Yeah, the article looks like it was written to increase the value of this guy's art. I can sum it all up for you (yep, I read the article):
The guy (Weygers) was born to a well-off family with lots of land. He traveled the world at an early age. He started out as a blacksmith. Studied at the very best schools in the world, as a mechanical engineer. Later he became an artist. After that he sort of meshed the two aspects of art and engineering, and that's where the flying saucer came from.
After Weygers died, a guy stumbled upon lots of pieces of his art and bought all of it. Now, it appears, this guy's looking to let others know about Weygers' story, probably to try to make a profit from the art.
"This guy" is dead, you moron. The bit about the author going to his funeral was a dead (hehe) giveaway.
Problem is those tools are *expensive* so most open source projects can't afford them and all but the huge shops don't want to spend the $$.
Yeah, valgrind isn't all that expensive and can be run on all your tests. Any bug that then gets through vagrinded tests means that the test wasn't testing on or past boundary conditions.
Again, your original claim was about non-muslim countries, are you intentionally ignoring that?
No, it is covered by "everywhere else" in my post. Notice how many continents are listed there? Those are not muslim countries.
why is it not okay to be against someone who is against you?
Because it makes you an extremist too.
You can't very well complain if people don't take you seriously after a statement like that. Being against extremists does not make you an extremist. If that were true then you'd be one as well.
Instead, be for the rule of law, and if you are fortunate enough to live in a land governed by the rule of law then be thankful for that. Do your part to ensure it stays that way.
You mean like immigration law? My part in ensuring it stays that way is not to label others who are against folks who'd like to change it.
Rebel Media takes the view that Muslims are "invading" the west with the goal of "Islamifying" it, and that all Muslims living in the west are a problem. That is islamophobia, a literal fear of Muslims.
And what exactly is wrong with it? You make it sound like a good thing, considering both islam's currently stated goals as well as the fact that muslims immigrants almost completely fail to acclimatise into the new culture, instead creating pockets of their culture within their new country.
"Islamophobic" sounds like a compliment, like calling someone "egalitarian".
You claimed this: "the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law". Which is absolute unsupported and unsupportable bullshit.
Even in muslim countries it's split.
Okay, so I was wrong. It's not all muslim countries, countries in Southern Eastern Europe and Central Asia it's less than a fifth of muslims. Everywhere else in that survey it's "the clear majority of muslims".
Speaking of absolute unsupported and unsupportable bullshit, how about your claim for
It took me about one minute to find a respectable survey [pewresearch.org] that says even in most muslim countries most muslims don't want sharia law.
Do you even read your own links? Do you even know what "most" means? Your assertion that "most muslims don't want sharia law" is an excellent example of "absolute unsupported and unsupportable bullshit."
I have to admit, I do enjoy how people who complain about islamophobia get angry when the stats are revealed.
Once again, I have to ask (because you dodged the question the first time around), why is it not okay to be against someone who is against you?
the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.
Really. And what global survey was that? It took me about one minute to find a respectable survey that says even in most muslim countries most muslims don't want sharia law.
Cite your sources. (I'm not holding out much hope that you will or can)
Maybe you should read your own links; from your link, "Survery of muslims in 39 countries" (Chart "median % of population who favour enshrining sharia"):
South Asia: 84%
South East Asia: 77%
Middle East/North Africa: 74%
Sub-saharan Africa: 64%
Southern Eastern Europe: 18%
Central Asia: 12%
Most Muslims, worldwide, want sharia law. That link of yours agrees.
It seems to be a one-stop-shop for racism and Islamophobia.
Okay, serious question time: What's wrong with being against a movement that is against you?
I don't know about you, but me and most people see nothing wrong in being anti-$FOO if $FOO is anti-$ME. And don't give me that crap about how only fringe Muslims are anti-$ME, the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.
I see nothing wrong with anti-$FOO people, just like I see nothing wrong with groups who counter anti-$FOO people.
Finally, I'm also seeing no evidence for your "racist" claim - is that something you automatically trot out whenever you have no facts?
That's the theory. Unfortunately, one of the flaws in the EMV protocol is that the authentication is unidirectional. The card must authenticate itself to the bank, but the bank doesn't have to authenticate itself to the card.
That's untrue. The path for the transaction payload is Chip->terminal->merchant->bank->issuer and the payload returns along the same path.
The chip's payload is encrypted with a key held only by the issuer, and the response is encrypted with the same key. The entities in between (the terminal, the merchant and the bank) have no way of decrypting the chip's payload, nor of encrypting a payload that the chip can decrypt.
So unless the issuer is compromised there is no MITM attack going on.
How good or poor is opengl support in vmware workstation?
I found it glitchy when I tried it a few years ago, but still far better than virtualbox. If workstation had bulletproof opengl support I'd license it.
