, you should buy from a vendor that offers eternal support at a suitably expensive price. If there isn't such a vendor, you should re-engineer your solution to include only components that have such support, or build those parts yourself.
So what should be done when a corrupt system cataclysmically fails the citizens it represents and all of the methods for fixing that system and addressing those grievances are completely fucked over?
First, you embark on a decade-long series of protests and political movements to express your grievances. Throughout that time, you write hundreds of essays, supported by the most influential and well-educated people in the country. Then you maintain peace as long as possible, allowing the oppressive government to show their nature to potential allies. When violence does break out, make sure that you keep to a very limited amount of aggression, solidifying your place as the underdog. After six years of bloody fighting in the streets and houses of your home villages, facing starvation, torture, and public execution if you fail, if you can manage to hold out long enough for allies to come to your aid, and if you can take advantage of your oppressor's reliance on transoceanic trade, you can finally earn the right to call yourself the United States of America.
Then two hundred years later, the citizens you fought so bravely for can start more violence because they can't be bothered to understand how your new government works, but they do understand that you gave them guns.
Well, yes... but trains are romantic. Pipelines are big and ugly tubes running over the land, requiring destroying thousands of acres of forests, while train tracks just require a few rails. Pipelines require maintaining hundreds of miles of pipe (at which, of course, we know technology will fail), while train cars are nice, small, human-manageable pieces that can be inspected with just a quick visual check. Pipelines are managed by people in suits in a remote office in a big city somewhere. Trains are run by engineers who wave at the kids as they go by.
At least, that's how the narrative goes...
Disclaimer: I'm not trolling. Every one of those are claims I've heard from my anti-pipeline friends, who don't realize how wrong they are.
We don't need no regulation
We don't need no quality control
No background checks in the taxis
Melbourne leave those cars alone
Hey, Melbourne, leave those cars alone!
All in all it's just another car on the road
All in all you're just another car on the road
AC above is actually fairly close. People in STEM tend to have been outcasts, and therefore are often (from what I've seen) more accepting of others' oddities. This in turn draws more "odd" folks into STEM, reinforcing the cycle. Theatre sees a similar effect.
It's not perfect, of course. For example, discrimination by gender is still prevalent. There's also a risk that with the current widespread promotion of STEM, that accepting aspect of our culture will be lost.
Yes, you are, since part of DHS's tactic is to stop those Evil Bad Nasty Tur'rists from getting their hands on American technology. That means making sure the brilliant foreign minds come to American companies, rather than going back and starting or supporting foreign think tanks.
While here they may have access to American technology, but it's more difficult for the foreign governments (and others) to get access to it.
Not by a number-of-new-projects metric. They're popular in the "build a giant flagship product" world, but by sheer number of projects, I'd expect them to be pretty small. They're not the kind of language where you can just slap pieces together and do a job, like Ruby, Python, or Perl tend to advocate. Rather, they're elegant for larger projects. A comparison by lines of code would show the C family in a much more favorable light.
CSS is a programing language?
Yes. It's not Turing-complete, but it's still a language for defining instructions.
Slashdot Mirror
That was Ted Kaczynski. McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber.
Let's not forget the "patriots" who destroyed others' legal property in protest against their rightful government. What's the difference, anyway?
...the difference is that the patriots of the American Revolution spent a few decades lobbying and writing essays before any violence, pursuing a diplomatic resolution even after the fighting broke out.
In my opinion, patriots don't just promote some message. They stand for and live by the ideals of their country, even if their government doesn't. For an American, that means patriots are the ones promoting peace and democracy, respecting opponents' opinions and their right to express those opinions, and above all else ensuring that the governmental processes are fair, even if the outcome isn't.
There's nothing fair about the process of slaughtering civilians just so your manifesto is broadcast on TV.
This is a terrible idea.
If you're not used to exercising, your tissues aren't as elastic as they should be for typical workouts, especially in a gym setting where peer pressure encourages pushing limits. Pain is your body's warning that you've gotten a bit too close to those limits. With pain reliever, you don't get that early warning, so the first indication you have that something's wrong is a torn muscle or immobility the next day. After that, you'll need time to recover, allowing other nearby muscles to weaken again.
