I've owned four tablets. Admittedly cheap Chinese versions, not name brands. The first one really did spontaneously malfunction; the touchscreen started acting strangely, acting as though it was touched in the wrong places at the wrong times until at some point it failed completely. The second I had dropped and badly cracked the screen; my fault since I hadn't secured it in its case. It actually still ran but I wanted to replace it. (The third was not malfunctioning; I just wanted to upgrade to a high resolution screen.)
If you're taking suggestions for things to change, how about fixing this: If you view comments in nested mode, and the comments take up multiple pages, the successive pages don't work properly. On this article, the second page of comments repeats about 90% of the first page. Some cases even show the *exact same* content on the first and second pages; for instance, http://hardware.slashdot.org/c... at a threshhold of 0 gives me identical content for the first five pages.
The implication is not that the majority are criminals. The implication is that enough are criminals that it's something to worry about, which isn't the same thing.
And even if that was the implication, that doesn't mean the press is being truthful. Reporting "the politician said X" when it's really "they said Y and I conclude that they mean X" is itself a lie. You're making the conclusion, but you're not presenting it as a conclusion. Just because you believe the conclusion doesn't mean it's not a lie to leave that part out.
Those are indirect effects. We require automobile owners to buy insurance against hitting third parties, but we don't require automobile owners to buy insurance against the possibility that their car fails, and they can't get to work, and their employer has to pay the expense of hiring and training another person, and the employer needs to be reimbursed by the insurance for this.
Your linked article cites a law in New Jersey. The incidents I'm referring to concern a gun shop in California, where New Jersey's laws obviously do not apply. So that's irrelevant.
The New Jersey law bans regular guns when smart guns are available anywhere in the country, including California. It's relevant.
Obama already suggested that the no-fly list be used to take away people's guns.
Of course, you could try to argue that this doesn't count, because the guns are being taken away for a legitimate reason. I will then proceed to laugh at you for suggesting that being on the no-fly list is a legitimate reason to take away someone's guns.
It's even extra-relevant here because, hey, no-fly list and TSA.
I don't agree. Some libertarians might be okay with requiring insurance for storing gasoline because the hazards of storing gasoline can affect bystanders. The hazards of bad security at a bank only affect the bank's customers. The gasoline has externalities.
You seem to think that the two situations are similar because the people who are affected don't own the gasoline or the bank. But "affects someone aside from the owners" isn't what an externality means. You have to voluntarily choose to use the bank in order for robbing the bank to affect you directly. Exploding gasoline in someone's garage affects people who have not chosen to trade with the owner. (And we're not covering indirect effects, such as the effect of bank robberies on the economy, unless you want the gasoline owner to have to buy insurance so he can pay for the loss of reputation to the gasoline company when his garage full of gasoline explodes.)
This doesn't indicate that the FBI listened in on any private conversations, blacklisted anyone, tried to get anyone fired, spread lies about anyone, or otherwise did the bad things that people usually think of when they complain about the FBI. And they feared the Soviets and Chinese would infiltrate because, you know, EPCOT has national pavilions run by those countries and staffed by their citizens. And when they found out that pavilions were not allowed to be political, they then decided the Soviets were not a threat. They don't seem to have thought the Chinese were a threat for very long, either.
Basically, this whole thing is just a complaint about the FBI doing their job.
The main thing I look for is not experience (unless there is a time-sensitive need) but passion for the job.
As far as I am concerned, if you are doing this, you are part of the problem. Hiring people based on "passion" contributes to an environment where in order to make a living, you need to BSing skills just for the interview. It also ensures that people who have other priorities in life, perhaps a family or just anything that gives them a life outside the job, are screwed over in favor of the obsessive willing to work 10 hour days because they really have passion.
TFA shows that researching the malware was done during the months of September and October 2015. It seems unlikely they would wait until New Years to contact the ISP.
Radical extremist messages don't resonate with people who have a comfortable life.
Not true. For instance, the September 11 terrorists were rich or at worst middle class, and had at least a college education. The idea that terrorism is caused by poverty is just a convenient excuse to blame the West. It sounds plausible, but it's not actually supported by the facts.
