For fuck sake, this is the slander! The left turns to this tactic when it cannot argue with a logical thought out claim. What you are attempting to do is paint every person on the right as some kind of racist/xenophobe.
Nope. This is the slander. When you take a carefully thought out comment noting that some people in the alt-right movement are actively using the rhetoric of hate, and then claim that I said everyone on the right is that way. I did not. There are some who do. Many of those folks have gone so far across the line that they have gotten banned from platform after platform. Pro tip: If you've been banned more than once, it probably isn't because of your political views.
censorship was shunned by the founding fathers because THEY KNEW the value of competing ideas in a free society.
The founding fathers were against government censorship, because only the government has the power to censor people in a way that has the force of law behind it, creating a chilling effect that leaves people in fear of trying to spread their competing ideas.
What you are talking about is not censorship, but rather the right to refuse publication. In the era of the founding fathers, printers chose what they would and would not print. If you wanted to print something else, you bought your own printing press and printed it yourself. In the same way, people with non-mainstream ideas, no matter how extreme those ideas might be, are also free to buy their own servers and publish content themselves.
Unfortunately, what you and many on the far right are advocating is an entirely different sort of law. It would be akin to the founding fathers requiring printing presses to print anything for anyone who is willing to pay. Now I don't know about anybody else, but find it really ironic that people on the right are against any regulation of businesses all the way up until suddenly a few businesses start to say that some of their rhetoric crosses a line into unacceptable troll behavior and insist that they take it somewhere else, and suddenly those ultra-right folks want new regulations on businesses so that they can publish whatever they want on any service that they want, even if the people who own that service and the overwhelming majority of users on that service (including most Republicans) want them to go away.
Sorry, but that's not the way the real world works. In the real world, you have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to free speech on someone else's dime. Period. Full stop. And I'm sorry if that hurts your precious little conservative snowflake ego, but too bad. And just to be clear, I would say precisely the same thing if it were a leftist making similar statements. The alt-left and alt-right are basically equally harmful to a functioning society. The only real difference is that the alt-left don't whine "they're censoring me" every time they get kicked off of a major service. They just find another rock to hide under. For all the people on the right complaining about liberals being a bunch of whiners, the right sure does whine a lot. Just food for thought.
And for fuck sake, the Nazi's were socialists.
Pretty much, and that largely reflects European politics in general. Had they stuck to those parts of their platform instead of slipping in the whole "master race" thing and trying to conquer Europe, they would probably still be the centrist party of Germany today. After all, Europe is still quite socialist, at least when compared with the United States. But, of course, that wasn't the point of their platform. They just used those points to push through their radical antisemitic agenda.
In fact the brown shirt facists of Italy look a lot like antifa today... in fact they are exactly the same.
All movements like that, regardless of politics, look an awful lot alike. For them, politics are merely a tool to enable people who crave power to take it. The purpose of voting is to at least try to keep people who crave power from taking it.
The biggest spike has been among Republicans, presumably because of increased concern about perceived censorship of conservative voices on social media.
They ARE censoring, shadow banning, banning, suspending etc
... people who are committing acts of egregious, extremist hate speech. Are you saying that conservative beliefs are based on hate? Because a lot of Christian conservatives are going to have a real problem with that characterization.
Racism, homophobia, and threats of violence are not indicative of what it means to be conservative any more than marching in topless protests are indicative of what it means to be liberal. The people who do those things just happen to fly that particular banner in this country right now. Just a few decades ago, it was mostly people on the left who were racist. In another hundred years, they'll have moved on to some other party.
There will always be people who can't deal with people who they perceive as being "not like them". At best, this should be tolerated, at worst, shunned or blocked entirely. Supporting people who act like that merely because they happen to agree with you on some issues is really no different than supporting the Nazi Party (NSDAP) merely because you believed in German reunification with the other German-speaking parts of Europe, immigration reform, elimination of indentured servitude, welfare programs for the elderly, government support for small businesses, eliminating property taxes, replacing civil law (like most countries use) with common law (like what the U.S., Great Britain, and their former colonies/possessions use), building up the nation's education system, free college tuition for high-intelligence people without adequate means, banning child labor, encouraging physical fitness in children, abolishing mercenary groups, forming a national army, stamping out libel, and a strong central government.
The Nazi Party actually had a lot of things that superficially looked like good ideas. Evil people don't win people over by being purely evil. They do it by telling you they're going to make your country rise to its full potential, to make it great again, to fix your infrastructure, to improve education, etc. But when they also spew lies and hate speech (and pretty much everybody can recognize the small minority of very vocal "conservative" voices who do exactly that), they cross a line, and those particular people should not have our support, even if we agree with their position on everything else. There are a few positions that simply cannot be tolerated in politics, and in my opinion, those clearly qualify.
The fact that one such xenophobe managed to make it to our nation's highest office will be a great source of national shame for decades to come. The fact that he has not managed to destroy our democracy as Hitler did, nor fully convert members of his own party to that xenophobia, nor defeat the separation of powers intended by the founding fathers to prevent any one person from having too much power, by contrast, will be a source of national pride for at least as long. I said two years ago that if Trump became President, it would be the truest test of our constitutional democracy that this country had ever seen, and I've been proven correct time and time again, but the foundation of our nation holds, and that is a true testament to the wisdom of the founding fathers. There is still no wall. There is still no possibility of a wall. There is no sweeping ban on Muslim immigration. Appalling border enforcement situations have been exposed and acted upon harshly. The lunatics are still not running the asylum. And that is as it should be.
