I think you're trolling, but as a FOSS advocate myself, I wish you were wrong.
It's much like the problem of racism. After an advocate sees enough incidents of racism, every decision they don't like is suspected of being racial discrimination. Similarly, the myth that "you get what you pay for" is so pervasive that FOSS is often discriminated against, and there's a lot of money aimed at keeping it that way.
FOSS advocates like myself often suspect a bias in bad reviews, partly because we've seen companies like Microsoft pay their shills to bash FOSS, and partly because even honest reviewers don't have any investment in the software they get for free. They'll often dismiss it at the slightest problem when a paid-for product would get a second chance. There's also the familiarity bias, where the latest version of a program will be rated highly because the reviewer's already familiar with older versions, but an alternative has slight differences that the reviewer doesn't understand. While the two packages may be equal to a new user, the reviewer will rate the one they're most familiar with higher. Since FOSS usually has a minority market share, this bias is often against it.
The best way to avoid the rabid hordes of FOSS advocates is to have a professional writing style. Before writing any reviews, show a history of technical knowledge and a willingness to thoroughly examine everything new. In the reviews themselves, explain where and how you got the software (disclosing any conflicts of interest), and preferably also document how much prior experience you have with that program's other versions and competitors. In short, show us that you acknowledge your own faults.
Generally they are people who have a high level of moral integrity.
Or at least they think they do... but then again, the people they work against also think they're right, as well. Who exactly gets the absolute right to decide what's ultimately "wrongdoing" as opposed to just "secret"?
Bah. Stupid filters don't understand my intent. "Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition."
Until a hard disk dies, or a UPS battery won't hold a charge, or until the virtual machine gets in the way of somebody doing something, or until a subtle back-end architecture change suddenly allows everyone to log in as everyone else, or myriad other problems that weren't foreseen years ahead of time.
It's safer just to sunset the whole thing when it's clear it will never be used enough to justify its (albeit low) maintenance.
There are far fewer things to hit at an aircraft's usual altitude. A pilot's HUD can obscure small parts of the view without significant risk. There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.
The incident I was thinking of while writing the first half of that sentence involved a registry hack that disabled a Windows feature without changing the UI to show it was disabled. The user then later came to my team because that feature just wasn't working right any more.
That broke up the narrative, though, so I chose a shorter example to finish with, and didn't notice the implication.
I'm not saying that you should care about Apple's costs, but Apple probably does, so they have no reason to allow posts encouraging unnecessary warranty claims. You would likely care that you're going through extra hassle when an official solution will likely be released soon. It was broken by software, so it can probably be fixed by software.
If you have any problem whatsoever, use the warranty! Now you have two problems.
Honestly, I just can't get worked up about this justified censorship. Until Apple releases some kind of official solution (which might very well be "send it in for repair"), giving out wrong solutions just increases the amount of trouble involved. Having managed a help desk before, I've seen how often we had to waste time undoing users' community-given fixes for problems, like adding RAM to remove a virus (thanks, Geek Squad!). By resorting to the warranty's options, Apple's operational cost rises, and the user still doesn't have wi-fi on their phone.
Because that's not the point. The rules say there's no cameras allowed, so if anyone brings a camera in, they're breaking the rules. Sure, you can sneak in a camera, and I'd expect people do it accidentally all the time, but if it's ever taken out or used inside the secure area, everybody nearby knows that it's banned.
The policy is really only expected to encourage questioning. The natural assumption that everyone is honest is the biggest threat to security.
Citations? This is a LOT of spending to justify it primarily based on its impact to some gains in osteoporosis and atrophy.
There's a lot more research than that. Those are just two off the top of my head.
...a $150B investment, plus the ongoing costs to maintain it.
Check your numbers. The $150B figure is the high estimate for the total cost so far, including the initial investment, maintenance, and operations, a significant portion of which was paid by private companies and other countries. NASA's actual budget is under $3 billion annually.
I'm not an expert on those conditions, but I'm not aware of any big breakthroughs that have really had an impact on the treatment of these conditions.
And you'll never be aware of any such thing, because that's not how medical research works. We don't just venture forth on a grand adventure and return from parts unknown with a cure for disease. Instead, we'll find, for example, that increasing a particular enzyme will slow the otherwise-quickened progression of osteoporosis in microgravity. That narrows further research in mechanisms that remove calcium, hastening the development of treatments. No, you're not going to see the headline "ISS cures osteoporosis", but somewhere in a research paper, you might see a reference to an experiment mentioning an osteoporosis-promoting environment.
