The WorldWideWeb, abbreviated to www, started in 1990. IoT was coined in 1999. Forty years before that would be 1959. ARPAnet didn't exist for 10 years after that, much less anything that could be called the Internet. So, no, the Internet of Things did not exist 40 years before acquiring that name.
It is not the older is better. It is that tested and vetted is better. That takes time. Never get the newest and greatest unless you are willing to deal with the chance of it breaking or acting in appropriately.
Acting in appropriately what? Acting in appropriately themed musicals? Acting in appropriately somber drunk driving ads? Please, for the love of god, finish your sentence.
It will then flash a Morse coded message saying "Your illumination system has installed updates, and needed to automatically reboot to apply them. Click here to repeat this message."
The information presented here is, indeed, grossly miseading. There is no such thing as an employer's right to monitor private communications in the EU;....
Can you clarify if you mean companies cannot monitor computer and phone usage on their own systems?
I just read the first link above, and it seems to be just the activity itself, not specifically any "inappropriate" content such as phone-sex.
But it also didn't say how much of the workday he spent talking to his girlfriend. I would assume it was quite a bit, since he went out of his way to avoid the employer's messenger account, and used his own which he figured was safe from monitoring. If it was simply a message here and there, why fire him? It was probably dozens of messages all day long.
You can't even be bothered to read the submission above?
The court case wasn't if he was fired for "wasting time", it was whether the company has the right to monitor what happens on their own computer systems.
As for how much time he wasted, for all you know he spent half the day talking to his girlfriend. I doubt it was simply a quick 5-minute chat during a mid-morning break.
They don't care what their twisted thinking actually entails. They just want people to bend to their will.
My response to them is that my ancestors did exactly what they are saying. They left a continent where the government controlled nearly everything, by force and taxes. Some of the governments were religiously empowered, and others had empowered themselves against the religious establishment's will. Either way, tyrants were everywhere, and many people left in a self-imposed banishment.
They founded a new country eventually. Many countries actually. And the concept of the government having absolute control was forcibly rejected in them. Now, centuries later, the genetic corruption has festered long enough to surface again in a call to force everyone to submit to the power of those who seek to control the lives of everyone around them.
And what is their response to someone saying "I won't submit to your tyranny!"? That you must remove yourself from 'their' society, just as our ancestors were forced to. They can't even understand the disgusting irony of the situation.
Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
You're assuming that there was even detailed paperwork to begin with and that the dolphin wasn't just incinerated/buried as soon as they found out after 30 seconds that the dolphin wasn't carrying signs of rabies, drugs, or weapons of mass destruction, despite what the New Jersey police officer said in his report when he discharged 38 bullets into the animal in self-defense, mortally wounding it.
What politically embarrassing item could that be? That this dolphin had secret information about the bridge closure surgically implanted into its cerebral cortex, and it was returning the plans to the princess?
Can you send one of those back in time to my 10-year-old self? I didn't know that putting a strong magnet on the front of the TV would leave a large green spot forever. I still don't understand why it did. But I remember that damn green blotch on the actor's face.
Right... and the Liberals aren't responsible for doubling the debt in the last 7 years
Well, the Republicans control Congress and the purse strings, so you tell me who's responsible? We had surpluses under Clinton. As soon as Bush took office, that changed quickly.
The surplus under Clinton was because we had a Republican Congress that wasn't afraid of telling the President "No.". So tell me who's responsible for budgets.
The current Congressional leadership is so afraid they'll be called racists by your open-minded liberals they can't piss without getting White House approval first. Add to that, today the Republican party wants most of the same things the Democrat party wants, just with a different set of voters.
That is certainly true. I still blame the politicians who swore up and down that the law would never be applied as anything other than an "additional fine" tacked onto a ticket for other activity such as speeding. If they had been honest and said it would become a primary offense withing a few years, people would have been calling their representatives and giving them an earful.
You tell me - all I did was point out your silly namecalling about my nick was wrong and gave you a clue as to where it came from, not that it actually matters.
So your claim of "If you were older and had used computers for long enough" wasn't the point of your statement? Now that I have shown your assumption false, you can just hand-wave it away. I guess you didn't expect to have this discussion with someone who actually has used computers for a few decades.
Kids with no seatbelts are an obvious consequence of people ignoring regulations about seatbelts.