This is a dark pattern which is a user interface designed to trick people into doing things.
I'm surprised how many Slashdotters have replied "he ought to keep closer control of what his kid is doing" and "Apple isn't at fault, they just created the system". Apple is responsible for the user interface and just because the user "could have navigated the user interface" and not had his kid buy the in-app purchases doesn't mean that Apple isn't responsible. "You could have figured out the bad user interface" is never an excuse, especially when the bad user interface is on purpose.
It's entirely possible for multiple people to smuggle separate parts of a bomb onto a plane. He could very well have the timer while someone else has the explosives. Yes, they could let through people with timers and only stop people with explosives, but if the chance of finding the explosive isn't 100%. letting through people with timers can be really dangerous.
Making people take off their shoes and get rid of their liquids is useless government bureaucracy. Getting suspicious of electronic devices that really do look suspicious is not Of all the bad things the TSA does, you had to pick on the one thing that they actually should be doing.
If they're going to be stopping people with bombs at all, they necessarily have to do it based on whether they appear to have a bomb, even if they also catch some innocent people who happen to have bomb-like equipment. It's not as if they have a tricorder to point at someone and get a reading that says "bomb"--all they can see is that the guy has weird electronics. They have to stop him and get someone to examine the electronics to figure out if it's really a bomb, and even then, he could very well be trying to create a bomb scare.
Given the circumstances of the apology, it seems obvious that this drone was put there by the FIS and went awry. While a drone that was officially put there by the ski federation is still a drone, the subtext is that the accident proves we must regulate the use of drones by private individuals. If the drone didn't come from a private individual, this subtext is false.
You do realize you just found an article by Kellermann, right? His findings have been widely discredited. See http://www.guncite.com/gun-con... . And note that "owns a gun and was killed at home" does *not* mean was killed with the gun from the home, and that "killed at home" is only a small portion of all homicides. He also failed to control for being a drug dealer or gang member, which are associated with both being killed at home and owning guns.
The list will make parents suspicious of normal things. Suspicion doesn't mean "this is associated with crime every single time", it means "it's pretty likely this is associated with crime". Adding a disclaimer that it isn't associated with crime every single time will do nothing to stop suspicion, since suspicion doesn't mean it's associated with crime every single time.
Furthermore, if the kid isn't already talking to the parents about these things, one possible reason for that is that the parents can't understand. (Seriously, go try explaining even something like open source to a random parent.) Of course, parents who understand so little that the kid can't talk to them are also the kind of parents most likely to believe what documents like this tell them.
And yes, there is harm in having a conversation with the kids here, because failing the kids' side of the conversation can result in serious consequences. Imagine not being allowed to use computers before college because some government document told your parents to "have a conversation" and your parents are so clueless about computers that they ended up thinking they need to cut off your computer access to save you from a life of crime.
The question is -- why hasn't this been widely implemented already?
Because groups that sell tickets to their performances aren't profit-maximizing capitalists. They don't want to maximize the profit at the cost of everything else.
That's not necessarily a capitalist system. The ticket is permission from the property owner to enter. The property owner can give permission anyone he chooses since after all it is his property.
Selling the ticket is only capitalism to the extent that it doesn't force anything on the property owner. In other words, selling the ticket is itself capitalist, but using the ticket as a credential is not--if you buy a ticket and use it as a credential, the property owner doesn't need to let you in. The owner can't keep you from hanging it on your wall or putting it in a museum, of course.
It's like getting invited to a party and trying to sell the party invitation. If someone is a party invitation collector, he's free to buy it--just not to use it to get into the party, which he still doesn't own.
I don't think you SHOULD have any legal say about what I do with my tickets I purchase; they're mine
That would apply if you're just hanging the ticket on your wall as a small expensive painting.