I don't think this was really the reason for building the ISS. It was more about giving scientists in the former USSR something to do besides building ICBMs for countries like North Korea. The science was more of an after-the-fact whitewash.
False dichotomy. There's no reason they couldn't be building missiles now, too, and no real evidence they would be without the ISS. Nice conspiracy theory, though.
Everything short of microgravity can be studied more effectively on Earth. Let's get better rockets, self-contained life-support systems, terraforming, etc all worked out in lab environments.
...but none of that matters once you get into hard vacuum and high radiation. Sure, your rockets and life-support might work fine here, but once you're in microgravity for, say, the several-month-long trip to Mars, you're going to have to deal with debris, dust, and all those long-term biological effects currently being studied on the ISS. Your plan still requires a $150B expense, but you just push it off a few decades, delaying our ultimate interplanetary voyage.
If you can build self-contained settlements that require nothing but solar power to operate and maybe the very rare resupply (ie it grows its own food and creates its own O2), that would go a long way towards making life better on Earth, and it will make maintaining a space station much cheaper.
Yeah, we did that. Turns out it's also expensive, error-prone, and doesn't yield nearly as much scientific results. Then there's still the whole gravity thing to deal with, and a self-contained habitat with our current technology is really big.
The suit, originally brought forth by five software engineers in 2011, alleges that the anti-poaching agreements served to lessen their employment opportunities, thereby weakening their negotiating power and ultimately affecting the salaries they were able to command.
Wait, what?
I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?
The purpose of having humans in space is to be able to study humans in space. The purpose of studying humans in space is to better understand the human body and its processes, which has already led to advances in medicine, especially in the areas of degenerative conditions like osteoporosis and atrophy. The purpose of seeking better medical treatment for such conditions is to improve the longevity and comfort of all mankind.
Well, since one of those observations is "what happens to humans in microgravity under these conditions?", an orbital vessel of significant size and duration is necessary. Once you have that, it's cheaper to load experiments into that than to build separate launch vehicles and try to automate it all. The humans need to do something to occupy their time.
Remember how the US started throwing political trouble at France after 9/11, when we found out they were selling weapons to our enemies? And remember how we've been poking fun at the Russians for years because of their Soviet history? And remember how we've been complaining about Chinese manufacturing and work conditions while still buying their products?
Everyone else remembers.
Our attitude since the Cold War has been that we are perfect infallible masters of all things political. No revolutions, a stable economy, and generally widespread support for our military. Now we've been caught with our hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, so it's a convenient excuse to vent the frustrations of the past few decades. The US has fallen from its pedestal, and now every country we've ever embarrassed has free reign to do the same right back to us. Of course everyone's spying on everyone, including their own citizens, but we're the ones who got caught.
The ISS should be a private venture, as it gives no returns whatsoever.
So in other words, it shouldn't exist at all. What private company is going to embark on an endeavor with "no returns whatsoever"?
Of course, you're only talking about monetary returns. In terms of scientific value, the ISS experiments and observations have been some of the most productive projects in recent years.
So in other words, you have no source for your belief, are factually wrong, and don't understand some basic legal concepts.
They actively opened filing cabinets and file folders and read through documents.
As I mentioned (and cited) before, there are guns that can be hidden well inside file folders. That means that opening folders to check for fake files is almost certainly allowed by the warrant. FOUO documents I've worked with are labeled with half-inch lettering. It's practically impossible not to read the label (and that's the point). Since the officers have a legitimate reason to be in the folder, they don't have to ignore what they see.
You're describing a general warrant, or warrant of attainder.
A warrant of attainder declares a person guilty first, then instructs officers to find evidence of any crime, with no need for a reason. That has no bearing on this case, as the warrant was for a specific reason with probable cause. What I'm describing is a use of the plain view doctrine, wherein any evidence the officer comes across during a normal search without unreasonable extra effort is valid.
Even my senior-detective nephew with 20+ years in LE agrees...
...Good for him? I've also got an imaginary cousin who's a judge, and a fabricated brother who's an attorney and prosecuted seventeen cases just like this in some little town in Iowa, but I won't provide references for those, either.
Why do you find it necessary to so staunchly defend the illegal & immoral actions of corrupt & criminal government officials seeking to cover up evidence of their crimes?
