College students who want a minimally-compromised gaming system they can easily lug to their parents house for weekend visits and holidays?
Kids in high school who want a computer they can easily haul over to a friend's house?
Those are two cases of especially spoiled kids you describe, there. Do they drive daddy's Jag to these events?
People whose jobs require "travel" in the sense of "living in some city besides the one where you officially live, for days, weeks or months at a time... but not LITERALLY living out of a suitcase and running through airport terminals every day"?
Those people would likely find the ~9 pound weight of this system to be a bigger hindrance than the benefit they would get from it. Road warriors tend to focus more on weight than GPU performance.
People whose jobs involve "real" content-creation work that a mere laptop is inadequate for, but still want to have some degree of luggability so they can do demos outside of their office without the risk of having it not work properly on a lesser computer (or the need to waste hours ensuring that the demo DOES work properly on a lesser, more portable computer, making sure they give themselves enough time to fix whatever doesn't work if it DOESN'T work properly on the other computer)?
Competent content creators know how to display their content on systems that are not on the bleeding edge of performance. If they need to render something they have access to other more sensible hardware for doing that, and they know how to get those results into a format that a more reasonable laptop can handle for demos.
Basically, we're seeing here an expensive toy for spoiled children.
I'm surprised it isn't sold with Porsche, Lamborghini, or Bugatti logos on it.
I am too. It could really drive down the sale price of the laptop with corporate sponsorship.
I was referring more to how those three luxury / performance car companies (and many others of course) have become "lifestyle brands" more than anything now. You can easily find Porsche branded t-shirts, Lamborghini branded wallets, Bugatti branded sunglasses, etc at every store in town. The brands represent luxury and excess even for people who cannot afford their products, or more so they represent excessive spending for those who buy only the branded trinkets. A laptop that is an excessive luxury item would fit well within that sphere.
In fact people pay extra to have some ordinary item sold with the logo of an expensive company.
This laptop weighs almost 9 pounds and has a price starting over $2,500. Who exactly is the target market here? It doesn't seem that it would be very practical for anyone at that point. I'm surprised it isn't sold with Porsche, Lamborghini, or Bugatti logos on it.
Yeah, it sucks that Samsung won't sell you a phone without it. You can of course buy phones from other companies (Motorola phones generally don't have facebook preinstalled) but if for whatever reason you have to have a Samsung phone, the only effective way to keep facebook from following you is to never use the app. That's what I've done with every Samsung android phone I've had, and it seems to work pretty well.
It might help somewhat that I don't have a facebook account, but the point is the same. They can't track you if you don't associate your phone with an account.
Mexico could spend their money however the fuck they wanted to. If they said "this is for a wall" then Trump could spend it on a wall. It's not a gift to the general fund and it's not taxpayer funds..
Though the very idea of Mexico sending money to the US specifically to build a wall to keep people from entering the US is laughable - and fully counter to the claim that Trump has made many times about Mexico "sending bad hombres" to the US. If the illegal immigrants are so awful, then it would be in the best interests of Mexico to keep them moving, not to slow down their departure.
If Mexico pays for it, Trump does not need Congressional approval
Trump's latest scheme is that Mexico would somehow pay for the wall by way of tariffs and taxes through NAFTA 2.0. However the money that comes in to there goes into the general fund, so no Trump would not be able to tap into it on his own initiative (sans congress) to spend it on his own pet projects. He would need congressional approval. Now if for some reason Mexico sent a check specifically to build the wall, it might be possible to use that as such - though there is a big problem with that one too, namely that financial gifts to the federal government are required to be unconditional unless congress specifically passes a law allowing them to be used for a specific project.
