A massive amount of people would have voted for that, if the level of indoctrination currently is any indication. I've had to look really funny at people who answer "yes" to the question "Do you really believe that someone's great-grandchildren should be able to live off something done a century ago?" an awful lot over the past few years.
It seemed too intent on spreading out the story (i.e., spreading out the money), rather than doing the book -> film transition right.
Lord of the Rings, in my opinion, did it right. It wasn't a carbon-copy of the books (which is, again in my opinion, the right way to go with a film), but it took the story and really did create a magnificent trilogy of films out of it. But they were working with some 1500 pages of source material, and turning it into about 12 hours of film. The Hobbit is taking a mere 300 pages and trying to turn it into ~9 hours of film, partly by sourcing material from elsewhere, and partly by just making it up.
Which, really, is rather unfortunate. I think they could have turned out an utterly stunning three-hour film adaptation of The Hobbit, if they'd, well, stuck to just one film -- something at least as good as Lord of the Rings, if not even better in some respects. Making a trilogy of long films from a trilogy of long books worked rather well, but making a trilogy of films from a single moderate-length book seems like just a bad idea.
The speed of transition from theatre -> rental/retail has sped up immensely, even just from the 90s or early 2000s. I think that's a contributing factor to the impact of just waiting until a movie is more conveniently available.
Being able to draw a line between being entertained by real death and being entertained by fake death doesn't really require any difficult consideration. After all, the idea that people shouldn't be entertained by violence is also one of the contributing factors to things like, say, animal cruelty laws -- there pretty much has to be a line drawn somewhere, and drawing it between "real violence" and "not real violence" makes as much sense, if not more, to me than drawing it between "watching real violence" and "committing real violence".
So you don't actually have a reason why it's not immoral. Okay.
Also there's a much larger problem with exploiting a murder for entertainment and profit than for any other reason. While other reasons may not be 'good', I'd say that entertainment and profit are the very bottom of that barrel.
If you read the article you linked, the substantial change is only in how it's prosecuted. It's still a crime, it's just not under the jurisdiction of human rights tribunals.
The comment has no less validity if you remove the letters "wo" from the last paragraph. There is no legitimate reason to post something like this. It's disgusting and unnecessary. Anyone who has a desire to look at it is the sort of person who should seek professional help.
I'm Canadian, not a huge fan of the current political climate in Canada, but I can't get outraged over this. Though I will say the guy who's been arrested is a bit of an idiot for saying that Canada is a 'police state' for having confiscated computer equipment directly related to what he's been charged with... Call it a 'police state' for how the G20 was handled, not because you went and got yourself arrested for doing something that is quite likely illegal and definitely disgusting.
As a Linux user I really could care less which X-server I'm using.
Mir isn't an X server. It has an X compatibility layer (XMir) which can be used to run an X server alongside Mir, but it's not an X server in itself.
Generally the complaints are that it's brand new (announced only a few months ago), will likely be very prone to breaking (at least for the first year or two), still requires an X server to be running to run X applications, and is trying to do something that Wayland is also trying to do (but has been trying to do for several years longer). Basically, it's a rather extreme case of NIH (not invented here), which is trying to be pushed out in a state that it's probably not ready to be used seriously.
The irony, which hasn't escaped the developers involved, is that it's the same situation as systemd, except reversed. This time it's Ubuntu (Mir) trying to replace something started by Fedora (Wayland), rather than Fedora (systemd) trying to replace something started by Ubuntu (upstart).
Using a bit of JavaScript is nice. Can be used to add small conveniences that just don't work without it. But it should always gracefully degrade, something that's been essentially completely lost in 'modern' web development. You have JavaScript or you have no page.
2) The claim that China is hacking critical infrastructure that could kill people makes no sense. Critical infrastructure should NOT be on the net at all, let alone on a net connected to China. So NSA likely lying..
