using this opportunity to convince him to give NASA more money and resources to implement his vision.
We can't convince him to do anything. The only people who have a remote chance of doing so also stand a VERY large chance of such an attempt getting them expelled from his inner circle.
There is no opportunity.
What we CAN do, is convince other people not to vote for him in 2020.
They're too dumb to know when to shut up and take the money.
There is no money to take. He is not giving them any money. Peggy Whitson's immediate response was "That takes money". So.... That's EXACTLY what happened. "We should go to mars", "That takes time and money", "Well speed it up a bit". Afterwards, us here on the ground without a direct line to the president, can only react to the conversation.
They're balking at how stupid such statements are.
And it's not like
And then he will do, or at least try to do, exactly what he said.
Exit NATO
Prosecute Hilary
Release his tax returns after the audit
Sue all the liars after the election
Even he himself played the "It's sarcasm" card. Half the things out of his mouth sound like sarcasm. When you can retroactively disregard your statements in the past everyone has to take a moment to assess "Did he really mean what he just said?". And some portion of the people will assume he's full of shit every time.
what will he do when he finds out that it's impossible? Will he throw craptons of money at NASA, thinking that he just throw money at the problem? Will he just get pissed off and "fire" NASA?
I think that's amazingly insightful. I imagine he'll fire NASA and have a garage sale of all the partial projects.
I have to agree. The only way Trumps ego would help us get to Mars is if he then increases the budget to do so. Him telling one astronaut to "Speed it up a little bit" does about as much good for science as N. Korea's Hyon Kwang Il, director of NADA's scientific research department, saying they plan to "plant the flag of the DPRK on the moon" by 2026.
This was just another off the cuff bit of braggartry that isn't any more real than the rest of it.
Before the decade was out Kennedy spent upwards of $246 Billion dollars (adjusted to 2014 dollars) on NASA. Spending got above 4% of the Federal budget.
Today Trump is asking them to do this on less than $20 billion a year. Less than half a percent. In 4 years, that'll be $80 Billion. And he probably expects them to continue the ISS. Also support for Juno, Cassini, New Horizons, and Dawn. As well as making and launching MAVEN. At least he better.
Thankfully, the James Webb telescope is going up next year. That fucker BETTER not disrupt it. It's way too important.
So? He wants to go to another planet in 4 years. Is he going to pay for it?
But regardless of how much money you throw at it, such a program would take more than 4 years.
Baseless language holy war spoken from ignorance and a skewed vision of the past. "It uses libraries!" Really? Is that really all you're trying to bring to the table here? And he discovers that you can use actual code rather than pseudo code?
Scrap away the buzzwords and the remaining statements are just plain false. Does he think C doesn't make use of libraries?
It's garbage and shouldn't have made it's way to Slashdot. Come on msmash, are you just trying to get a rise out of us?
OPEC oil production really did rise in 2010. Right around the time that US shale oil production came online. Buuuuuut maybe you missed it, but there was this little thing that happened around the 2008 time-frame known as the econopocalpyse. OPEC dropped it's production because no one was buying and the price of a barrel fell from $150 to $40. Prices went back up and they increased production back to where it was before the crisis. OPEC is indeed just along for the ride. Blaming them is like blaming the weather.
Also from another chart on that page, if OPEC was trying to maintain a price just below $100/bbl, they did a really shitty job of price-fixing.
Anyway, the meme is: "OPEC refused to cut production" and that they're engaging in a price war.....But the US ENTERED the market with the invention of fracking and brought it's shale to market. If you want to talk about a price war, that's like an invasion. I'm just not buying the meme. Some companies are facing hard times due to the low price of oil (WOO HOO! Let the good times roll for everyone else), and they're blaming evil foreign boogeymen....Naw dude. Naw. That just tastes like propaganda. Spin. Nationalism. Bias. Dare I say... "Fake news".
The OPEC embargo in the 70's should most certainly classified as "shenanigans". And it's kinda the reason OPEC exists. But I think they've lost all control over their members and they can't convince themselves to tighten their belts to try and control prices.
It's about killing off the massive, expensive, and intrusive regulatory infrastructure that protects the environment and forces the energy industry to account for and avoid externalities.