First, why does it matter if it is either a consequence, or an obvious one? I grew up when most people didn't wear seatbelts, most kids had free range in the back of a car, and we even rode in the bed of the pickup to go to town. But, oh no, some douche bags decided that couldn't be allowed to exist, so they worked very hard, and lied about their goals, to ensure everyone had to follow the rules they thought were the 'way things ought to be'.
Since you keep calling the law a "tax on stupidity", and you keep harping on children not being buckled in, you apparently support the government rules that make personal choices you don't agree with illegal.
Now why are you getting so worked up about it?
Why am I getting worked up because you support the government's over-regulation of every aspect of my personal life? Maybe because you are supporting the government's over-regulation of every aspect of my personal life.
Whether I wear a seatbelt or not is not of your concern. Whether my child wears a seatbelt or not is not of your concern. Whether you and your family wear seatbelts is not of my concern. I am perfectly fine with you deciding for yourself and your children what level of safety you are comfortable with. Some people don't let their children play outside in their own front yard, and I am ok with their choice. Others let their children run all over the neighborhood, either on their own or with a group of friends and siblings. I am ok with the choice of those parents as well, even though sometimes one of those kids never makes it back home. I am ok with either choice because the parents are making their own choice about their own children.
But you, dbiii, think you, through government regulation, have the right to force me to make a choice you find appropriate regarding not only my choice of my own personal safety, but what level of safety I choose for my own children in our daily lives.
Now, please enlighten us more on how the government should be able to control every aspect of my life
All this over seatbelts? Do you really want me to laugh at you and consider you some worthless loser incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions?
You have shown this is exactly how you regard people who make choices you don't agree with. Why stop now?
IMHO people going apeshit about seatbelt laws are like the "weather rock" where you know it's raining because the thing is wet. It's a good detector for the "give me stupidity and give me death" people
Again, you have the all too common idea that those people who make choices you don't agree with are simply stupid. You also have the all too common idea that people who don't think like you do must be punished. You can't imagine any scenario where someone makes an important choice you don't agree with where that person is not just right, but actually justified.
who like to call themselves "libertarians" until they need a government to protect them from something.
I don't know all these people who call themselves "libertarians" to start with, much less ones that want the government to protect them from themselves.
You brought up the seatbelts yourself so you can't blame me for making you look stupid.
I can't credit you with it either, since you haven't done so.
However my point stands,
The one where you get to decide how I raise my children? Or the one where you get to decide I raise my self? I guess it might be the point that you get to make everyone else's decisions for them.
I wouldn't say your point stands, so much as you simply stand by your belief that only people that agree with you are allowed to make decisions.
Who said anything about "seatbelts on their kids"? I specifically said the police can pull over someone, that someone being the driver, for deciding as an adult to not wear a seatbelt.
As to your nick, douche bag sure seems more appropriate than dbase. Since you seem to think your opinion on others wearing seatbelts is the only one that should be allowed. Even as you get more hysterical about it.
By the way, I've been using computer since around 1980. I was in grade school then, and my elementary school's programming class was not too demanding. But the programming class at the county education center was geared for adults. Add in the mainframes and minis I was trained to repair in the military in the 1990s, and the dot-matrix line printer with 136 print heads, and I am pretty sure I've worked on older systems than most people on this board, as well as a broader range.
Now, if this was just a dick waving competition, I'm sure you can make counter claims that are better than mine. I fully concede that someone with a nickname for product that came out after I had already taken my first computer courses may very well have been using computers before me. Congratulations in advance.
Now, please enlighten us more on how the government should be able to control every aspect of my life, as long as it is in line with your personal beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
I was hoping to see this post. :^)
Good work.
+1 for yet another misuse of our favorite high school debate team crutch.
+1 for declaring your straw men
with no allies they will be wiped off the face of the planet (and I assume that is your hope).
Especially since they are mostly full of shit to start with. Don't forget Obama and his minions, they can fertilize the back forty.
Just use a wood chipper to take care of the problem. I know it works cause I saw it on TV.
Yeah, but didn't they catch and convict that guy? He did murder his wife before chipping her, after all.