Yeah, I don't get that complaint, either. This isn't at all like buying stock based on knowledge of what a company is about to do.
if a company announces that it is going to do something amazing in two years, that company's stock will rise immediately on expectation of that future profit, thanks to rampant speculation and broad global demand. The information, when it becomes public knowledge, has an immediate and significant effect on the market.
By contrast, Amazon's new headquarters will increase housing prices, but not immediately. If they broke ground today, the new headquarters probably wouldn't open until at least a couple of years from now, and demand for housing won't increase much until shortly before that, because most employees won't know that they are going to be transferring until they do (unless they really want to move to NYC and are relatively certain that they'll still be at Amazon in two years and know that a position will be available at that location in a product area that interests them).
Thus, knowing the decision a couple of weeks early almost certainly did not financially benefit those employees in any meaningful way (except, perhaps, by avoiding extortion by unscrupulous sellers trying to take advantage of their knowledge of a few Amazon facilities staffers' need to move in quickly).
In short, they almost certainly did nothing wrong.
No, it almost certainly isn't. They're building a headquarters. Buildings don't go up overnight. Nobody buys a new house based on hoping that they will get transferred in two or three years.
If it is engineers, it is because they're leaving Amazon to work at some other company in New York, and the timing is a fluke. Amazon has over 613k employees. That's an area of NYC with a lot of new construction, which makes it an attractive location for people on tech salaries to live. There's a lot of tech in NYC. So I could easily see this happening entirely by chance. (Admittedly, only a small percentage of those employees are tech workers, but there's nothing stopping non-tech workers from moving there, either, notwithstanding the cost.)
That said, it is more likely that there are Amazon (facilities) employees who are going to be overseeing work on the new headquarters (and then staying on permanently as the facilities reps in the new location). It makes perfect sense for them to start planning their moves as soon as the plans are solid, so that they won't have to spend months in a hotel.
And further (I'm responding more to the GP post than to your comment here), even if we assume that it was somebody who overheard the new location in the hallway, it still would not be a conflict of interest to act on it. How could Amazon's interests possibly be harmed by some of their employees owning homes near their new location?
Pretty much, yeah. The biggest flaw in the security of modern phones is that it is binary. You either have full access to the device or you don't.
On my laptop, I can create encrypted volumes that provide restricted access to things like financial records, and use different passwords. The fingerprint reader can't provide access to those.
I can even put entire applications inside those containers, if there were some valid reason to do so, and symlink the apps' sandbox container directories into the encrypted volume.
When cell phones have similar levels of configurability —when I can lock down an app or specific files within an app and require additional security for those apps or files — I'll take cell phone security seriously. Until then, I pretty much assume that anything on a mobile device might as well be on a postcard stapled to the back of my shirt, and treat the device accordingly.
Net Neutrality doesn't mean all packets of the same type, you're just making up bullshit. Net Neutrality means it's agnostic to what kind of packet it is, and just handles them without trying to tune them to be faster.
No, that is NOT what Net Neutrality advocates are asking for. Net Neutrality means that ISPs should be agnostic about the DESTINATION, i.e. that VoIP traffic to Skype should not be slower than VoIP traffic to Facebook Messenger or whatever.
No (sane) NN law should ever be written in a way that prevents differing prioritization of different classes of traffic, e.g. ensuring that latency-sensitive data, such as VoIP traffic gets sent without delay even if it means that non-latency-sensitive data, such as bulk downloads, are slower, even by a few seconds.
I'm paying the same amount for my connection, what the fuck do I care if your game is faster while my stuff is slower?
Because a five second difference in your download time could make the difference between somebody else's phone call being perfect and dropping out over and over. Services that require low latency should get priority, because if slowed down, they become unusable. Other services, if slowed down, do not become significantly less usable. The assumption is that every user will eventually do something for which latency matters, whether it is gaming, Skype, or even just video streaming, though the extent to which latency matters varies, obviously, depending on what you're doing.
What makes no sense is that California has an open primary for Senators, which means that there's a single ballot with all the people from every party on it. So either a fairly large percentage of Democrats flipped or everybody who didn't vote for Feinstein the first time, including all the Republicans, preferred to keep a strong Democrat in power, rather than someone progressive who would have had no seniority. It seems counterproductive to me.
Same thing in California. In the primary, Feinstein lost to another Democrat, but in the general, bizarrely, the traditionally Republican areas of the state all leaned towards for the progressive candidate, and the Democrat areas of the state voted to keep the relatively conservative, Feinstein.
I'm American and I don't understand it. It's something that's come about in the last 20-25 years. People don't know how, or don't understand how anything can be their fault. It's always somebody elses fault. I just want to knock these people upside the head with a 2x4 and say take responsibility for your own damn actions.
Well, yes, people should take responsibility for their part in a catastrophe, but that still doesn't mean that there can't be more than one person at fault.
Consider the following scenario: A store owner in a bad neighborhood keeps a shotgun behind the counter, just in case of a holdup. A parent lets his or her kid run wild in the store without supervision. The kid sneaks behind the counter and steals the gun and shoots someone. Who is at fault?
The kid is partially at fault for shooting someone, but the kid probably isn't old enough to have known what he or she was doing, so that fault is something we excuse.