Because there is no such evidence. The actions are perfectly legal within existing case law, and their morality is a subjective metric. There's no sign of corruption, other than some vague accusations in TFA insinuating that it's suspicious the Coast Guard would be involved in the investigation of Coast Guard personnel, and noting that one officer had a history in the FAMS. If they were trying to "cover up evidence", why call back later and say that the seized documents were cleared and ready to be picked up?
What I see here is a routine search that stumbled into an excuse for a public outrage feeding on fears of a powerful government. Daily Caller and the rest of the rage-fueled media are all too happy to spin up a frenzy, pulling in those precious viewers.
So let me get this straight... prototypes and first-run units are expensive? Go figure.
I guess we should just give up on the whole thing now, because of course prices will never come down once the technology matures and production increases.
Turn it around. If they had a warrant only for papers & documents, would that allow them to dig up the back yard and basement searching for guns or drugs?
Yes, it would, though damage to the yard (regardless of the reason) may require special permission in the warrant.
Why bother specifying anything at all, when anything at all may be searched for if anything else is?
Because the whole search itself must be justified. There must be a specific reason to interrupt a person's life with a search. In this case, the investigators had evidence that the journalist's husband was collecting guns, when his prior conviction bans him from having firearms. The police can't search somewhere just because they feel like it, but once they have a specific reason, anything found may be used.
Coincidentally, this is why giving consent for police to search your property (or in some jurisdictions, even enter your house) is often a bad idea. There's practically never a requirement that police ignore something, so even minor offenses can be used against you. Consent to enter (thereby interrupting your life) bypasses the whole warrant requirement entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
I find Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation series to be particularly useful reviews. It helps that his tastes are similar to my own, though.
I think you're trolling, but as a FOSS advocate myself, I wish you were wrong.
It's much like the problem of racism. After an advocate sees enough incidents of racism, every decision they don't like is suspected of being racial discrimination. Similarly, the myth that "you get what you pay for" is so pervasive that FOSS is often discriminated against, and there's a lot of money aimed at keeping it that way.
FOSS advocates like myself often suspect a bias in bad reviews, partly because we've seen companies like Microsoft pay their shills to bash FOSS, and partly because even honest reviewers don't have any investment in the software they get for free. They'll often dismiss it at the slightest problem when a paid-for product would get a second chance. There's also the familiarity bias, where the latest version of a program will be rated highly because the reviewer's already familiar with older versions, but an alternative has slight differences that the reviewer doesn't understand. While the two packages may be equal to a new user, the reviewer will rate the one they're most familiar with higher. Since FOSS usually has a minority market share, this bias is often against it.
The best way to avoid the rabid hordes of FOSS advocates is to have a professional writing style. Before writing any reviews, show a history of technical knowledge and a willingness to thoroughly examine everything new. In the reviews themselves, explain where and how you got the software (disclosing any conflicts of interest), and preferably also document how much prior experience you have with that program's other versions and competitors. In short, show us that you acknowledge your own faults.
Generally they are people who have a high level of moral integrity.
Or at least they think they do... but then again, the people they work against also think they're right, as well. Who exactly gets the absolute right to decide what's ultimately "wrongdoing" as opposed to just "secret"?
Google! Apple! Apple! Apple! Apple! Google! Apple!
Google! Google! Apple! Apple! Apple! Apple! Google!
Google! Google! Apple! Apple! Google! Apple! Apple!
Apple! Google! Apple! Apple! Apple! Apple! Apple!
Google! Google! Apple! Google! Apple! Apple! Google!
Google! Google! Apple! Apple! Google! Apple! Apple!
Google! Google! Apple! Apple! Google! Apple! Google!
Google! Google! Apple! Apple! Apple! Apple! Google!
Apple! Google! Apple! Google! Google! Google! Apple!
Undetectable.
Bah. Stupid filters don't understand my intent. "Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition."
You'd see them hold their hands around the person signing to them, so they can feel the gestures. This is one of several techniques.
Write Once, it should work for ever...
Until a hard disk dies, or a UPS battery won't hold a charge, or until the virtual machine gets in the way of somebody doing something, or until a subtle back-end architecture change suddenly allows everyone to log in as everyone else, or myriad other problems that weren't foreseen years ahead of time.
It's safer just to sunset the whole thing when it's clear it will never be used enough to justify its (albeit low) maintenance.
There are far fewer things to hit at an aircraft's usual altitude. A pilot's HUD can obscure small parts of the view without significant risk. There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.
Heh, good catch.