The WorldWideWeb, abbreviated to www, started in 1990. IoT was coined in 1999. Forty years before that would be 1959. ARPAnet didn't exist for 10 years after that, much less anything that could be called the Internet. So, no, the Internet of Things did not exist 40 years before acquiring that name.
Obviously you placed the milk in the incorrect position.
I'm a software engineer...I bought a Nest
No, you're probably some shitty Rubyist or web "programmer" banging out code on his MacBook "Pro".
Says the guy who can't close a quote correctly, or be bothered to proof his work before submitting.
Then, apparently, it existed before the Internet was named the Internet.
You have to realize you are talking to an Ixian here. If it can be made more complex through technology, they are the ones to do it.
It could be worse. He could be Tleilaxu.
It is not the older is better. It is that tested and vetted is better. That takes time. Never get the newest and greatest unless you are willing to deal with the chance of it breaking or acting in appropriately.
Acting in appropriately what? Acting in appropriately themed musicals? Acting in appropriately somber drunk driving ads? Please, for the love of god, finish your sentence.
It will then flash a Morse coded message saying "Your illumination system has installed updates, and needed to automatically reboot to apply them. Click here to repeat this message."
The information presented here is, indeed, grossly miseading. There is no such thing as an employer's right to monitor private communications in the EU; ....
Can you clarify if you mean companies cannot monitor computer and phone usage on their own systems?
I just read the first link above, and it seems to be just the activity itself, not specifically any "inappropriate" content such as phone-sex.
But it also didn't say how much of the workday he spent talking to his girlfriend. I would assume it was quite a bit, since he went out of his way to avoid the employer's messenger account, and used his own which he figured was safe from monitoring. If it was simply a message here and there, why fire him? It was probably dozens of messages all day long.
You can't even be bothered to read the submission above?
The court case wasn't if he was fired for "wasting time", it was whether the company has the right to monitor what happens on their own computer systems.
As for how much time he wasted, for all you know he spent half the day talking to his girlfriend. I doubt it was simply a quick 5-minute chat during a mid-morning break.
They don't care what their twisted thinking actually entails. They just want people to bend to their will.
My response to them is that my ancestors did exactly what they are saying. They left a continent where the government controlled nearly everything, by force and taxes. Some of the governments were religiously empowered, and others had empowered themselves against the religious establishment's will. Either way, tyrants were everywhere, and many people left in a self-imposed banishment.
They founded a new country eventually. Many countries actually. And the concept of the government having absolute control was forcibly rejected in them. Now, centuries later, the genetic corruption has festered long enough to surface again in a call to force everyone to submit to the power of those who seek to control the lives of everyone around them.
And what is their response to someone saying "I won't submit to your tyranny!"? That you must remove yourself from 'their' society, just as our ancestors were forced to. They can't even understand the disgusting irony of the situation.
Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.
You're assuming that there was even detailed paperwork to begin with and that the dolphin wasn't just incinerated/buried as soon as they found out after 30 seconds that the dolphin wasn't carrying signs of rabies, drugs, or weapons of mass destruction, despite what the New Jersey police officer said in his report when he discharged 38 bullets into the animal in self-defense, mortally wounding it.
To be fair, it was carrying a knife.
What politically embarrassing item could that be? That this dolphin had secret information about the bridge closure surgically implanted into its cerebral cortex, and it was returning the plans to the princess?
Can you send one of those back in time to my 10-year-old self? I didn't know that putting a strong magnet on the front of the TV would leave a large green spot forever. I still don't understand why it did. But I remember that damn green blotch on the actor's face.
Right... and the Liberals aren't responsible for doubling the debt in the last 7 years
Well, the Republicans control Congress and the purse strings, so you tell me who's responsible? We had surpluses under Clinton. As soon as Bush took office, that changed quickly.
The surplus under Clinton was because we had a Republican Congress that wasn't afraid of telling the President "No.". So tell me who's responsible for budgets.
The current Congressional leadership is so afraid they'll be called racists by your open-minded liberals they can't piss without getting White House approval first. Add to that, today the Republican party wants most of the same things the Democrat party wants, just with a different set of voters.
Does Nicolas Cage collect rediculously rare videogames? Because I have tons.
Only E.T. and Custer's Revenge.
That is certainly true. I still blame the politicians who swore up and down that the law would never be applied as anything other than an "additional fine" tacked onto a ticket for other activity such as speeding. If they had been honest and said it would become a primary offense withing a few years, people would have been calling their representatives and giving them an earful.