The parent is partially at fault for not supervising his or her kid.
The store owner is partially at fault for not supervising his or her gun.
From a legal perspective, all three are partially at fault, because had any one of those people not taken or failed to take a particular action, the person would not have gotten shot.
I'm assuming you mean low earth orbit satellites, but it wasn't obvious from context. My first thought was "How does this have anything to do with law enforcement officers?":-)
I would expect LEO constellations to do handoffs between two satellites that are both relaying data to the same ground station, i.e. you shouldn't be switching IPs all the time. I could be wrong, though. But cellular phone networks can be a mess, and this might help with that.
A binary protocol is a step backwards. Saving a few bytes and making it all faster is totally at odds with what has been improving recently - available bandwidth and speed.
In the best circumstances, available bandwidth and speed are improving. In the worst circumstances, they aren't. And that's actually a big part of the problem.
One major reason for moving to binary protocols is that so much traffic these days lives the mobile world, where cellular networking (not to put too fine a point on it) sucks harder than a Hoover. In that world, packet loss is the main enemy of speed, not bandwidth. And every extra packet represents an additional opportunity to lose a packet, which triggers retransmit penalties that add up rather quickly.
When you're sending small amounts of data (which is extremely common these days, particularly in the JSON world), you can't make up for packet loss penalties through out-of-order delivery and resending preemptively if you don't get an ACK in a timely manner. Those approaches are great for reducing the retry penalty when you're delivering megabytes, but they don't do much good if the entire response fits in a couple of packets and you send the whole message in a fraction of the ACK window (high bandwidth, high latency).
By moving to a binary protocol that lets you maintain crypto state for a longer period of time and avoids extra handshake packets, you can dramatically reduce the packet count for short requests, which can produce a huge reduction in total latency even when you have a fairly good cellular signal. And when you have a mediocre cellular signal, the difference between a single packet response and a two-packet response can often make the difference between 200-milliseconds and several seconds.
Actually, if I understand correctly, the client should be using different IDs at a much finer granularity than per-session or per-window. The connection ID (no longer called GUID) is assigned for each connection to the server, similar to the way each TCP connection has a source port and source IP. The connection ID typically persists for the duration of the connection, whether that's one second or a few minutes. If you have multiple connections (e.g. to download multiple resources in parallel), each would have its own ID. And clients can change them at any time — even in the middle of a connection.
Connection IDs are intended to make it possible for stateful NAT firewalls to route packets to the correct machines behind them. They would be useless for tracking, because they are too transient.
The Quic Transport RFC draft gives a lot more info than the protocol RFC.
In the 1930s, the fascists were opposed to the communists, so they were right wing by our modern definition. However, fascism does not have to be right wing. It is at its core authoritarian.
Fascism is, indeed, at its core, authoritarian, but authoritarianism is not what defines fascism. Rather, fascism is authoritarian power by those who have power, which almost by its very nature means wealthy industrialists. It is the inevitable outcome of unchecked capitalism, and as such is the polar opposite of left-leaning, collectivist attitudes.
All fascist governments are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian governments are fascist. Authoritarian left-wing governments cannot, in fact, be fascist; they are communist. Despite similar results, these are polar opposites, ideologically.
When 95% of the MSM is left-wing, arguing against freedom and for government control with socialism, fascism, or communism (any form of authoritarianism in fact), and they make no effort to be unbiased, that is the problem.
*blinks*
You do know what socialism is, right? It's things like interstate highways. Socialism is no more inherently authoritarian than pure capitalism, unless by authoritarian, you mean that people have to actually, you know, pay their taxes.
Fascism? That's an ultra-right position, not an ultra-left position. So if the mainstream media is arguing for that, then they can't be ultra-left.
Communism? I don't see anybody arguing for the abolition of free enterprise in this country, on either side of the aisle, much less in the mainstream media. Now you're just making stuff up.
Seriously, do you even understand the things you're talking about, or are you just parroting somebody else's talking points?
He is right, stick to the facts, don't make yourself the story (I'm looking at you Dear Diary Acosta), and get out of your left-wing bubble.
When even the traditionally ultra-right Fox News is saying Trump is wrong, Trump is wrong.
So no, he isn't right. All media is biased. No media sticks to reporting the facts. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding him/herself.
Thus, if you're using that to define what is or is not "fake news", then all news media qualifies, and by extension, is "the enemy of the people". Interpreting his statement to be anything other than a broad attack on the mainstream press requires living in a right-wing bubble, in which the right-wing press is somehow not biased, even though all other press is.
Sure, but tariffs themselves don't actually address any of those problems. Especially when there are no local sources for any of these goods.
Except you'd be hard-pressed to find goods for which that is true. Even modern silicon fabs are springing up in Taiwan and Japan. And with Foxconn setting up a manufacturing line in Wisconsin, the few companies that are able to take advantage of that (read "not tied to specific chip vendors") are going to clean up.
In particular, I expect Apple to make out like a bandit, and everybody who depends on Qualcomm CPUs to take a big hit. And frankly, I'm okay with that. It isn't going to add any real number of American jobs, because those factories are going to be so automated that almost nobody will work there, proportionately, and I have no real hope that it will improve working conditions in China, either, but at least it reduces the externalities a little bit.
So the economic effects of these tariffs don't concern me at all. What does concern me is that China's dependence on the U.S. is one of the things that keeps the world away from war. The U.S. government should be cautious when weakening those ties, because if they weaken them too much, they will break, and bad things will happen.