Trump signs bill quashing the Office of Surface Mining's Obama-era Stream Protection Rule, a regulation to protect waterways from coal mining waste
Did you know they still make buggy whips? No joke. But while everyone on the road used to need a buggy whip, their demand is now greatly diminished.
Just like shoe repair, mainframes*, and mechanical typewriters. Hell, people still listen to the RADIO. These things never really go away. They just fade and diminish. Become niche. Reach the other end of the batthtub curve. Get reclassified as "quaint".
*Oh man, I interviewed at a place that was in the business of selling a virtual tape-drive for an antiquated mainframe from the 70's. Every little tidbit of horror they revealed just bumped up my asking salary a little and eventually they walked away.
large oil companies entering the shale game after OPEC decided to try and destroy the US shale market through supply shenanigans.
I remember that meme. The news orgs pushed it pretty hard. But digging in, it just looked like nationalism talking. That or the oil companies were directly writing the script. What "shenanigans" did OPEC play?
Because as far as I can tell, the only shenanigans was that they didn't reduce their own production. The US increases production, and is pissed off that OPEC doesn't slit their own throat and reduce theirs. That's REALLY not shenanigans. That's actually what's SUPPOSED to happen. Two big giants having a price war and refusing to try and artificially boost market prices through restricting supply. YAY free market.
And... Do you see the paradox in your statement? US enters shale market after OPEC tries to destroy US shale market? One of those things happened first.
I get this argument. And you're not entirely wrong because it's not an entirely black and white issue. But remember that freedom of speech is an ideal. It is not limited to the first amendment which provides the legal right to keep the government from restricting your speech. It's not something that only applies to other people.
Take Slashdot comments for example. Is it censorship if people have their comments voted down? Everyone can still see them if they choose to. But I think no one would argue that without some way for the quality posts to float to the top and the shitty trolls to sink to the bottom, slashdot's forum would be a giant pile of crap that no-one would want to wade through. And should it allow anonymous commentary? There are a lot of REALLY good reasons to let people comment on something anonymously, but it opens the obvious security hole of letting a single person control the majority of the debate. You've got to expect shills, trolls, and sock puppets any time you've got a group of eyeballs.
Same damn thing applies to news aggregators. Editors at news agencies too. Instead of individuals making submissions, you've got the wide and wild smorgasbord of news agencies, Reuters reporters, crack-pots, and crack-pot Reuters reporters working for news agencies. If you feed a raw and random assortment of news tidbits, people will get their news blurbs elsewhere. Determining what is and isn't "news worthy" is the job of a news editor. Every act they do is the sort of thing where they soft-censor non-news-worthy stuff simply by not showing it front and center. Only one thing can get the top spot at any given time. So how do you balance that?
Flat out censoring is wrong. If they have a profile of a... white supremacist, it's ethically wrong to simply block all content from the KKK. Connecting those two monsters to each other is, while an ostensibly bad thing, a better option than letting Google not connect them.
Having some sort of "But that's bullshit" flag from Google might be the best. It would be better than them trying to silently and selectively squash information. That sort of power would go right to their heads and would be abused and for sale within a year. They certainly have the power to so, it's only the fear of public backlash that keeps them from being monsters.
Google's business model is to be useful to people so they get eyeballs and sell ads. Popularity is certainly their goal. If 90% of the populace violently burned down anything saying anything remotely nice about the purple-people, Google wouldn't commit suicide by defending them. Probably. And so I think it's really important to remind people to get REALLY FUCKING PISSED at any effort by the gate-keepers of the Internet, namely Google and Facebook for this topic, to try and censor the Internet.
Having Google or Facebook build some sort of "truth-rating-agency" that judges all content on the Internet for truth sounds like a a path to a real dystopian hellscape. You know there would be "Google Truth Optimization" right around the corner just like SEO bullshit. How much of our sovereignty to we want to give a single self-serving group?
And what's the solution to mind-controlling google overlords? Alternative search engines. Any single point of failure is bound to fail eventually.
And I'm a software engineer. I wrote life-critical code for OBOGS. It's the thing that let's jet fighter pilots breath. The code itself was dirt simple, but the paperwork and testing behind it was stringent. Behold the joy that is DO-178C.