You tell me - all I did was point out your silly namecalling about my nick was wrong and gave you a clue as to where it came from, not that it actually matters.
So your claim of "If you were older and had used computers for long enough" wasn't the point of your statement? Now that I have shown your assumption false, you can just hand-wave it away. I guess you didn't expect to have this discussion with someone who actually has used computers for a few decades.
Kids with no seatbelts are an obvious consequence of people ignoring regulations about seatbelts.
First, why does it matter if it is either a consequence, or an obvious one? I grew up when most people didn't wear seatbelts, most kids had free range in the back of a car, and we even rode in the bed of the pickup to go to town. But, oh no, some douche bags decided that couldn't be allowed to exist, so they worked very hard, and lied about their goals, to ensure everyone had to follow the rules they thought were the 'way things ought to be'.
Since you keep calling the law a "tax on stupidity", and you keep harping on children not being buckled in, you apparently support the government rules that make personal choices you don't agree with illegal.
Now why are you getting so worked up about it?
Why am I getting worked up because you support the government's over-regulation of every aspect of my personal life? Maybe because you are supporting the government's over-regulation of every aspect of my personal life.
Whether I wear a seatbelt or not is not of your concern. Whether my child wears a seatbelt or not is not of your concern. Whether you and your family wear seatbelts is not of my concern. I am perfectly fine with you deciding for yourself and your children what level of safety you are comfortable with. Some people don't let their children play outside in their own front yard, and I am ok with their choice. Others let their children run all over the neighborhood, either on their own or with a group of friends and siblings. I am ok with the choice of those parents as well, even though sometimes one of those kids never makes it back home. I am ok with either choice because the parents are making their own choice about their own children.
But you, dbiii, think you, through government regulation, have the right to force me to make a choice you find appropriate regarding not only my choice of my own personal safety, but what level of safety I choose for my own children in our daily lives.
All this over seatbelts? Do you really want me to laugh at you and consider you some worthless loser incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions?
You have shown this is exactly how you regard people who make choices you don't agree with. Why stop now?
IMHO people going apeshit about seatbelt laws are like the "weather rock" where you know it's raining because the thing is wet. It's a good detector for the "give me stupidity and give me death" people
Again, you have the all too common idea that those people who make choices you don't agree with are simply stupid. You also have the all too common idea that people who don't think like you do must be punished. You can't imagine any scenario where someone makes an important choice you don't agree with where that person is not just right, but actually justified.
who like to call themselves "libertarians" until they need a government to protect them from something.
I don't know all these people who call themselves "libertarians" to start with, much less ones that want the government to protect them from themselves.
You brought up the seatbelts yourself so you can't blame me for making you look stupid.
I can't credit you with it either, since you haven't done so.
However my point stands,
The one where you get to decide how I raise my children? Or the one where you get to decide I raise my self? I guess it might be the point that you get to make everyone else's decisions for them.
I wouldn't say your point stands, so much as you simply stand by your belief that only people that agree with you are allowed to make decisions.
Who said anything about "seatbelts on their kids"? I specifically said the police can pull over someone, that someone being the driver, for deciding as an adult to not wear a seatbelt.
As to your nick, douche bag sure seems more appropriate than dbase. Since you seem to think your opinion on others wearing seatbelts is the only one that should be allowed. Even as you get more hysterical about it.
By the way, I've been using computer since around 1980. I was in grade school then, and my elementary school's programming class was not too demanding. But the programming class at the county education center was geared for adults. Add in the mainframes and minis I was trained to repair in the military in the 1990s, and the dot-matrix line printer with 136 print heads, and I am pretty sure I've worked on older systems than most people on this board, as well as a broader range.
Now, if this was just a dick waving competition, I'm sure you can make counter claims that are better than mine. I fully concede that someone with a nickname for product that came out after I had already taken my first computer courses may very well have been using computers before me. Congratulations in advance.
Now, please enlighten us more on how the government should be able to control every aspect of my life, as long as it is in line with your personal beliefs.
So, your nickname of dbiii stands for Douche Bag the Third, does it?
Quite appropriate.
Now go play in your sandbox while the adults have a conversation.