The problem stems from the bald fact that media is ruled by people with left leaning ideology.
Nope. The worst offenders — the ones that distort the truth most severely — actually tend to be the ones with right-leaning ideology.
But even if you were correct on that point, you would still be missing the bigger picture. The biggest problem has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with the fact that nobody taught today's journalists that giving equal time to both sides of a story is inherently biased.
You see, most issues aren't purely a matter of opinion. There are actual, objective facts involved in supporting those opinions. And although we can argue about which facts are more important, or over how to interpret those facts, it does no one any good if we allow pundits on either side to substitute "alternative facts" that are provably incorrect.
Giving equal time to inaccurate or downright incorrect information is not serving the public good. Unfortunately, that sort of insanity is exactly what we see on TV every day. We see pundits on one side arguing with pundits on the other side, and nobody with a deep knowledge of the issue doing fact checking until afterwards. So instead of steering the discussion towards a correct, unbiased discussion of the actual facts in which people argue about how to interpret those facts and which ones are more important, we instead have a derailed discussion muddled with disinformation and people arguing over which facts are true.
For example, suppose someone wants to do a story on the shape of the world. The unbiased version of such a story cannot give equal time to people who think the world is flat, because doing so would lead people to incorrectly believe that it is just as likely to be true as the world being round. Real journalism involves reporting facts, not just taking two people who disagree with each other and putting them on screen at the same time, leaving the audience to sort it all out.
Unfortunately, gone are the days when reporters would point out the inaccuracies and lies of politicians (on both sides of the aisle) immediately and unreservedly, mainly because they're too afraid that if they do so, they won't get future interviews. And that's terrifying, because it means that most of the public has no idea what the objective facts surrounding any issue are, and only know that their guy/gal says one thing, and those bad people on the other side say the other.
This is not journalism. News today is not journalism. It is a pale shadow of journalism. And in the rare instances where it starts to approach journalism, calling politicians on their lying, they start shouting "Fake News! Fake News!" and we're back to the pairs of talking heads who can't agree on objective truth, much less subjective truth.
Yeah, agreed. This leads to each media outlet turning into an echo chamber.
The way to ensure an independent and unbiased news media is to bring back all those media ownership rules that the Republicans have weakened or torn down utterly over the past three decades. All of the news quality problems we're having are ultimately caused by having just a handful of companies that own all the news media.
What would be better would be a $3/month plan that provides only Netflix original content. Separate their original content catalog from their shared catalog, which likely has overlap with other content aggregators.
Even as a copyright holder myself, I recognize that copyright law in the United States is completely and utterly broken. Only in the United States could it make sense to have:
Standards bodies that create policies like "You can't show this content unless your equipment supports [insert random copy protection standard here]".
Copy protection that gets repeatedly rendered useless within months after it hits store shelves.
Buggy implementations that break when you connect certain pieces of equipment together (e.g. Mac Mini w/ Denon or Yamaha receivers).
Laws that make it illegal to crack those copy protection standards to make your equipment actually work the way it is supposed to work.
Consumers still willingly paying several dollars extra on every single device for the privilege of their equipment not working right and being rendered worthless two years later when the standards body decides that they have to come up with yet another copy protection standard.
And if those media execs still think that HDCP is a good idea even after crazy mounds of evidence to the contrary, there's no way they'll *ever* be smart enough to realize just how stupid it is to waste time chasing after pirate sites. Stopping profit loss from piracy by going after pirate sites is the technological equivalent of trying to end world hunger by hiring fifty people to fly around the world, and, upon seeing a locust, land the plane, put on boots, and stomp it to death. You will never win that way. You will only look silly.
If the huge drop in piracy after the rise of the iTunes Music Store taught us anything, it is that piracy is not caused predominantly by people being unwilling to spend money, but rather predominantly by content owners refusing to take it, and doing everything in their power to maintain tight control in ways that consumers can't deal with. If you create content that people want and make it available in a form that people are willing to pay for, they will do so. If you don't, they'll pirate it. And no new laws will ever change that, no matter how draconian. At best, you'll just force it further underground, where you can't track it or earn ad revenue from it.
The cause of piracy problems isn't Switzerland, but rather the content distributors' unwillingness to work together to improve access to content, coupled with their irrational fear of allowing any single outlet to gain enough power to drive prices down to levels that consumers find reasonable. They need to quit looking for countries to blame and start looking in the mirror.
You will quickly learn that you have an upper limit to how much relaxation your brain will tolerate. The "extreme hedonism" that people imagine, lounging around in hammocks sipping cocktails all day, leaves you bored out of your mind AND depressed after a couple of weeks (some people can't take it for even a few days).
Of course, lots of us don't really need employment to have plenty of work to do. I spent about a year doing a tiny bit of contracting work, lots of extra traveling, and otherwise generally doing nothing besides working on personal creative projects. The freedom was absolutely amazing, and at no point did I ever feel like I stopped working, or really even slowed down. I would expect the same to be true when I retire for good in a decade or three.
The Mac mini is made from 100% Recycled Aluminum. So it has ALREADY contributed to reducing waste WHEN IT COMES OUT OF THE BOX.
Not really, no. That's basically a variant of the broken window fallacy.