If you're using the ticket to gain admission to a venue, the venue isn't yours. You don't own the venue, and the owner of the venue can let in anyone he wants to let in. If he only wants to let in people who purchased tickets without reselling them, that's his prerogative. He has no obligation to let you in just because you bought a ticket from someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
I've owned four tablets. Admittedly cheap Chinese versions, not name brands. The first one really did spontaneously malfunction; the touchscreen started acting strangely, acting as though it was touched in the wrong places at the wrong times until at some point it failed completely. The second I had dropped and badly cracked the screen; my fault since I hadn't secured it in its case. It actually still ran but I wanted to replace it. (The third was not malfunctioning; I just wanted to upgrade to a high resolution screen.)
If you're taking suggestions for things to change, how about fixing this: If you view comments in nested mode, and the comments take up multiple pages, the successive pages don't work properly. On this article, the second page of comments repeats about 90% of the first page. Some cases even show the *exact same* content on the first and second pages; for instance, http://hardware.slashdot.org/c... at a threshhold of 0 gives me identical content for the first five pages.
The implication is not that the majority are criminals. The implication is that enough are criminals that it's something to worry about, which isn't the same thing.
And even if that was the implication, that doesn't mean the press is being truthful. Reporting "the politician said X" when it's really "they said Y and I conclude that they mean X" is itself a lie. You're making the conclusion, but you're not presenting it as a conclusion. Just because you believe the conclusion doesn't mean it's not a lie to leave that part out.
Those are indirect effects. We require automobile owners to buy insurance against hitting third parties, but we don't require automobile owners to buy insurance against the possibility that their car fails, and they can't get to work, and their employer has to pay the expense of hiring and training another person, and the employer needs to be reimbursed by the insurance for this.
The New Jersey law bans regular guns when smart guns are available anywhere in the country, including California. It's relevant.
Obama already suggested that the no-fly list be used to take away people's guns.
Of course, you could try to argue that this doesn't count, because the guns are being taken away for a legitimate reason. I will then proceed to laugh at you for suggesting that being on the no-fly list is a legitimate reason to take away someone's guns.
It's even extra-relevant here because, hey, no-fly list and TSA.
I don't agree. Some libertarians might be okay with requiring insurance for storing gasoline because the hazards of storing gasoline can affect bystanders. The hazards of bad security at a bank only affect the bank's customers. The gasoline has externalities.
You seem to think that the two situations are similar because the people who are affected don't own the gasoline or the bank. But "affects someone aside from the owners" isn't what an externality means. You have to voluntarily choose to use the bank in order for robbing the bank to affect you directly. Exploding gasoline in someone's garage affects people who have not chosen to trade with the owner. (And we're not covering indirect effects, such as the effect of bank robberies on the economy, unless you want the gasoline owner to have to buy insurance so he can pay for the loss of reputation to the gasoline company when his garage full of gasoline explodes.)
Why did they mention the boy is Muslim, if not to imply that he was reported because he was Muslim?
This doesn't indicate that the FBI listened in on any private conversations, blacklisted anyone, tried to get anyone fired, spread lies about anyone, or otherwise did the bad things that people usually think of when they complain about the FBI. And they feared the Soviets and Chinese would infiltrate because, you know, EPCOT has national pavilions run by those countries and staffed by their citizens. And when they found out that pavilions were not allowed to be political, they then decided the Soviets were not a threat. They don't seem to have thought the Chinese were a threat for very long, either.
Basically, this whole thing is just a complaint about the FBI doing their job.
As far as I am concerned, if you are doing this, you are part of the problem. Hiring people based on "passion" contributes to an environment where in order to make a living, you need to BSing skills just for the interview. It also ensures that people who have other priorities in life, perhaps a family or just anything that gives them a life outside the job, are screwed over in favor of the obsessive willing to work 10 hour days because they really have passion.
TFA shows that researching the malware was done during the months of September and October 2015. It seems unlikely they would wait until New Years to contact the ISP.
Not true. For instance, the September 11 terrorists were rich or at worst middle class, and had at least a college education. The idea that terrorism is caused by poverty is just a convenient excuse to blame the West. It sounds plausible, but it's not actually supported by the facts.
This is a dark pattern which is a user interface designed to trick people into doing things.