There are still a few linguistically conservative capitalists out there who are concerned about showing their full hand immediately, they use this flowery rhetoric to try to sugar coat their aims. The rest just lay it out as it is - the workers will be punished for being smaller cogs in the large machines while the fat cats will keep getting fatter. Perhaps the former group believes their choice of words makes them better Christians, but they are all playing for the same goal.
is doomed to fail for the same reasons as any attempt at communism that has ever been attempted or will ever be attempted
I strongly recommend you take a look at a colony of Hutterites. They embrace a philosophy that is far more in line with Marx's ideals of Communism than any state that has ever claimed to be following his philosophy, and they are doing just fine on their own. They trade just fine with outside cultures as well. Every large nation that has established a government claiming to be Communists have missed the point and without fail distorted the message as well.
You've only committed today's editorial error, the latest in a list so long that nobody here is likely to have the patience to even attempt to estimate its length. Just let someone else make the next error and this will be forgotten soon enough.
It says SUE. You guys need to get your eyes checked.
You're late to the party, here. When slashdot initially posted this article the headline read DUE. The editor - who should be ashamed of making such a monumentally stupid mistake - subsequently changed it to SUE without having the decency to admit the fuck-up.
The best that employers can do to screen for soft skills is to search for them on a resume, but they don't generally do a good job of it anyways - and they often aren't high priorities for the employers either. As long as the applicants have the hard skills, the employers will often help out with the soft skills.
And this is coming from someone who is working a job that did not exist even 20 years ago.
Even worse, it was now changed without adding a note about the change. Doing so would have had you thrown out of any respectable publishing business back before Murdoch.
Considering the conservative cesspool echo chamber that slashdot has become over the past decade or so, we should probably just be happy that this headline doesn't lead to a Murdoch-endorsed "news source". Integrity went out of fashion around here long ago.
Can You Really Due Fortnite For 'Stealing' Your Dance Moves?
I'm pretty sure if we had a competent editor here this would have said "Sue Fortnite" instead. Granted this isn't as bad as some other "editor" fuck-ups but this is pretty awful being as it's in the damned headline.
As I mentioned previously spammers rarely send the email from their spamvertised domain, so filtering based on where the email came from won't get you anywhere.
They're totally worthless but do congregate spammers in one place easy to block.
Unlikely. How would you craft a regex to parse through the message body to find new vanity gTLDs? It's also a given that they'll play whac-a-mole with various domain obfuscation services as well to make it more difficult to filter out the emails by domain name. This just adds another layer of murkiness to the whole deal.
Actually, no, I run my own mail server and block everything but country codes I trust, and.com,.net,.gov,.mil Everything else (either by reverse DNS or by from extension) is rejected. So adding gTLDs has made it trivial to block a great deal of spam.
You missed the point. The email itself won't come from "bobsmagicboner.pillz", even if it is spamvertising for that domain. The email will still come from hotmail.com, gmail.com, microsoft.com, yahoo.com, or be spoofed to one of those. However the spamvertised domain will be one that is making someone lots of money while that person has absolutely zero liability for what is happening under their gTLD. The owner of said gTLD will be allowed - in perpetuity no less - to sell any number of subdomains under their gTLD as well and will never need to take any responsibility for it.
While the spamming epidemic has been rather awful before, it's only going to get worse. Just wait until the maniacs who always called for public extralegal executions of spammers come to realize that there will no longer even be a mechanism for law enforcement (even at the Interpol level) to find out the true identities behind nefarious sites.
They made a terrible, terrible decision with selling gTLDs. They'll be happy when the money is coming in but the wheels will come off on this con and we will all be stuck holding the bag. The sale of gTLDs is the ultimate win for global spamming and phishing operations as they will be able to start an arbitrary number of obfuscated domains and as the owner of their own gTLD they will be accountable to exactly nobody. They'll be able to negotiate with each other for more registrations, making the currently hopeless game of whac-a-mole we're playing look structured and logical.
Thanks a lot ICANN. I hope you money grubbing assholes rot in hell, and soon. We can't put this genie back in the bottle.