These days, more than 75% of all the aluminum ever produced in the U.S. is still in active use, and 40% of all aluminum comes from recycling. Every bit of the aluminum that gets recycled eventually ends up in new products; it isn't just sitting around somewhere. If Apple had not used recycled aluminum, that recycled aluminum would have gotten used in some other product. Because they did, new aluminum had to be mined for that other product. The net impact on the environment is identical.
Further, using recycled aluminum doesn't even encourage new recycling businesses to spring up. Most discarded aluminum gets recycled, with the exception of aluminum cans in states that lack deposit laws, and economic pressure is unlikely to convince those remaining states to pass deposit laws. So there's really no plausible way for Apple's decision to use more recycled aluminum to have any effect other than causing someone else to buy new aluminum instead of recycled aluminum.
In short, the whole "100% recycled aluminum" thing might be a nice little gold star on their report card, but it really doesn't help the environment in any meaningful way.
By contrast, all the other lovely stuff inside computers does hurt the environment when they get scrapped, so the GP has a valid point. This is a pretty serious hardware/firmware bug that Apple needs to address ASAP if anyone is going to take them seriously in their claims to be a green technology company.
So because 3/4 of surveyed shoppers say that they shop at Amazon most of the time, that makes Amazon a monopoly? Do you read the shit that you type? So I guess Walmart is a monopoly in the brick-and-mortar space, too, right?
Walmart makes up less than 10% of U.S. retail sales, and holding steady. Amazon is just shy of 50% of all e-commerce sales, and growing rapidly. The two aren't remotely comparable.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. This is the slander. When you take a carefully thought out comment noting that some people in the alt-right movement are actively using the rhetoric of hate, and then claim that I said everyone on the right is that way. I did not. There are some who do. Many of those folks have gone so far across the line that they have gotten banned from platform after platform. Pro tip: If you've been banned more than once, it probably isn't because of your political views.
The founding fathers were against government censorship, because only the government has the power to censor people in a way that has the force of law behind it, creating a chilling effect that leaves people in fear of trying to spread their competing ideas.
What you are talking about is not censorship, but rather the right to refuse publication. In the era of the founding fathers, printers chose what they would and would not print. If you wanted to print something else, you bought your own printing press and printed it yourself. In the same way, people with non-mainstream ideas, no matter how extreme those ideas might be, are also free to buy their own servers and publish content themselves.
Unfortunately, what you and many on the far right are advocating is an entirely different sort of law. It would be akin to the founding fathers requiring printing presses to print anything for anyone who is willing to pay. Now I don't know about anybody else, but find it really ironic that people on the right are against any regulation of businesses all the way up until suddenly a few businesses start to say that some of their rhetoric crosses a line into unacceptable troll behavior and insist that they take it somewhere else, and suddenly those ultra-right folks want new regulations on businesses so that they can publish whatever they want on any service that they want, even if the people who own that service and the overwhelming majority of users on that service (including most Republicans) want them to go away.
Sorry, but that's not the way the real world works. In the real world, you have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to free speech on someone else's dime. Period. Full stop. And I'm sorry if that hurts your precious little conservative snowflake ego, but too bad. And just to be clear, I would say precisely the same thing if it were a leftist making similar statements. The alt-left and alt-right are basically equally harmful to a functioning society. The only real difference is that the alt-left don't whine "they're censoring me" every time they get kicked off of a major service. They just find another rock to hide under. For all the people on the right complaining about liberals being a bunch of whiners, the right sure does whine a lot. Just food for thought.
Pretty much, and that largely reflects European politics in general. Had they stuck to those parts of their platform instead of slipping in the whole "master race" thing and trying to conquer Europe, they would probably still be the centrist party of Germany today. After all, Europe is still quite socialist, at least when compared with the United States. But, of course, that wasn't the point of their platform. They just used those points to push through their radical antisemitic agenda.
All movements like that, regardless of politics, look an awful lot alike. For them, politics are merely a tool to enable people who crave power to take it. The purpose of voting is to at least try to keep people who crave power from taking it.
... people who are committing acts of egregious, extremist hate speech. Are you saying that conservative beliefs are based on hate? Because a lot of Christian conservatives are going to have a real problem with that characterization.
Racism, homophobia, and threats of violence are not indicative of what it means to be conservative any more than marching in topless protests are indicative of what it means to be liberal. The people who do those things just happen to fly that particular banner in this country right now. Just a few decades ago, it was mostly people on the left who were racist. In another hundred years, they'll have moved on to some other party.
There will always be people who can't deal with people who they perceive as being "not like them". At best, this should be tolerated, at worst, shunned or blocked entirely. Supporting people who act like that merely because they happen to agree with you on some issues is really no different than supporting the Nazi Party (NSDAP) merely because you believed in German reunification with the other German-speaking parts of Europe, immigration reform, elimination of indentured servitude, welfare programs for the elderly, government support for small businesses, eliminating property taxes, replacing civil law (like most countries use) with common law (like what the U.S., Great Britain, and their former colonies/possessions use), building up the nation's education system, free college tuition for high-intelligence people without adequate means, banning child labor, encouraging physical fitness in children, abolishing mercenary groups, forming a national army, stamping out libel, and a strong central government.