Heed your body's warnings. You don't get another one.
...but should a private prison be considered a rehab program when determining whether it's a charity deserving of special price breaks and benevolence?
Again, I'd rather not weigh in my opinion, but I can definitely see some grey area. Sure, ideally, prison is going to the noble cause of rehabilitating criminal members of our society. On the other hand, is it really just for prisoners to get early access to movies and other special treatment?
Sure there is. They prefer different ways to screw over different groups of people.
I don't find it unlikely at all. It's amazing what can be pulled off in the name of a "good cause".
Somewhere in the chain, a distributor says to give the movies to somewhere good, intending charities or schools. Someone further down the chain considers a rehabilitation program to be a good charity, and somebody then considers the prison to be just as good as a rehab program. I'm not going to opine on whether these equivalencies are correct, but when you have a supply chain as long as that of a prison (or any other large program) no individual really has to stretch reason too far.
I'm usually a member of that chorus.
A drone's life is never at stake*. A drone is never in a kill-or-be-killed situation. If the suspect shoots down a drone, we tack on a charge of vandalism and send in another to watch. Any mounted weaponry can stay safely deactivated unless the suspect threatens a civilian. Then, with a few levels of commanding officers overseeing the situation, the order to fire can be given to protect the civilians.
Giving armed drones to police isn't an issue of having more heavily-armed cops... they already have all the firepower they need. Rather, the goal is to be able to keep officers out of danger, and separate the weapon and emotions. Those of us in that voting chorus want a world where the use of force is not decided by fear or heat-of-the-moment judgement, but rather by deliberate consideration by those who never have to worry about having a target on their foreheads.
* Let's not start making sentient drones... that's just begging for problems.
Congress votes for what it thinks is in the best interest of the general public.
The symptom you see is a result of corporations coming in and saying "we have 250,000 employees, and they benefit from this", which is then weighed against your one signature on a petition. There's also the bias in that no politician wants to be the guy who pushed a major employer out of the region, so there's a lot of pressure to accept the lesser of two evils between "my constituents lose their jobs" and "everybody (mostly outside my region) has slightly worse Internet service". Given that perspective, the politician naturally has a duty to vote for the greater good of their constituents.
We're not losing to the big corporations... we're winning a Pyrrhic victory.
Why do scratches need to be prevented?
Scratched glass is still glass. There are century-old glass sidewalks that still let plenty of light into the tunnels below. As long as the tile only needs a sufficiently-small percentage of the energy it receives, it will continue to function. Display visibility from vehicles would be the biggest problem, but that would function much like the paint under a hockey arena. Even though the lines may not have perfect edges and appear beautiful, they'll still be functional to show where the edge of a lane is.
So of the (relatively) few people who bought my product, fewer are embedded programmers, and fewer still would be interested in making community updates, and even fewer of those would be likely to release the updates to others - and there's no guarantee as to the quality of those updates. From a security perspective, your EOL device is now far more open to targeted attacks, and you're just plain out of luck unless you install "Abednego Breakinski's Uberpatch 57 (w/ awesomesauce mod)". Sounds like a great improvement.
From a manufacturer's perspective, that would also mean open-sourcing the foundation for current versions of my products, giving my trade secrets away to my competitors. Especially under the BSD license, they'd be free to incorporate my optimized implementations and my secret algorithms into their own products, making not-quite-compatible knockoffs.to dilute my brand.
It's a lose-lose situation.
Related: Would you structure the space program now to eventually support an interstellar program?
I might be modded down for my opinion on a technology loving website
With all due respect, I think you're mistaken. Slashdot is a website where experts in one area of technology complain about how terrible another area of technology is, and how it's risky and doesn't bring much benefit.
We Slashdotters often really hate technology, but we make exceptions for our own fields.
I'm actually fully aware that humans are terrible at assessing risk. It's obvious whenever someone complains about the price of milspec parts, which are expected to function perfectly for a very long time.
My point is that it's just not reasonable to dump the cost of eternal support onto the manufacturers, out of some perverse sense of entitlement granting you free fixes forever. There are vendors out there that offer the very-long-term support packages, but they charge for it. The $25 you paid for a router just won't sustain a business if it's expected to eat the cost of eternal support.