The very reason why facebook exists is to sell the personal information of its users. Cambridge Analytica wasn't a failure of the system but rather the system working exactly as designed. What could the AG have to gain by winning a lawsuit against a company that was doing exactly what they were telling their users - and customers - they were going to do?
Apps that aren't installed have an even harder time tracking you.
Good luck finding a smartphone that doesn't have facebook pre-installed in a way that prevents uninstallation. You can of course choose to not use it (and even go so far as to never sign in to it) but finding one that doesn't have it is nearly impossible.
Apps that aren't running have a real hard time tracking where you are. Maybe spend less time telling your friends about your lunch and less time actually enjoying your lunch for yourself? And how badly do you really need to know the favorite coffee shop bathroom of your high school best friend's mom's sister's dentist's mechanic's veterinarian's daughter? Can't you wait to learn that later?
My son was given a BB8 for Christmas last year. It seemed like a great toy, except it came with no controller whatsoever. Control was done by communication with a smartphone or tablet.
This was - supposedly - not a problem as he had an iPad that we gave him some time before. Except that only newer iPads could control BB8 - older ones did not support whatever communication method was used, and could not even install the software. So we installed it on my personal smartphone as it was the only one in the house at the time that could run the software (even the newest iPhone in the house couldn't run it).
Except of course there are times when I want to use my phone as - gasp! - a phone. I couldn't let him run around all day with it as a toy (nevermind that letting him do that would eventually result in him sitting down and playing games on my phone instead of playing with BB8).
I know there are people who like to give cell phones to their young kids, but that is not part of my parenting philosophy.
Oh, and before you point to the "smart band" (or whatever they called it), take a closer look at it. That band just communicates via bluetooth with the phone or tablet, and then the phone still drives BB8. It doesn't take your android or IOS device out of the equation, indeed it makes it work a little bit harder.
Slashdot Mirror
College students who want a minimally-compromised gaming system they can easily lug to their parents house for weekend visits and holidays?
Kids in high school who want a computer they can easily haul over to a friend's house?
Those are two cases of especially spoiled kids you describe, there. Do they drive daddy's Jag to these events?
People whose jobs require "travel" in the sense of "living in some city besides the one where you officially live, for days, weeks or months at a time... but not LITERALLY living out of a suitcase and running through airport terminals every day"?
Those people would likely find the ~9 pound weight of this system to be a bigger hindrance than the benefit they would get from it. Road warriors tend to focus more on weight than GPU performance.
People whose jobs involve "real" content-creation work that a mere laptop is inadequate for, but still want to have some degree of luggability so they can do demos outside of their office without the risk of having it not work properly on a lesser computer (or the need to waste hours ensuring that the demo DOES work properly on a lesser, more portable computer, making sure they give themselves enough time to fix whatever doesn't work if it DOESN'T work properly on the other computer)?
Competent content creators know how to display their content on systems that are not on the bleeding edge of performance. If they need to render something they have access to other more sensible hardware for doing that, and they know how to get those results into a format that a more reasonable laptop can handle for demos.
Basically, we're seeing here an expensive toy for spoiled children.
I'm surprised it isn't sold with Porsche, Lamborghini, or Bugatti logos on it.
I am too. It could really drive down the sale price of the laptop with corporate sponsorship.
I was referring more to how those three luxury / performance car companies (and many others of course) have become "lifestyle brands" more than anything now. You can easily find Porsche branded t-shirts, Lamborghini branded wallets, Bugatti branded sunglasses, etc at every store in town. The brands represent luxury and excess even for people who cannot afford their products, or more so they represent excessive spending for those who buy only the branded trinkets. A laptop that is an excessive luxury item would fit well within that sphere.
In fact people pay extra to have some ordinary item sold with the logo of an expensive company.
This laptop weighs almost 9 pounds and has a price starting over $2,500. Who exactly is the target market here? It doesn't seem that it would be very practical for anyone at that point. I'm surprised it isn't sold with Porsche, Lamborghini, or Bugatti logos on it.