The incident I was thinking of while writing the first half of that sentence involved a registry hack that disabled a Windows feature without changing the UI to show it was disabled. The user then later came to my team because that feature just wasn't working right any more.
That broke up the narrative, though, so I chose a shorter example to finish with, and didn't notice the implication.
I'm not saying that you should care about Apple's costs, but Apple probably does, so they have no reason to allow posts encouraging unnecessary warranty claims. You would likely care that you're going through extra hassle when an official solution will likely be released soon. It was broken by software, so it can probably be fixed by software.
User error? Use the warranty!
Software bug? Use the warranty!
Scratched display? Use the warranty!
Just don't like it any more? Use the warranty!
If you have any problem whatsoever, use the warranty! Now you have two problems.
Honestly, I just can't get worked up about this justified censorship. Until Apple releases some kind of official solution (which might very well be "send it in for repair"), giving out wrong solutions just increases the amount of trouble involved. Having managed a help desk before, I've seen how often we had to waste time undoing users' community-given fixes for problems, like adding RAM to remove a virus (thanks, Geek Squad!). By resorting to the warranty's options, Apple's operational cost rises, and the user still doesn't have wi-fi on their phone.
Because that's not the point. The rules say there's no cameras allowed, so if anyone brings a camera in, they're breaking the rules. Sure, you can sneak in a camera, and I'd expect people do it accidentally all the time, but if it's ever taken out or used inside the secure area, everybody nearby knows that it's banned.
The policy is really only expected to encourage questioning. The natural assumption that everyone is honest is the biggest threat to security.
Citations? This is a LOT of spending to justify it primarily based on its impact to some gains in osteoporosis and atrophy.
There's a lot more research than that. Those are just two off the top of my head.
...a $150B investment, plus the ongoing costs to maintain it.
Check your numbers. The $150B figure is the high estimate for the total cost so far, including the initial investment, maintenance, and operations, a significant portion of which was paid by private companies and other countries. NASA's actual budget is under $3 billion annually.
I'm not an expert on those conditions, but I'm not aware of any big breakthroughs that have really had an impact on the treatment of these conditions.
And you'll never be aware of any such thing, because that's not how medical research works. We don't just venture forth on a grand adventure and return from parts unknown with a cure for disease. Instead, we'll find, for example, that increasing a particular enzyme will slow the otherwise-quickened progression of osteoporosis in microgravity. That narrows further research in mechanisms that remove calcium, hastening the development of treatments. No, you're not going to see the headline "ISS cures osteoporosis", but somewhere in a research paper, you might see a reference to an experiment mentioning an osteoporosis-promoting environment.
I don't think this was really the reason for building the ISS. It was more about giving scientists in the former USSR something to do besides building ICBMs for countries like North Korea. The science was more of an after-the-fact whitewash.
False dichotomy. There's no reason they couldn't be building missiles now, too, and no real evidence they would be without the ISS. Nice conspiracy theory, though.
Everything short of microgravity can be studied more effectively on Earth. Let's get better rockets, self-contained life-support systems, terraforming, etc all worked out in lab environments.
...but none of that matters once you get into hard vacuum and high radiation. Sure, your rockets and life-support might work fine here, but once you're in microgravity for, say, the several-month-long trip to Mars, you're going to have to deal with debris, dust, and all those long-term biological effects currently being studied on the ISS. Your plan still requires a $150B expense, but you just push it off a few decades, delaying our ultimate interplanetary voyage.
If you can build self-contained settlements that require nothing but solar power to operate and maybe the very rare resupply (ie it grows its own food and creates its own O2), that would go a long way towards making life better on Earth, and it will make maintaining a space station much cheaper.
Yeah, we did that. Turns out it's also expensive, error-prone, and doesn't yield nearly as much scientific results. Then there's still the whole gravity thing to deal with, and a self-contained habitat with our current technology is really big.
The suit, originally brought forth by five software engineers in 2011, alleges that the anti-poaching agreements served to lessen their employment opportunities, thereby weakening their negotiating power and ultimately affecting the salaries they were able to command.
Wait, what?
I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?
The purpose of having humans in space is to be able to study humans in space. The purpose of studying humans in space is to better understand the human body and its processes, which has already led to advances in medicine, especially in the areas of degenerative conditions like osteoporosis and atrophy. The purpose of seeking better medical treatment for such conditions is to improve the longevity and comfort of all mankind.
"Faster, more efficient data centers" are already possible. Just remove all of the Oracle products.
