Ummmm, duh? You're melting plastics in order to reform them into another shape. It doesn't take a study to realize you shouldn't stick your face in and breathe deeply.
None of that matters. It's still simple. If you can eat what you want and stay skinny, well bully for you. If you're fat, eat less and be more active. It's that simple.
Having a genetic predisposition to obesity is a reason, not an excuse.
If he's still there, that guy probably wasn't much of an employee to begin with. Taking a 6 month break from your career doesn't prevent you from moving out of your WalMart job for 14 years. I've taken several breaks during my career, raning from 6-month to 2-year sabbaticals, and I keep moving up and making more money every time I go back to work.
Stop reading into things. I never defended all of those incredibly annoying ads. I block them myself. But a blanket statement saying that "Ads are immoral. Ban the fuckers" is dumber than dumb.
Ads are not immoral. There's nothing immoral about just displaying a simple picture saying "Hey, look at my product". What's immoral are the things you referred to, essentially turning ads from annoying-at-worst pictures of your product into a trojan attack to spy on people far beyond what the user sees.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I use ad blockers too. I didn't until ads became horribly intrusive videos and other Flash abominations that use tons of bandwidth and hog my CPU.
I only disagreed with the assertion that marketing is somehow inherently immoral. That's as stupid an opinion as the idiot claiming that blocking ads is immoral.
Seriously? And how did you friend hear about it? From a friend? And how did that friend's friend hear about it? Because without advertising, no company is allowed to talk about their product at all.
It's one thing to dislike ads and choose to ignore/block them. But saying that ads are somehow inherently immoral just makes you sound crazy.
Without advertising, we'd all still be living in caves. Even John Smith, the town blacksmith, would hang a horseshoe sign out in front of his shop so you'd know that's where you get your horse shoed. Can you imagine how long it would take to build any kind of economy if the only way anything could ever be sold was by word of mouth?
That SHOULD be the way things are done, but increasingly the message isn't how to protect yourself. That's considered "victim blaming." Don't teach women self defense, we need to teach boys not to rape. Don't teach kids how to defend themselves, we need to teach kids not to be bullies. We can't teach people not to listen to radicals, we need to make sure they never speak from radicals to begin with.
It's all about keeping people's heads in the sand, not taking care of themselves but depending on [Government/Organization/Corporation] to project them from every ill in life. Because if bad things happen, it's not your fault, somebody else is to blame.
Funny, I see "liberals" as the group that believes everyone else is an idiot. That's why we need so many laws, because of all of those idiots that "liberals" believe are incapable of making the right decision on their own.
Believe it or not, a friend of mine can and does make clothes from pelts. Hunts with a bow he made from natural materials. Dude is a true badass of the highest order.
He does wear regular clothes to his job as a software developer. But if anybody is going to survive the zombie apocalypse, it's the Urban Aboriginal.
When you buy a phone and say that it is your phone, why isn't it your product? Why do you as a consumer get off easy? Aren't you another link on a long chain of questionable practices?
It's not just about a moment of graphical corruption, that's an annoyance. But a process being able to access the RAM leftovers from a previous process is begging for memory based attacks. Even though it's on the GPU, it's a vulnerability. What's to say that GPU wasn't just displaying banking info? The OS should not assume the application is friendly and blanking the VRAM. That security is on the OS.
Not sure when they'll get around to death camps, but how's free speech doing down there?
But nah, I'm sure they'll never take anything else away. Government only ever cares about it's citizens, it would never act against the people's interests...
Everyday driving is filled with problems that intractable for humans. Computers will be better at some things, people at others. How about using the strengths of both?
I would guess that the car will be traveling at the posted speed limit meaning it will likely have time to slow down, and if it absolutely doesn't have time to slow down, it won't. Furthermore, the automated car behind it will be traveling at a safe distance behind it, not tailgating as asshole humans are known to do, so it will have plenty of time to slow down as well.
The point is, cars should never have to make that kind of decision because they aren't shitty drivers to begin with.
So as long you get your licenses practically for free, ignore other related infrastructure costs, along with cost of administration, it makes more sense to do it yourself? Yeah, I can see that.
That depends on the complexity of the system and how specialized it is for the business. Some things can and should be outsourced. Email? Easily outsourced, it's a commodity. Security? Chances are it should be outsourced for your typical organization, who isn't going have qualified staff and therefore poses a risk not only to themselves to but the whole internet. That custom application at the core of the business? Not so much.
I recently realized (I'm ashamed it took me this long) that this line of thought is self defeating. Social justice demands equality in numbers. The benefit, they tell us, is diversity in thought. That a more diverse workplace results in a better product or service due to the diversity of those that contributed their ideas.
But these are the same people who also tell us that women are exactly like men and that any difference is a false social construct. That being the case, then once [oppressed minority] reaches parity with the awful cishet white male, then won't any benefit from having diversity vanish, assuming if ever actually existed in the first place?
In short, if we're all the same except for superficial traits, diversity based on superficial traits CANNOT create a different environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmm, duh? You're melting plastics in order to reform them into another shape. It doesn't take a study to realize you shouldn't stick your face in and breathe deeply.
None of that matters. It's still simple. If you can eat what you want and stay skinny, well bully for you. If you're fat, eat less and be more active. It's that simple.
Having a genetic predisposition to obesity is a reason, not an excuse.