They're both crap. VMWare is slightly better than Virtualbox, but it's still crap.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
Because they are working with a very different standard of evidence.
For the police it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
No. For a crime it is "beyond reasonable doubt".
For the arbitration, it is preponderance of the evidence.
No. For a civil case it is "preponderance of evidence". For arbitration it is whatever the specific employer wants it to be, ranging from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "accusation is enough".
For arbitration, the company sets the standard of evidence required, which can range from "You need incontrovertible proof" to "none". The company literally needs no evidence to fire your ass. Removing arbitration sets the bar to "preponderance of evidence" but requires that the accuser finance the suit themselves. If things are clear and evidence exists then the accuser need not finance anything and can simply report the crime.
Where things get hairy is when arbitration results in a firing with no evidence, in which case the accused (who presumably got fired) can then take the matter up in a civil proceeding against the accuser (not the company) and then the accuser has to pony up a preponderance of evidence.
Yes, accusers who cost someone materially can be forced to justify their statements regardless of what their employer believes. False accusation suits are not uncommon, although they are exceedingly rare for people who are fired after an arbitration (due to those people believing that the arbitration result has any legal standing).
In either case an employee (either the accuser or the accused) is going to either have to live with it or pay for the suit themselves. As you pointed out, employees may not be able to afford this, especially employees who have just been fired with little notice.
Reporting a crime at your nearest police station is free.
The police are very unlikely to get involved in a typical office harassment situation. An intern was groped or propositioned by her boss with no witnesses, and no evidence? The police can do nothing with that.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
They aren't, for the most part. It's just that people do not pursue the other options, possibly because they don't know any better.
Yes, people always have a right to sue. But that isn't always the best option for the harassee.
Who said anything about suing? Reporting a crime at your nearest police station is free. If your employer doesn't want to do anything then take your complaint, charges and evidence to the place your're supposed to.
So, it took two years after some random internet stranger had an argument with multiple other random internet strangers about things they weren't really informed about, to have fully driverless cars. You're right, that's hardly any progress.
Actually, IIRC, you were one off those random internet strangers two years ago who claimed that waymo was already doing a taxi service without drivers.
My bro just took a job that was supposed to be a 12 month contract to hire sys admin job with an emphasis on writing automation scripts. Pay was good so he took it.
Turns out it's just a monitoring gig, 6 month contract that might get extended twice to 18 before they fire him
He didn't even read the terms of the contract he signed? Hate to say it but someone who can't be bothered to read his contract is a low-level grunt, not to be entrusted with anything important, so sounds like he is in the correct position for his abilities.
(Yeah, mod me down all you like, that statement will remain true).
They've all got free use of Microsoft software due to their license agreement - but do the schools use it?
No. They use Google stuff. Because that's all the teachers know. They think "microsoft bad", but coming from the actual enterprise I.T. space, I look at what teachers are doing and laugh. They do stuff they think it is impressive, and I look at it and think how much nicer it is in Office 365.
And they don't even have to pay for it.
I dunno about you, but when I refuse something that is free, it's because something else is better. IOW, that $FREE thing lost purely due to merit.
The reason why you'd want to go with Windows is that that's probably what most of them will need to use when they enter the workforce.
Nonsense. The only reason companies stick with Windows is because the IT department are afraid of anything else. non-IT people are just fine at moving to something better - see how they moved en masse to Android/iOS.
Anytime you want to introduce a non-Windows solution you have to justify it to the IT department, whereas anytime a Windows solution is introduced no justification is made.
When people choose the best tool for the job, they don't choose Windows. When IT departments choose what people will use, those people get Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
No need to call him a moron. You could have made the same point far more eloquently without resorting to insults.
True. In my defense, I've been binge-watching The Goldbergs.
Yeah, the article looks like it was written to increase the value of this guy's art. I can sum it all up for you (yep, I read the article): The guy (Weygers) was born to a well-off family with lots of land. He traveled the world at an early age. He started out as a blacksmith. Studied at the very best schools in the world, as a mechanical engineer. Later he became an artist. After that he sort of meshed the two aspects of art and engineering, and that's where the flying saucer came from. After Weygers died, a guy stumbled upon lots of pieces of his art and bought all of it. Now, it appears, this guy's looking to let others know about Weygers' story, probably to try to make a profit from the art.
"This guy" is dead, you moron. The bit about the author going to his funeral was a dead (hehe) giveaway.
Why would you want to be stuck with the ADC built into a mid-range phone?
I guess if you only ever spend $15 on ear buds that may be fine.
The ADC is gotta go somewhere; having it in the phone is the technologically superior option.
Not a great way to broadcast your conspicuous consumption using overpriced accessories, but still a superios technological solution.