Yeah, it sucks that Samsung won't sell you a phone without it. You can of course buy phones from other companies (Motorola phones generally don't have facebook preinstalled) but if for whatever reason you have to have a Samsung phone, the only effective way to keep facebook from following you is to never use the app. That's what I've done with every Samsung android phone I've had, and it seems to work pretty well.
It might help somewhat that I don't have a facebook account, but the point is the same. They can't track you if you don't associate your phone with an account.
I'd really like to start with a sky burial. Whatever is left they can certainly compost.
Mexico could spend their money however the fuck they wanted to. If they said "this is for a wall" then Trump could spend it on a wall. It's not a gift to the general fund and it's not taxpayer funds..
Though the very idea of Mexico sending money to the US specifically to build a wall to keep people from entering the US is laughable - and fully counter to the claim that Trump has made many times about Mexico "sending bad hombres" to the US. If the illegal immigrants are so awful, then it would be in the best interests of Mexico to keep them moving, not to slow down their departure.
If Mexico pays for it, Trump does not need Congressional approval
Trump's latest scheme is that Mexico would somehow pay for the wall by way of tariffs and taxes through NAFTA 2.0. However the money that comes in to there goes into the general fund, so no Trump would not be able to tap into it on his own initiative (sans congress) to spend it on his own pet projects. He would need congressional approval. Now if for some reason Mexico sent a check specifically to build the wall, it might be possible to use that as such - though there is a big problem with that one too, namely that financial gifts to the federal government are required to be unconditional unless congress specifically passes a law allowing them to be used for a specific project.
There are still a few linguistically conservative capitalists out there who are concerned about showing their full hand immediately, they use this flowery rhetoric to try to sugar coat their aims. The rest just lay it out as it is - the workers will be punished for being smaller cogs in the large machines while the fat cats will keep getting fatter. Perhaps the former group believes their choice of words makes them better Christians, but they are all playing for the same goal.
is doomed to fail for the same reasons as any attempt at communism that has ever been attempted or will ever be attempted
I strongly recommend you take a look at a colony of Hutterites. They embrace a philosophy that is far more in line with Marx's ideals of Communism than any state that has ever claimed to be following his philosophy, and they are doing just fine on their own. They trade just fine with outside cultures as well. Every large nation that has established a government claiming to be Communists have missed the point and without fail distorted the message as well.
You've only committed today's editorial error, the latest in a list so long that nobody here is likely to have the patience to even attempt to estimate its length. Just let someone else make the next error and this will be forgotten soon enough.
It says SUE. You guys need to get your eyes checked.
You're late to the party, here. When slashdot initially posted this article the headline read DUE. The editor - who should be ashamed of making such a monumentally stupid mistake - subsequently changed it to SUE without having the decency to admit the fuck-up.
The best that employers can do to screen for soft skills is to search for them on a resume, but they don't generally do a good job of it anyways - and they often aren't high priorities for the employers either. As long as the applicants have the hard skills, the employers will often help out with the soft skills.
And this is coming from someone who is working a job that did not exist even 20 years ago.
Even worse, it was now changed without adding a note about the change. Doing so would have had you thrown out of any respectable publishing business back before Murdoch.
Considering the conservative cesspool echo chamber that slashdot has become over the past decade or so, we should probably just be happy that this headline doesn't lead to a Murdoch-endorsed "news source". Integrity went out of fashion around here long ago.
Might want to correct that title. I believe you meant something else.
Hell, it passed spell check. What more do they need? Pass the cheetohs already, the editor is getting the munchies.
No, but it has been suggested before that it we might all be due to do the dew.
This editor should be in deep doo-doo for what he do'd, dude.
Can You Really Due Fortnite For 'Stealing' Your Dance Moves?
I'm pretty sure if we had a competent editor here this would have said "Sue Fortnite" instead. Granted this isn't as bad as some other "editor" fuck-ups but this is pretty awful being as it's in the damned headline.