You know, all this confusion could be avoided by having an account and signing in.
-- Ethanol-fueled (Not a signature, just a statement of my condition)
Well, since one of those observations is "what happens to humans in microgravity under these conditions?", an orbital vessel of significant size and duration is necessary. Once you have that, it's cheaper to load experiments into that than to build separate launch vehicles and try to automate it all. The humans need to do something to occupy their time.
Remember how the US started throwing political trouble at France after 9/11, when we found out they were selling weapons to our enemies? And remember how we've been poking fun at the Russians for years because of their Soviet history? And remember how we've been complaining about Chinese manufacturing and work conditions while still buying their products?
Everyone else remembers.
Our attitude since the Cold War has been that we are perfect infallible masters of all things political. No revolutions, a stable economy, and generally widespread support for our military. Now we've been caught with our hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, so it's a convenient excuse to vent the frustrations of the past few decades. The US has fallen from its pedestal, and now every country we've ever embarrassed has free reign to do the same right back to us. Of course everyone's spying on everyone, including their own citizens, but we're the ones who got caught.
Jebediah Kerman does this on a daily basis.
The ISS should be a private venture, as it gives no returns whatsoever.
So in other words, it shouldn't exist at all. What private company is going to embark on an endeavor with "no returns whatsoever"?
Of course, you're only talking about monetary returns. In terms of scientific value, the ISS experiments and observations have been some of the most productive projects in recent years.
So in other words, you have no source for your belief, are factually wrong, and don't understand some basic legal concepts.
They actively opened filing cabinets and file folders and read through documents.
As I mentioned (and cited) before, there are guns that can be hidden well inside file folders. That means that opening folders to check for fake files is almost certainly allowed by the warrant. FOUO documents I've worked with are labeled with half-inch lettering. It's practically impossible not to read the label (and that's the point). Since the officers have a legitimate reason to be in the folder, they don't have to ignore what they see.
You're describing a general warrant, or warrant of attainder.
A warrant of attainder declares a person guilty first, then instructs officers to find evidence of any crime, with no need for a reason. That has no bearing on this case, as the warrant was for a specific reason with probable cause. What I'm describing is a use of the plain view doctrine, wherein any evidence the officer comes across during a normal search without unreasonable extra effort is valid.
Even my senior-detective nephew with 20+ years in LE agrees...
...Good for him? I've also got an imaginary cousin who's a judge, and a fabricated brother who's an attorney and prosecuted seventeen cases just like this in some little town in Iowa, but I won't provide references for those, either.
Why do you find it necessary to so staunchly defend the illegal & immoral actions of corrupt & criminal government officials seeking to cover up evidence of their crimes?
Because there is no such evidence. The actions are perfectly legal within existing case law, and their morality is a subjective metric. There's no sign of corruption, other than some vague accusations in TFA insinuating that it's suspicious the Coast Guard would be involved in the investigation of Coast Guard personnel, and noting that one officer had a history in the FAMS. If they were trying to "cover up evidence", why call back later and say that the seized documents were cleared and ready to be picked up?
What I see here is a routine search that stumbled into an excuse for a public outrage feeding on fears of a powerful government. Daily Caller and the rest of the rage-fueled media are all too happy to spin up a frenzy, pulling in those precious viewers.
[citation needed]
Please, show me what law explicitly requires the police to ignore evidence they see during an otherwise-allowed search.
So let me get this straight... prototypes and first-run units are expensive? Go figure.
I guess we should just give up on the whole thing now, because of course prices will never come down once the technology matures and production increases.
Turn it around. If they had a warrant only for papers & documents, would that allow them to dig up the back yard and basement searching for guns or drugs?
Yes, it would, though damage to the yard (regardless of the reason) may require special permission in the warrant.
Why bother specifying anything at all, when anything at all may be searched for if anything else is?
Because the whole search itself must be justified. There must be a specific reason to interrupt a person's life with a search. In this case, the investigators had evidence that the journalist's husband was collecting guns, when his prior conviction bans him from having firearms. The police can't search somewhere just because they feel like it, but once they have a specific reason, anything found may be used.
Coincidentally, this is why giving consent for police to search your property (or in some jurisdictions, even enter your house) is often a bad idea. There's practically never a requirement that police ignore something, so even minor offenses can be used against you. Consent to enter (thereby interrupting your life) bypasses the whole warrant requirement entirely.
The Slashdotter was Sloppy.