The Nazi Party actually had a lot of things that superficially looked like good ideas. Evil people don't win people over by being purely evil. They do it by telling you they're going to make your country rise to its full potential, to make it great again, to fix your infrastructure, to improve education, etc. But when they also spew lies and hate speech (and pretty much everybody can recognize the small minority of very vocal "conservative" voices who do exactly that), they cross a line, and those particular people should not have our support, even if we agree with their position on everything else. There are a few positions that simply cannot be tolerated in politics, and in my opinion, those clearly qualify.
The fact that one such xenophobe managed to make it to our nation's highest office will be a great source of national shame for decades to come. The fact that he has not managed to destroy our democracy as Hitler did, nor fully convert members of his own party to that xenophobia, nor defeat the separation of powers intended by the founding fathers to prevent any one person from having too much power, by contrast, will be a source of national pride for at least as long. I said two years ago that if Trump became President, it would be the truest test of our constitutional democracy that this country had ever seen, and I've been proven correct time and time again, but the foundation of our nation holds, and that is a true testament to the wisdom of the founding fathers. There is still no wall. There is still no possibility of a wall. There is no sweeping ban on Muslim immigration. Appalling border enforcement situations have been exposed and acted upon harshly. The lunatics are still not running the asylum. And that is as it should be.
If they see it in time, they could stick out a robot arm and snag the goose after it gets cooked. It would still be better than most airline food.
Yeah, I don't get that complaint, either. This isn't at all like buying stock based on knowledge of what a company is about to do.
if a company announces that it is going to do something amazing in two years, that company's stock will rise immediately on expectation of that future profit, thanks to rampant speculation and broad global demand. The information, when it becomes public knowledge, has an immediate and significant effect on the market.
By contrast, Amazon's new headquarters will increase housing prices, but not immediately. If they broke ground today, the new headquarters probably wouldn't open until at least a couple of years from now, and demand for housing won't increase much until shortly before that, because most employees won't know that they are going to be transferring until they do (unless they really want to move to NYC and are relatively certain that they'll still be at Amazon in two years and know that a position will be available at that location in a product area that interests them).
Thus, knowing the decision a couple of weeks early almost certainly did not financially benefit those employees in any meaningful way (except, perhaps, by avoiding extortion by unscrupulous sellers trying to take advantage of their knowledge of a few Amazon facilities staffers' need to move in quickly).
In short, they almost certainly did nothing wrong.
No, it almost certainly isn't. They're building a headquarters. Buildings don't go up overnight. Nobody buys a new house based on hoping that they will get transferred in two or three years.
If it is engineers, it is because they're leaving Amazon to work at some other company in New York, and the timing is a fluke. Amazon has over 613k employees. That's an area of NYC with a lot of new construction, which makes it an attractive location for people on tech salaries to live. There's a lot of tech in NYC. So I could easily see this happening entirely by chance. (Admittedly, only a small percentage of those employees are tech workers, but there's nothing stopping non-tech workers from moving there, either, notwithstanding the cost.)
That said, it is more likely that there are Amazon (facilities) employees who are going to be overseeing work on the new headquarters (and then staying on permanently as the facilities reps in the new location). It makes perfect sense for them to start planning their moves as soon as the plans are solid, so that they won't have to spend months in a hotel.
And further (I'm responding more to the GP post than to your comment here), even if we assume that it was somebody who overheard the new location in the hallway, it still would not be a conflict of interest to act on it. How could Amazon's interests possibly be harmed by some of their employees owning homes near their new location?
Pretty much, yeah. The biggest flaw in the security of modern phones is that it is binary. You either have full access to the device or you don't.
On my laptop, I can create encrypted volumes that provide restricted access to things like financial records, and use different passwords. The fingerprint reader can't provide access to those.
I can even put entire applications inside those containers, if there were some valid reason to do so, and symlink the apps' sandbox container directories into the encrypted volume.
When cell phones have similar levels of configurability —when I can lock down an app or specific files within an app and require additional security for those apps or files — I'll take cell phone security seriously. Until then, I pretty much assume that anything on a mobile device might as well be on a postcard stapled to the back of my shirt, and treat the device accordingly.
No, that is NOT what Net Neutrality advocates are asking for. Net Neutrality means that ISPs should be agnostic about the DESTINATION, i.e. that VoIP traffic to Skype should not be slower than VoIP traffic to Facebook Messenger or whatever.
No (sane) NN law should ever be written in a way that prevents differing prioritization of different classes of traffic, e.g. ensuring that latency-sensitive data, such as VoIP traffic gets sent without delay even if it means that non-latency-sensitive data, such as bulk downloads, are slower, even by a few seconds.
Because a five second difference in your download time could make the difference between somebody else's phone call being perfect and dropping out over and over. Services that require low latency should get priority, because if slowed down, they become unusable. Other services, if slowed down, do not become significantly less usable. The assumption is that every user will eventually do something for which latency matters, whether it is gaming, Skype, or even just video streaming, though the extent to which latency matters varies, obviously, depending on what you're doing.
What makes no sense is that California has an open primary for Senators, which means that there's a single ballot with all the people from every party on it. So either a fairly large percentage of Democrats flipped or everybody who didn't vote for Feinstein the first time, including all the Republicans, preferred to keep a strong Democrat in power, rather than someone progressive who would have had no seniority. It seems counterproductive to me.
Same thing in California. In the primary, Feinstein lost to another Democrat, but in the general, bizarrely, the traditionally Republican areas of the state all leaned towards for the progressive candidate, and the Democrat areas of the state voted to keep the relatively conservative, Feinstein.
I don't even know what to make of that.