Who said anything about "protection?"
If I, as a manufacturer, want to make cheap parts with a limited support life, and you, a a consumer, want to buy them precisely because they are within your budget and fit your stated needs, then what exactly is the problem that we require protection from?
If you can't manage your own risk analysis to determine that you need (and therefore should pay for) eternal updates, that's not my problem.
Or to put it another way, why the hell should I, as a manufacturer, be forced to pay, pay, and pay again for people to make updates for a cheap piece of hardware that barely covered its own cost in the first place?
If you want eternal support, you should buy from a vendor that offers eternal support at a suitably expensive price. If there isn't such a vendor, you should re-engineer your solution to include only components that have such support, or build those parts yourself.
Or perhaps maintaining a rarely-used feature just cost more than it was worth. SMS gateways aren't particularly cheap, from what I've heard.
So what should be done when a corrupt system cataclysmically fails the citizens it represents and all of the methods for fixing that system and addressing those grievances are completely fucked over?
First, you embark on a decade-long series of protests and political movements to express your grievances. Throughout that time, you write hundreds of essays, supported by the most influential and well-educated people in the country. Then you maintain peace as long as possible, allowing the oppressive government to show their nature to potential allies. When violence does break out, make sure that you keep to a very limited amount of aggression, solidifying your place as the underdog. After six years of bloody fighting in the streets and houses of your home villages, facing starvation, torture, and public execution if you fail, if you can manage to hold out long enough for allies to come to your aid, and if you can take advantage of your oppressor's reliance on transoceanic trade, you can finally earn the right to call yourself the United States of America.
Then two hundred years later, the citizens you fought so bravely for can start more violence because they can't be bothered to understand how your new government works, but they do understand that you gave them guns.
Sure, just as soon as you describe the process exactly, highlighting exactly what makes your method unique.
I nominate Justin Beiber for this heroic endeavor.
Well, yes... but trains are romantic. Pipelines are big and ugly tubes running over the land, requiring destroying thousands of acres of forests, while train tracks just require a few rails. Pipelines require maintaining hundreds of miles of pipe (at which, of course, we know technology will fail), while train cars are nice, small, human-manageable pieces that can be inspected with just a quick visual check. Pipelines are managed by people in suits in a remote office in a big city somewhere. Trains are run by engineers who wave at the kids as they go by.
At least, that's how the narrative goes...
Disclaimer: I'm not trolling. Every one of those are claims I've heard from my anti-pipeline friends, who don't realize how wrong they are.
I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say. Reading TFS, "We don't need no regulation" came into my head, and the rest just followed.
Refine as you like to suit your taste.
We don't need no regulation
We don't need no quality control
No background checks in the taxis
Melbourne leave those cars alone
Hey, Melbourne, leave those cars alone!
All in all it's just another car on the road
All in all you're just another car on the road
AC above is actually fairly close. People in STEM tend to have been outcasts, and therefore are often (from what I've seen) more accepting of others' oddities. This in turn draws more "odd" folks into STEM, reinforcing the cycle. Theatre sees a similar effect.
It's not perfect, of course. For example, discrimination by gender is still prevalent. There's also a risk that with the current widespread promotion of STEM, that accepting aspect of our culture will be lost.
Yes, you are, since part of DHS's tactic is to stop those Evil Bad Nasty Tur'rists from getting their hands on American technology. That means making sure the brilliant foreign minds come to American companies, rather than going back and starting or supporting foreign think tanks.
While here they may have access to American technology, but it's more difficult for the foreign governments (and others) to get access to it.
Yep C++, C, Objective-C, and C# are not popular?
Not by a number-of-new-projects metric. They're popular in the "build a giant flagship product" world, but by sheer number of projects, I'd expect them to be pretty small. They're not the kind of language where you can just slap pieces together and do a job, like Ruby, Python, or Perl tend to advocate. Rather, they're elegant for larger projects. A comparison by lines of code would show the C family in a much more favorable light.
CSS is a programing language?
Yes. It's not Turing-complete, but it's still a language for defining instructions.