I think you underestimate the stupidity of some corporations and government organizations. While they're doubtlessly not connected directly to the internet, many are almost certainly plugged into something which is either connected to the internet, or is in turn plugged into something connected to the internet.
It's definitely a scam at some levels. The entire system was designed to reward the earliest adopters (the creator, for instance) disproportionately.
The creator being absolutely anonymous, and working very, very hard to remain absolutely anonymous, is also very suspicious. His cited reasons for doing so can be seen as reasonable in one respect, but they also cast large doubts to me -- the justifications come down to an assumption of success (rather than just being a neat little pet cryptography project), and the system has extreme financial rewards for them personally if that success comes. If they were assuming success and didn't intend to exploit it, the system wouldn't have had such large rewards to begin with, with those rewards diminishing so rapidly.
It's also been a pretty spectacular failure as a currency (the rapid, vast value fluctuations are a big problem for serious use -- aside from illegal usage, where that can be tolerated for the anonymity benefits), but has been a resounding success as a method of making some people get very, very rich.
Yet not only is he aware of the secret spying programs, he is actively defending them.
This makes me wonder exactly what secrets he knows about that we don't. Such a vast turnaround, and not even being terribly subtle about it sincerely makes me wonder just what has him so afraid.
There is no question (and he doesn't even deny it) that he broke several laws in releasing this information. Since there is no question he broke the law, he is therefore a criminal.
A few comments above yours pointed out an interesting conundrum... The government is claiming he's lying, which means that if he's lying, he released no secret information. And if he released no secret information, there's no grounds to call him a criminal, nor to prosecute him.
Which means if they go after him at all, it means at least some of what he's said is true and secret.
Banning firearms is a worthwhile goal, too, just in a different way. If you're trying to reduce murders and crime rates in general, focusing on the root causes is smart. If you're trying to specifically reduce gunshot deaths and injuries, then banning firearms is the way to go.
The majority of firearms deaths are suicides -- around 2/3rds. And these are suicides that, in many cases, just wouldn't happen without immediate access to a firearm -- most people who contemplate suicide don't actually follow through with it if it takes them more than a couple minutes to kill themselves (which, for example, finding and climbing a tall building would likely take at least ten minutes). I'd consider that a worthy reason to severely restrict firearms in itself.
I liked when I saw them do it right in an episode of... Law and Order, I think it was. The cop clearly had his finger off the trigger, and he moved it to the trigger as he was contemplating actually shooting someone. It's the real-world version of the movie trope where someone starts to slightly squeeze the trigger.
One bug, which I reported about WoW two years ago, shows an integer underflow on a character statistics page under certain conditions. It still hasn't been fixed. Minor? Yeah, but give a bit of a pattern.
Many browsers still don't support TLS 1.2 (which I feel should be treated as a serious bug, not a feature enhancement that some of those browsers treat it as). And those that do almost universally don't enable it by default.
So you'd still have to support RC4, for the moment.
Actually, it is pretty well documented that Jobs would almost-certainly have lived a much longer life if he'd followed his doctors' advice in the first place and gotten standard cancer treatment right when advised (which, if memory serves, was surgery to remove the relatively-slow-growing tumour), rather than doing new-age-y bullshit. The particular cancer he had wasn't very malignant, and could almost certainly have been dealt with almost exclusively through just, well, removing it. Instead, it metastasized because he thought he knew better than everyone else (for better and worse) -- which, in this case, included the highly-trained professionals whose advice he ignored.
I could have sworn it actually was the default about ten years ago. I did up a fresh Firefox profile a few months ago and was a bit confused to see it allow 3rd-party cookies by default.
Though maybe I'm just remembering a different browser that did have it set that way by default. Can't guarantee what I'm remembering is Firefox, really.
Slashdot Mirror
A massive amount of people would have voted for that, if the level of indoctrination currently is any indication. I've had to look really funny at people who answer "yes" to the question "Do you really believe that someone's great-grandchildren should be able to live off something done a century ago?" an awful lot over the past few years.