Well, yes, people should take responsibility for their part in a catastrophe, but that still doesn't mean that there can't be more than one person at fault.
Consider the following scenario: A store owner in a bad neighborhood keeps a shotgun behind the counter, just in case of a holdup. A parent lets his or her kid run wild in the store without supervision. The kid sneaks behind the counter and steals the gun and shoots someone. Who is at fault?
From a legal perspective, all three are partially at fault, because had any one of those people not taken or failed to take a particular action, the person would not have gotten shot.
I'm assuming you mean low earth orbit satellites, but it wasn't obvious from context. My first thought was "How does this have anything to do with law enforcement officers?" :-)
I would expect LEO constellations to do handoffs between two satellites that are both relaying data to the same ground station, i.e. you shouldn't be switching IPs all the time. I could be wrong, though. But cellular phone networks can be a mess, and this might help with that.
In the best circumstances, available bandwidth and speed are improving. In the worst circumstances, they aren't. And that's actually a big part of the problem.
One major reason for moving to binary protocols is that so much traffic these days lives the mobile world, where cellular networking (not to put too fine a point on it) sucks harder than a Hoover. In that world, packet loss is the main enemy of speed, not bandwidth. And every extra packet represents an additional opportunity to lose a packet, which triggers retransmit penalties that add up rather quickly.
When you're sending small amounts of data (which is extremely common these days, particularly in the JSON world), you can't make up for packet loss penalties through out-of-order delivery and resending preemptively if you don't get an ACK in a timely manner. Those approaches are great for reducing the retry penalty when you're delivering megabytes, but they don't do much good if the entire response fits in a couple of packets and you send the whole message in a fraction of the ACK window (high bandwidth, high latency).
By moving to a binary protocol that lets you maintain crypto state for a longer period of time and avoids extra handshake packets, you can dramatically reduce the packet count for short requests, which can produce a huge reduction in total latency even when you have a fairly good cellular signal. And when you have a mediocre cellular signal, the difference between a single packet response and a two-packet response can often make the difference between 200-milliseconds and several seconds.
In the mobile world, every packet counts.
Actually, if I understand correctly, the client should be using different IDs at a much finer granularity than per-session or per-window. The connection ID (no longer called GUID) is assigned for each connection to the server, similar to the way each TCP connection has a source port and source IP. The connection ID typically persists for the duration of the connection, whether that's one second or a few minutes. If you have multiple connections (e.g. to download multiple resources in parallel), each would have its own ID. And clients can change them at any time — even in the middle of a connection.
Connection IDs are intended to make it possible for stateful NAT firewalls to route packets to the correct machines behind them. They would be useless for tracking, because they are too transient.
The Quic Transport RFC draft gives a lot more info than the protocol RFC.
Fascism is, indeed, at its core, authoritarian, but authoritarianism is not what defines fascism. Rather, fascism is authoritarian power by those who have power, which almost by its very nature means wealthy industrialists. It is the inevitable outcome of unchecked capitalism, and as such is the polar opposite of left-leaning, collectivist attitudes.
All fascist governments are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian governments are fascist. Authoritarian left-wing governments cannot, in fact, be fascist; they are communist. Despite similar results, these are polar opposites, ideologically.
FTFY.
*blinks*
You do know what socialism is, right? It's things like interstate highways. Socialism is no more inherently authoritarian than pure capitalism, unless by authoritarian, you mean that people have to actually, you know, pay their taxes.
Fascism? That's an ultra-right position, not an ultra-left position. So if the mainstream media is arguing for that, then they can't be ultra-left.
Communism? I don't see anybody arguing for the abolition of free enterprise in this country, on either side of the aisle, much less in the mainstream media. Now you're just making stuff up.
Seriously, do you even understand the things you're talking about, or are you just parroting somebody else's talking points?
When even the traditionally ultra-right Fox News is saying Trump is wrong, Trump is wrong.
So no, he isn't right. All media is biased. No media sticks to reporting the facts. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding him/herself.
Thus, if you're using that to define what is or is not "fake news", then all news media qualifies, and by extension, is "the enemy of the people". Interpreting his statement to be anything other than a broad attack on the mainstream press requires living in a right-wing bubble, in which the right-wing press is somehow not biased, even though all other press is.
Except you'd be hard-pressed to find goods for which that is true. Even modern silicon fabs are springing up in Taiwan and Japan. And with Foxconn setting up a manufacturing line in Wisconsin, the few companies that are able to take advantage of that (read "not tied to specific chip vendors") are going to clean up.
In particular, I expect Apple to make out like a bandit, and everybody who depends on Qualcomm CPUs to take a big hit. And frankly, I'm okay with that. It isn't going to add any real number of American jobs, because those factories are going to be so automated that almost nobody will work there, proportionately, and I have no real hope that it will improve working conditions in China, either, but at least it reduces the externalities a little bit.
So the economic effects of these tariffs don't concern me at all. What does concern me is that China's dependence on the U.S. is one of the things that keeps the world away from war. The U.S. government should be cautious when weakening those ties, because if they weaken them too much, they will break, and bad things will happen.
Nope. The worst offenders — the ones that distort the truth most severely — actually tend to be the ones with right-leaning ideology.
But even if you were correct on that point, you would still be missing the bigger picture. The biggest problem has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with the fact that nobody taught today's journalists that giving equal time to both sides of a story is inherently biased.