If he's still there, that guy probably wasn't much of an employee to begin with. Taking a 6 month break from your career doesn't prevent you from moving out of your WalMart job for 14 years. I've taken several breaks during my career, raning from 6-month to 2-year sabbaticals, and I keep moving up and making more money every time I go back to work.
Stop reading into things. I never defended all of those incredibly annoying ads. I block them myself. But a blanket statement saying that "Ads are immoral. Ban the fuckers" is dumber than dumb.
Ads are not immoral. There's nothing immoral about just displaying a simple picture saying "Hey, look at my product". What's immoral are the things you referred to, essentially turning ads from annoying-at-worst pictures of your product into a trojan attack to spy on people far beyond what the user sees.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I use ad blockers too. I didn't until ads became horribly intrusive videos and other Flash abominations that use tons of bandwidth and hog my CPU.
I only disagreed with the assertion that marketing is somehow inherently immoral. That's as stupid an opinion as the idiot claiming that blocking ads is immoral.
Seriously? And how did you friend hear about it? From a friend? And how did that friend's friend hear about it? Because without advertising, no company is allowed to talk about their product at all.
It's one thing to dislike ads and choose to ignore/block them. But saying that ads are somehow inherently immoral just makes you sound crazy.
Without advertising, we'd all still be living in caves. Even John Smith, the town blacksmith, would hang a horseshoe sign out in front of his shop so you'd know that's where you get your horse shoed. Can you imagine how long it would take to build any kind of economy if the only way anything could ever be sold was by word of mouth?
Protect, not project...
That SHOULD be the way things are done, but increasingly the message isn't how to protect yourself. That's considered "victim blaming." Don't teach women self defense, we need to teach boys not to rape. Don't teach kids how to defend themselves, we need to teach kids not to be bullies. We can't teach people not to listen to radicals, we need to make sure they never speak from radicals to begin with.
It's all about keeping people's heads in the sand, not taking care of themselves but depending on [Government/Organization/Corporation] to project them from every ill in life. Because if bad things happen, it's not your fault, somebody else is to blame.
Funny, I see "liberals" as the group that believes everyone else is an idiot. That's why we need so many laws, because of all of those idiots that "liberals" believe are incapable of making the right decision on their own.
Holy crap. A truly intelligent, insightful post that understands the big picture is far more complex than X is bad and Y is good.
I'm not sure how to react. Please say something inflammatory and insulting instead.
Would mod this up if I had points.
Believe it or not, a friend of mine can and does make clothes from pelts. Hunts with a bow he made from natural materials. Dude is a true badass of the highest order.
He does wear regular clothes to his job as a software developer. But if anybody is going to survive the zombie apocalypse, it's the Urban Aboriginal.
When you buy a phone and say that it is your phone, why isn't it your product? Why do you as a consumer get off easy? Aren't you another link on a long chain of questionable practices?
This is the only rational response. Amnesty International is trolling for headlines, and possibly "donations"...
Exactly. Applications CANNOT be expected to zero memory. The OS absolutely MUST be required to do that, to be considered in any way secure.
They've been doing with system RAM for a long time. That practice needs to be standard for VRAM as well.
It's not just about a moment of graphical corruption, that's an annoyance. But a process being able to access the RAM leftovers from a previous process is begging for memory based attacks. Even though it's on the GPU, it's a vulnerability. What's to say that GPU wasn't just displaying banking info? The OS should not assume the application is friendly and blanking the VRAM. That security is on the OS.
Not sure when they'll get around to death camps, but how's free speech doing down there?
But nah, I'm sure they'll never take anything else away. Government only ever cares about it's citizens, it would never act against the people's interests...
Whatever you say, Nostradamus.
Everyday driving is filled with problems that intractable for humans. Computers will be better at some things, people at others. How about using the strengths of both?
I would guess that the car will be traveling at the posted speed limit meaning it will likely have time to slow down, and if it absolutely doesn't have time to slow down, it won't. Furthermore, the automated car behind it will be traveling at a safe distance behind it, not tailgating as asshole humans are known to do, so it will have plenty of time to slow down as well.
The point is, cars should never have to make that kind of decision because they aren't shitty drivers to begin with.
Can we retire the word "problematic" already? Anytime someone uses it, I instinctively tune out anything said afterward.
So as long you get your licenses practically for free, ignore other related infrastructure costs, along with cost of administration, it makes more sense to do it yourself? Yeah, I can see that.
That depends on the complexity of the system and how specialized it is for the business. Some things can and should be outsourced. Email? Easily outsourced, it's a commodity. Security? Chances are it should be outsourced for your typical organization, who isn't going have qualified staff and therefore poses a risk not only to themselves to but the whole internet. That custom application at the core of the business? Not so much.
I recently realized (I'm ashamed it took me this long) that this line of thought is self defeating. Social justice demands equality in numbers. The benefit, they tell us, is diversity in thought. That a more diverse workplace results in a better product or service due to the diversity of those that contributed their ideas.
But these are the same people who also tell us that women are exactly like men and that any difference is a false social construct. That being the case, then once [oppressed minority] reaches parity with the awful cishet white male, then won't any benefit from having diversity vanish, assuming if ever actually existed in the first place?
In short, if we're all the same except for superficial traits, diversity based on superficial traits CANNOT create a different environment.