It seemed too intent on spreading out the story (i.e., spreading out the money), rather than doing the book -> film transition right.
Lord of the Rings, in my opinion, did it right. It wasn't a carbon-copy of the books (which is, again in my opinion, the right way to go with a film), but it took the story and really did create a magnificent trilogy of films out of it. But they were working with some 1500 pages of source material, and turning it into about 12 hours of film. The Hobbit is taking a mere 300 pages and trying to turn it into ~9 hours of film, partly by sourcing material from elsewhere, and partly by just making it up.
Which, really, is rather unfortunate. I think they could have turned out an utterly stunning three-hour film adaptation of The Hobbit, if they'd, well, stuck to just one film -- something at least as good as Lord of the Rings, if not even better in some respects. Making a trilogy of long films from a trilogy of long books worked rather well, but making a trilogy of films from a single moderate-length book seems like just a bad idea.
The speed of transition from theatre -> rental/retail has sped up immensely, even just from the 90s or early 2000s. I think that's a contributing factor to the impact of just waiting until a movie is more conveniently available.
Being able to draw a line between being entertained by real death and being entertained by fake death doesn't really require any difficult consideration. After all, the idea that people shouldn't be entertained by violence is also one of the contributing factors to things like, say, animal cruelty laws -- there pretty much has to be a line drawn somewhere, and drawing it between "real violence" and "not real violence" makes as much sense, if not more, to me than drawing it between "watching real violence" and "committing real violence".
So you don't actually have a reason why it's not immoral. Okay.
Also there's a much larger problem with exploiting a murder for entertainment and profit than for any other reason. While other reasons may not be 'good', I'd say that entertainment and profit are the very bottom of that barrel.
If you read the article you linked, the substantial change is only in how it's prosecuted. It's still a crime, it's just not under the jurisdiction of human rights tribunals.
What makes you believe that exploiting the murder of an individual by posting a video of it is anything less than immoral?
The comment has no less validity if you remove the letters "wo" from the last paragraph. There is no legitimate reason to post something like this. It's disgusting and unnecessary. Anyone who has a desire to look at it is the sort of person who should seek professional help.
I'm Canadian, not a huge fan of the current political climate in Canada, but I can't get outraged over this. Though I will say the guy who's been arrested is a bit of an idiot for saying that Canada is a 'police state' for having confiscated computer equipment directly related to what he's been charged with... Call it a 'police state' for how the G20 was handled, not because you went and got yourself arrested for doing something that is quite likely illegal and definitely disgusting.
As a Linux user I really could care less which X-server I'm using.
Mir isn't an X server. It has an X compatibility layer (XMir) which can be used to run an X server alongside Mir, but it's not an X server in itself.
Generally the complaints are that it's brand new (announced only a few months ago), will likely be very prone to breaking (at least for the first year or two), still requires an X server to be running to run X applications, and is trying to do something that Wayland is also trying to do (but has been trying to do for several years longer). Basically, it's a rather extreme case of NIH (not invented here), which is trying to be pushed out in a state that it's probably not ready to be used seriously.
The irony, which hasn't escaped the developers involved, is that it's the same situation as systemd, except reversed. This time it's Ubuntu (Mir) trying to replace something started by Fedora (Wayland), rather than Fedora (systemd) trying to replace something started by Ubuntu (upstart).
Using a bit of JavaScript is nice. Can be used to add small conveniences that just don't work without it. But it should always gracefully degrade, something that's been essentially completely lost in 'modern' web development. You have JavaScript or you have no page.
2) The claim that China is hacking critical infrastructure that could kill people makes no sense. Critical infrastructure should NOT be on the net at all, let alone on a net connected to China. So NSA likely lying..
I think you underestimate the stupidity of some corporations and government organizations. While they're doubtlessly not connected directly to the internet, many are almost certainly plugged into something which is either connected to the internet, or is in turn plugged into something connected to the internet.