Problem is those tools are *expensive* so most open source projects can't afford them and all but the huge shops don't want to spend the $$.
Yeah, valgrind isn't all that expensive and can be run on all your tests. Any bug that then gets through vagrinded tests means that the test wasn't testing on or past boundary conditions.
Again, your original claim was about non-muslim countries, are you intentionally ignoring that?
No, it is covered by "everywhere else" in my post. Notice how many continents are listed there? Those are not muslim countries.
Please stop slithering. You wrote "the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law."
From your pewresearch link, countries on the following continents:
South Asia: 84% South East Asia: 77% Middle East/North Africa: 74% Sub-saharan Africa: 64%
So, yeah, not all non-muslim countries, just most of them, and most of the muslim countries too.
Again, your original claim was about non-muslim countries, are you intentionally ignoring that?
No, it is covered by "everywhere else" in my post. Notice how many continents are listed there? Those are not muslim countries.
why is it not okay to be against someone who is against you?
Because it makes you an extremist too.
You can't very well complain if people don't take you seriously after a statement like that. Being against extremists does not make you an extremist. If that were true then you'd be one as well.
Instead, be for the rule of law, and if you are fortunate enough to live in a land governed by the rule of law then be thankful for that. Do your part to ensure it stays that way.
You mean like immigration law? My part in ensuring it stays that way is not to label others who are against folks who'd like to change it.
Rebel Media takes the view that Muslims are "invading" the west with the goal of "Islamifying" it, and that all Muslims living in the west are a problem. That is islamophobia, a literal fear of Muslims.
And what exactly is wrong with it? You make it sound like a good thing, considering both islam's currently stated goals as well as the fact that muslims immigrants almost completely fail to acclimatise into the new culture, instead creating pockets of their culture within their new country.
"Islamophobic" sounds like a compliment, like calling someone "egalitarian".
You claimed this: "the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law". Which is absolute unsupported and unsupportable bullshit.
Even in muslim countries it's split.
Okay, so I was wrong. It's not all muslim countries, countries in Southern Eastern Europe and Central Asia it's less than a fifth of muslims. Everywhere else in that survey it's "the clear majority of muslims".
Speaking of absolute unsupported and unsupportable bullshit, how about your claim for
It took me about one minute to find a respectable survey [pewresearch.org] that says even in most muslim countries most muslims don't want sharia law.
Do you even read your own links? Do you even know what "most" means? Your assertion that "most muslims don't want sharia law" is an excellent example of "absolute unsupported and unsupportable bullshit."
I have to admit, I do enjoy how people who complain about islamophobia get angry when the stats are revealed.
Once again, I have to ask (because you dodged the question the first time around), why is it not okay to be against someone who is against you?
So viral I can't even see it.
I don't think that writer knows the meaning of the word.
I didn't claim to be afraid of implementation, I claimed that I see nothing wrong with being against a group of people that are openly against me.
More specifically, what's wrong with being anti-muslim? I've been anti-christian all my life and yet people haven't called me christianophobic.
It's okay to be anti-muslim because they are anti-you. There's nothing wrong in that.
the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.
Really. And what global survey was that? It took me about one minute to find a respectable survey that says even in most muslim countries most muslims don't want sharia law.
Cite your sources. (I'm not holding out much hope that you will or can)
Maybe you should read your own links; from your link, "Survery of muslims in 39 countries" (Chart "median % of population who favour enshrining sharia"):
South Asia: 84%
South East Asia: 77%
Middle East/North Africa: 74%
Sub-saharan Africa: 64%
Southern Eastern Europe: 18%
Central Asia: 12%
Most Muslims, worldwide, want sharia law. That link of yours agrees.
It seems to be a one-stop-shop for racism and Islamophobia.
Okay, serious question time: What's wrong with being against a movement that is against you?
I don't know about you, but me and most people see nothing wrong in being anti-$FOO if $FOO is anti-$ME. And don't give me that crap about how only fringe Muslims are anti-$ME, the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.
I see nothing wrong with anti-$FOO people, just like I see nothing wrong with groups who counter anti-$FOO people.
Finally, I'm also seeing no evidence for your "racist" claim - is that something you automatically trot out whenever you have no facts?
That's the theory. Unfortunately, one of the flaws in the EMV protocol is that the authentication is unidirectional. The card must authenticate itself to the bank, but the bank doesn't have to authenticate itself to the card.
That's untrue. The path for the transaction payload is Chip->terminal->merchant->bank->issuer and the payload returns along the same path.
The chip's payload is encrypted with a key held only by the issuer, and the response is encrypted with the same key. The entities in between (the terminal, the merchant and the bank) have no way of decrypting the chip's payload, nor of encrypting a payload that the chip can decrypt.
So unless the issuer is compromised there is no MITM attack going on.