I'm surprised how many Slashdotters have replied "he ought to keep closer control of what his kid is doing" and "Apple isn't at fault, they just created the system". Apple is responsible for the user interface and just because the user "could have navigated the user interface" and not had his kid buy the in-app purchases doesn't mean that Apple isn't responsible. "You could have figured out the bad user interface" is never an excuse, especially when the bad user interface is on purpose.
Corporations are made up of people, and you can spy on the individual people.
It's entirely possible for multiple people to smuggle separate parts of a bomb onto a plane. He could very well have the timer while someone else has the explosives. Yes, they could let through people with timers and only stop people with explosives, but if the chance of finding the explosive isn't 100%. letting through people with timers can be really dangerous.
Making people take off their shoes and get rid of their liquids is useless government bureaucracy. Getting suspicious of electronic devices that really do look suspicious is not Of all the bad things the TSA does, you had to pick on the one thing that they actually should be doing.
If they're going to be stopping people with bombs at all, they necessarily have to do it based on whether they appear to have a bomb, even if they also catch some innocent people who happen to have bomb-like equipment. It's not as if they have a tricorder to point at someone and get a reading that says "bomb"--all they can see is that the guy has weird electronics. They have to stop him and get someone to examine the electronics to figure out if it's really a bomb, and even then, he could very well be trying to create a bomb scare.
Given the circumstances of the apology, it seems obvious that this drone was put there by the FIS and went awry. While a drone that was officially put there by the ski federation is still a drone, the subtext is that the accident proves we must regulate the use of drones by private individuals. If the drone didn't come from a private individual, this subtext is false.
He had health care available.
The movie was titled "John Carter", not "John Carter of Mars". You're not going to know that it takes place on Mars.
You do realize you just found an article by Kellermann, right? His findings have been widely discredited. See http://www.guncite.com/gun-con... . And note that "owns a gun and was killed at home" does *not* mean was killed with the gun from the home, and that "killed at home" is only a small portion of all homicides. He also failed to control for being a drug dealer or gang member, which are associated with both being killed at home and owning guns.
Yes, because gay kids seeking support online is valueless, right?
The list will make parents suspicious of normal things. Suspicion doesn't mean "this is associated with crime every single time", it means "it's pretty likely this is associated with crime". Adding a disclaimer that it isn't associated with crime every single time will do nothing to stop suspicion, since suspicion doesn't mean it's associated with crime every single time.
Furthermore, if the kid isn't already talking to the parents about these things, one possible reason for that is that the parents can't understand. (Seriously, go try explaining even something like open source to a random parent.) Of course, parents who understand so little that the kid can't talk to them are also the kind of parents most likely to believe what documents like this tell them.
And yes, there is harm in having a conversation with the kids here, because failing the kids' side of the conversation can result in serious consequences. Imagine not being allowed to use computers before college because some government document told your parents to "have a conversation" and your parents are so clueless about computers that they ended up thinking they need to cut off your computer access to save you from a life of crime.
Because groups that sell tickets to their performances aren't profit-maximizing capitalists. They don't want to maximize the profit at the cost of everything else.
That's not necessarily a capitalist system. The ticket is permission from the property owner to enter. The property owner can give permission anyone he chooses since after all it is his property.
Selling the ticket is only capitalism to the extent that it doesn't force anything on the property owner. In other words, selling the ticket is itself capitalist, but using the ticket as a credential is not--if you buy a ticket and use it as a credential, the property owner doesn't need to let you in. The owner can't keep you from hanging it on your wall or putting it in a museum, of course.
It's like getting invited to a party and trying to sell the party invitation. If someone is a party invitation collector, he's free to buy it--just not to use it to get into the party, which he still doesn't own.
That would apply if you're just hanging the ticket on your wall as a small expensive painting.
If you're using the ticket to gain admission to a venue, the venue isn't yours. You don't own the venue, and the owner of the venue can let in anyone he wants to let in. If he only wants to let in people who purchased tickets without reselling them, that's his prerogative. He has no obligation to let you in just because you bought a ticket from someone else.