It's definitely a scam at some levels. The entire system was designed to reward the earliest adopters (the creator, for instance) disproportionately.
The creator being absolutely anonymous, and working very, very hard to remain absolutely anonymous, is also very suspicious. His cited reasons for doing so can be seen as reasonable in one respect, but they also cast large doubts to me -- the justifications come down to an assumption of success (rather than just being a neat little pet cryptography project), and the system has extreme financial rewards for them personally if that success comes. If they were assuming success and didn't intend to exploit it, the system wouldn't have had such large rewards to begin with, with those rewards diminishing so rapidly.
It's also been a pretty spectacular failure as a currency (the rapid, vast value fluctuations are a big problem for serious use -- aside from illegal usage, where that can be tolerated for the anonymity benefits), but has been a resounding success as a method of making some people get very, very rich.
Yet not only is he aware of the secret spying programs, he is actively defending them.
This makes me wonder exactly what secrets he knows about that we don't. Such a vast turnaround, and not even being terribly subtle about it sincerely makes me wonder just what has him so afraid.
There is no question (and he doesn't even deny it) that he broke several laws in releasing this information. Since there is no question he broke the law, he is therefore a criminal.
A few comments above yours pointed out an interesting conundrum... The government is claiming he's lying, which means that if he's lying, he released no secret information. And if he released no secret information, there's no grounds to call him a criminal, nor to prosecute him.
Which means if they go after him at all, it means at least some of what he's said is true and secret.
They're groping everyone, too.
Banning firearms is a worthwhile goal, too, just in a different way. If you're trying to reduce murders and crime rates in general, focusing on the root causes is smart. If you're trying to specifically reduce gunshot deaths and injuries, then banning firearms is the way to go.
The majority of firearms deaths are suicides -- around 2/3rds. And these are suicides that, in many cases, just wouldn't happen without immediate access to a firearm -- most people who contemplate suicide don't actually follow through with it if it takes them more than a couple minutes to kill themselves (which, for example, finding and climbing a tall building would likely take at least ten minutes). I'd consider that a worthy reason to severely restrict firearms in itself.
I liked when I saw them do it right in an episode of... Law and Order, I think it was. The cop clearly had his finger off the trigger, and he moved it to the trigger as he was contemplating actually shooting someone. It's the real-world version of the movie trope where someone starts to slightly squeeze the trigger.
One bug, which I reported about WoW two years ago, shows an integer underflow on a character statistics page under certain conditions. It still hasn't been fixed. Minor? Yeah, but give a bit of a pattern.
As a conservative
The rest of what you say does not paint you as what you claim to be, not as the term is in common use today.
They didn't even test the UEFI nvram (not a partition) filling up. If they had, they would have seen that, oh, wow, it bricks the laptop entirely.
I admittedly haven't tracked how successful that was
Not especially, or so I've heard. Apparently duplicated items are rampant, like they were in D2 -- but it actually 'matters' now.
Many browsers still don't support TLS 1.2 (which I feel should be treated as a serious bug, not a feature enhancement that some of those browsers treat it as). And those that do almost universally don't enable it by default.
So you'd still have to support RC4, for the moment.
Actually, it is pretty well documented that Jobs would almost-certainly have lived a much longer life if he'd followed his doctors' advice in the first place and gotten standard cancer treatment right when advised (which, if memory serves, was surgery to remove the relatively-slow-growing tumour), rather than doing new-age-y bullshit. The particular cancer he had wasn't very malignant, and could almost certainly have been dealt with almost exclusively through just, well, removing it. Instead, it metastasized because he thought he knew better than everyone else (for better and worse) -- which, in this case, included the highly-trained professionals whose advice he ignored.
...it's a mass relay?
I could have sworn it actually was the default about ten years ago. I did up a fresh Firefox profile a few months ago and was a bit confused to see it allow 3rd-party cookies by default.
Though maybe I'm just remembering a different browser that did have it set that way by default. Can't guarantee what I'm remembering is Firefox, really.