How good or poor is opengl support in vmware workstation?
I found it glitchy when I tried it a few years ago, but still far better than virtualbox. If workstation had bulletproof opengl support I'd license it.
They're both crap. VMWare is slightly better than Virtualbox, but it's still crap.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
Because they are working with a very different standard of evidence.
For the police it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
No. For a crime it is "beyond reasonable doubt".
For the arbitration, it is preponderance of the evidence.
No. For a civil case it is "preponderance of evidence". For arbitration it is whatever the specific employer wants it to be, ranging from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "accusation is enough".
For arbitration, the company sets the standard of evidence required, which can range from "You need incontrovertible proof" to "none". The company literally needs no evidence to fire your ass. Removing arbitration sets the bar to "preponderance of evidence" but requires that the accuser finance the suit themselves. If things are clear and evidence exists then the accuser need not finance anything and can simply report the crime.
Where things get hairy is when arbitration results in a firing with no evidence, in which case the accused (who presumably got fired) can then take the matter up in a civil proceeding against the accuser (not the company) and then the accuser has to pony up a preponderance of evidence.
Yes, accusers who cost someone materially can be forced to justify their statements regardless of what their employer believes. False accusation suits are not uncommon, although they are exceedingly rare for people who are fired after an arbitration (due to those people believing that the arbitration result has any legal standing).
In either case an employee (either the accuser or the accused) is going to either have to live with it or pay for the suit themselves. As you pointed out, employees may not be able to afford this, especially employees who have just been fired with little notice.
Reporting a crime at your nearest police station is free.
The police are very unlikely to get involved in a typical office harassment situation. An intern was groped or propositioned by her boss with no witnesses, and no evidence? The police can do nothing with that.
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
They aren't, for the most part. It's just that people do not pursue the other options, possibly because they don't know any better.
Yes, people always have a right to sue. But that isn't always the best option for the harassee.
Who said anything about suing? Reporting a crime at your nearest police station is free. If your employer doesn't want to do anything then take your complaint, charges and evidence to the place your're supposed to.
"used something called "ironchat" they deserve what they got."
Exactly! It would have been much cheaper, and just as secure to use triple ROT13. Cause it's 3x betterer.
I prefer the Rotweiller13 encrypted comms: the message is transmitted via a sled pulled by 13 extremely hungry rotweillers.
*Lag is horrible and distance can become a problem.YMMV (literally).
I take like 80% milk.
True fact.
I'm guessing that you're overweight and blame your obesity on some medical problem.
(You know, sometimes I hate being right)
So, it took two years after some random internet stranger had an argument with multiple other random internet strangers about things they weren't really informed about, to have fully driverless cars. You're right, that's hardly any progress.
Actually, IIRC, you were one off those random internet strangers two years ago who claimed that waymo was already doing a taxi service without drivers.
Bet you don't feel so smart right now, do you?
Two years ago I had an argument with multiple SDC proponents who were claiming that Waymo had already been running driverless for six months.
I have not seen this large a difference between hype and substance since the first dot-bomb. SDC progress has been minimal over the last few years.
My bro just took a job that was supposed to be a 12 month contract to hire sys admin job with an emphasis on writing automation scripts. Pay was good so he took it. Turns out it's just a monitoring gig, 6 month contract that might get extended twice to 18 before they fire him
He didn't even read the terms of the contract he signed? Hate to say it but someone who can't be bothered to read his contract is a low-level grunt, not to be entrusted with anything important, so sounds like he is in the correct position for his abilities.
(Yeah, mod me down all you like, that statement will remain true).
Sigh, it's the antimicrosoft bias in NZ schools.
They've all got free use of Microsoft software due to their license agreement - but do the schools use it?
No. They use Google stuff. Because that's all the teachers know. They think "microsoft bad", but coming from the actual enterprise I.T. space, I look at what teachers are doing and laugh. They do stuff they think it is impressive, and I look at it and think how much nicer it is in Office 365.
And they don't even have to pay for it.
I dunno about you, but when I refuse something that is free, it's because something else is better. IOW, that $FREE thing lost purely due to merit.
The reason why you'd want to go with Windows is that that's probably what most of them will need to use when they enter the workforce.
Nonsense. The only reason companies stick with Windows is because the IT department are afraid of anything else. non-IT people are just fine at moving to something better - see how they moved en masse to Android/iOS.
Anytime you want to introduce a non-Windows solution you have to justify it to the IT department, whereas anytime a Windows solution is introduced no justification is made.
When people choose the best tool for the job, they don't choose Windows. When IT departments choose what people will use, those people get Windows.
My wife is [...] clever [...] but loves hippy-dippy, tree-hugging, unscientific "medicine"
You don't see the contradiction in that?