They're totally worthless but do congregate spammers in one place easy to block.
Unlikely. How would you craft a regex to parse through the message body to find new vanity gTLDs? It's also a given that they'll play whac-a-mole with various domain obfuscation services as well to make it more difficult to filter out the emails by domain name. This just adds another layer of murkiness to the whole deal.
If you're willing to accept the costs of doing that and it works for you, great. Very few people can accept that configuration for themselves.
Actually, no, I run my own mail server and block everything but country codes I trust, and .com, .net, .gov, .mil Everything else (either by reverse DNS or by from extension) is rejected. So adding gTLDs has made it trivial to block a great deal of spam.
You missed the point. The email itself won't come from "bobsmagicboner.pillz", even if it is spamvertising for that domain. The email will still come from hotmail.com, gmail.com, microsoft.com, yahoo.com, or be spoofed to one of those. However the spamvertised domain will be one that is making someone lots of money while that person has absolutely zero liability for what is happening under their gTLD. The owner of said gTLD will be allowed - in perpetuity no less - to sell any number of subdomains under their gTLD as well and will never need to take any responsibility for it.
While the spamming epidemic has been rather awful before, it's only going to get worse. Just wait until the maniacs who always called for public extralegal executions of spammers come to realize that there will no longer even be a mechanism for law enforcement (even at the Interpol level) to find out the true identities behind nefarious sites.
They made a terrible, terrible decision with selling gTLDs. They'll be happy when the money is coming in but the wheels will come off on this con and we will all be stuck holding the bag. The sale of gTLDs is the ultimate win for global spamming and phishing operations as they will be able to start an arbitrary number of obfuscated domains and as the owner of their own gTLD they will be accountable to exactly nobody. They'll be able to negotiate with each other for more registrations, making the currently hopeless game of whac-a-mole we're playing look structured and logical.
Thanks a lot ICANN. I hope you money grubbing assholes rot in hell, and soon. We can't put this genie back in the bottle.
The very reason why facebook exists is to sell the personal information of its users. Cambridge Analytica wasn't a failure of the system but rather the system working exactly as designed. What could the AG have to gain by winning a lawsuit against a company that was doing exactly what they were telling their users - and customers - they were going to do?
Have people really forgotten about this awesomeness?
... although this is much much faster.
Apps that aren't installed have an even harder time tracking you.
Good luck finding a smartphone that doesn't have facebook pre-installed in a way that prevents uninstallation. You can of course choose to not use it (and even go so far as to never sign in to it) but finding one that doesn't have it is nearly impossible.
Apps that aren't running have a real hard time tracking where you are. Maybe spend less time telling your friends about your lunch and less time actually enjoying your lunch for yourself? And how badly do you really need to know the favorite coffee shop bathroom of your high school best friend's mom's sister's dentist's mechanic's veterinarian's daughter? Can't you wait to learn that later?
My son was given a BB8 for Christmas last year. It seemed like a great toy, except it came with no controller whatsoever. Control was done by communication with a smartphone or tablet.
This was - supposedly - not a problem as he had an iPad that we gave him some time before. Except that only newer iPads could control BB8 - older ones did not support whatever communication method was used, and could not even install the software. So we installed it on my personal smartphone as it was the only one in the house at the time that could run the software (even the newest iPhone in the house couldn't run it).
Except of course there are times when I want to use my phone as - gasp! - a phone. I couldn't let him run around all day with it as a toy (nevermind that letting him do that would eventually result in him sitting down and playing games on my phone instead of playing with BB8).
I know there are people who like to give cell phones to their young kids, but that is not part of my parenting philosophy.
Oh, and before you point to the "smart band" (or whatever they called it), take a closer look at it. That band just communicates via bluetooth with the phone or tablet, and then the phone still drives BB8. It doesn't take your android or IOS device out of the equation, indeed it makes it work a little bit harder.