You see, most issues aren't purely a matter of opinion. There are actual, objective facts involved in supporting those opinions. And although we can argue about which facts are more important, or over how to interpret those facts, it does no one any good if we allow pundits on either side to substitute "alternative facts" that are provably incorrect.
Giving equal time to inaccurate or downright incorrect information is not serving the public good. Unfortunately, that sort of insanity is exactly what we see on TV every day. We see pundits on one side arguing with pundits on the other side, and nobody with a deep knowledge of the issue doing fact checking until afterwards. So instead of steering the discussion towards a correct, unbiased discussion of the actual facts in which people argue about how to interpret those facts and which ones are more important, we instead have a derailed discussion muddled with disinformation and people arguing over which facts are true.
For example, suppose someone wants to do a story on the shape of the world. The unbiased version of such a story cannot give equal time to people who think the world is flat, because doing so would lead people to incorrectly believe that it is just as likely to be true as the world being round. Real journalism involves reporting facts, not just taking two people who disagree with each other and putting them on screen at the same time, leaving the audience to sort it all out.
Unfortunately, gone are the days when reporters would point out the inaccuracies and lies of politicians (on both sides of the aisle) immediately and unreservedly, mainly because they're too afraid that if they do so, they won't get future interviews. And that's terrifying, because it means that most of the public has no idea what the objective facts surrounding any issue are, and only know that their guy/gal says one thing, and those bad people on the other side say the other.
This is not journalism. News today is not journalism. It is a pale shadow of journalism. And in the rare instances where it starts to approach journalism, calling politicians on their lying, they start shouting "Fake News! Fake News!" and we're back to the pairs of talking heads who can't agree on objective truth, much less subjective truth.
I cry for the future of humanity.
Yeah, agreed. This leads to each media outlet turning into an echo chamber.
The way to ensure an independent and unbiased news media is to bring back all those media ownership rules that the Republicans have weakened or torn down utterly over the past three decades. All of the news quality problems we're having are ultimately caused by having just a handful of companies that own all the news media.
What would be better would be a $3/month plan that provides only Netflix original content. Separate their original content catalog from their shared catalog, which likely has overlap with other content aggregators.
Even as a copyright holder myself, I recognize that copyright law in the United States is completely and utterly broken. Only in the United States could it make sense to have:
And if those media execs still think that HDCP is a good idea even after crazy mounds of evidence to the contrary, there's no way they'll *ever* be smart enough to realize just how stupid it is to waste time chasing after pirate sites. Stopping profit loss from piracy by going after pirate sites is the technological equivalent of trying to end world hunger by hiring fifty people to fly around the world, and, upon seeing a locust, land the plane, put on boots, and stomp it to death. You will never win that way. You will only look silly.
If the huge drop in piracy after the rise of the iTunes Music Store taught us anything, it is that piracy is not caused predominantly by people being unwilling to spend money, but rather predominantly by content owners refusing to take it, and doing everything in their power to maintain tight control in ways that consumers can't deal with. If you create content that people want and make it available in a form that people are willing to pay for, they will do so. If you don't, they'll pirate it. And no new laws will ever change that, no matter how draconian. At best, you'll just force it further underground, where you can't track it or earn ad revenue from it.
The cause of piracy problems isn't Switzerland, but rather the content distributors' unwillingness to work together to improve access to content, coupled with their irrational fear of allowing any single outlet to gain enough power to drive prices down to levels that consumers find reasonable. They need to quit looking for countries to blame and start looking in the mirror.
Of course, lots of us don't really need employment to have plenty of work to do. I spent about a year doing a tiny bit of contracting work, lots of extra traveling, and otherwise generally doing nothing besides working on personal creative projects. The freedom was absolutely amazing, and at no point did I ever feel like I stopped working, or really even slowed down. I would expect the same to be true when I retire for good in a decade or three.
Not to mention web searches, e.g. "Encourage her to have that mole checked."
Even better, do product tie-ins between all of the above:
People who had sex with [person] also bought [condoms], [penicillin].
Not really, no. That's basically a variant of the broken window fallacy.
These days, more than 75% of all the aluminum ever produced in the U.S. is still in active use, and 40% of all aluminum comes from recycling. Every bit of the aluminum that gets recycled eventually ends up in new products; it isn't just sitting around somewhere. If Apple had not used recycled aluminum, that recycled aluminum would have gotten used in some other product. Because they did, new aluminum had to be mined for that other product. The net impact on the environment is identical.
Further, using recycled aluminum doesn't even encourage new recycling businesses to spring up. Most discarded aluminum gets recycled, with the exception of aluminum cans in states that lack deposit laws, and economic pressure is unlikely to convince those remaining states to pass deposit laws. So there's really no plausible way for Apple's decision to use more recycled aluminum to have any effect other than causing someone else to buy new aluminum instead of recycled aluminum.
In short, the whole "100% recycled aluminum" thing might be a nice little gold star on their report card, but it really doesn't help the environment in any meaningful way.
By contrast, all the other lovely stuff inside computers does hurt the environment when they get scrapped, so the GP has a valid point. This is a pretty serious hardware/firmware bug that Apple needs to address ASAP if anyone is going to take them seriously in their claims to be a green technology company.
Walmart makes up less than 10% of U.S. retail sales, and holding steady. Amazon is just shy of 50% of all e-commerce sales, and growing rapidly. The two aren't remotely comparable.