I have to agree with you about the bullshit flowery job titles. Dear god there are a lot that simply don't make sense and they're just trying to pump up their egos. And hey, I'm guilty of that. I had a stint doing business development. Mostly SQL reports. woo. But I still called myself a software engineer (and cried myself to sleep).
A lot of the titles are just code-monkeys that know a certain set of skills. And honestly, SW engineering is mostly knowing the process and adhering to it. Remember kids, telling the PM to go fuck himself is the epitome of professionalism if and when he's suggesting you bypass testing the code that measures the O2 output of a device someone's life will depend upon.
Lemme talk about the book. Heinline experimented with a lot of stuff. He wrote a couple of utopia novels. Like "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a libertarian utopia. Their ideal. It assumes their world-view is simply correct. Same with his Starship Troopers. He assumes pro-military jingoism is the correct world-view and writes a story from there. It's ok. An interesting read if you can suspend your disbelief. At least it's not as crazy as his latter books.
The movie on the other hand is different. The director didn't even read all the book and stopped in disgust. And he was already making a Man-vs-spaceBug movie. Corporate acquired the rights to the name because it was so similar, and thought the authors name would help. I dunno, maybe that's just a bit of hollywood narrative and they knew it was Starship Troopers the entire time but only officially got the rights later.
Anyway, the director hated the Jingoism having first-hand experience with fascists. What parts of the book he incorporated he used as satire. He was making fun of fascists in an over-the-top "look how ridiculous they are" sort of way. Blind patriotism, big-brother knows best, blatant propaganda, brainwashing children.....And then people took it seriously.
People who really like Starship Troopers are like people who worship Pastafarianism as a real legit religion and don't think it's a joke. And this sort of "my way or the high way" attitude is the EXACT sort of in-character tongue-in-cheek praise that I'm positive goes right over some people's heads. It's like the movie version of Poe's Law.
Far future. A society has solved death. People can live forever and get remade if they come to a violent end. They can't even commit suicide. This has a variety of social effects and the movie is really just an excuse to show them off. There's ALSO the uncivilized primitive people. Kinda like in the Time Machine, where you have the Eloi and the Murlochs? These are the have-nots that are treated like animals.
Anyway, someone in the high society gets cynical or something and wants to tear it all down. He/she/they/Iforget make one of the barbarians smarter than the average cookie with the intent that he'll come and tear down the high society. Oh, and they were supplying his group with weapons and training/compelling them to go exterminate the other riff-raff. So yeah, this guy comes into high-society, who react in different ways. A lot like Brave New World in that aspect. He eventually gets his bros inside, and they kill everyone because that's what they're trained to do....at least that's what I remembered. But holy shit, WTF is going on!? The 70's were a special time. Alright. Never mind. I never understood that movie.
Sitting on a zero-day vulnerability without telling the maintainers certainly makes the USA less secure and runs afoul of their duty to protect the USA...
...But have they actually prevented a company from fixing exploits? Like a court order telling Microsoft to leave a vulnerability in place?
Obviously we just need autonomous kill bots that can operate in aggressive electronic warfare environments. Can't jam standing order stored locally. And with shielding they can even survive these little guys.
There's absolutely no argument against Network Neutrality. It's the way the Internet has been since it's inception and a goal for a healthy Internet.
But there could be some arguments against regulation or legislation enforcing Network Neutrality. There are a billion different ways to screw it up and a lot of people worry about government takeover more than they worry about a handful of corporates taking over after consolidation.
Wow, it's like supporting the bad guy is a bad idea just as much as toppling the bad guy is a bad idea. Can we please learn the lesson to stop dicking around in this desert?
Honestly, that would be a good use of our military.
But this was a retaliation. It didn't stop the murder of those 74 people. Furthermore, while Trump and the UK foreign secretary claim that it was Assad's forces, Assad and Russia claim it was gas released when they bombed a rebel weapon depot, and it was the rebels who had the Sarin.
Historically, Assad and Russia haven't exactly been super-fond of that whole "truth" thing. But then again, neither has Trump.
Ostensibly, it's a warning to everyone else thinking of using chemical weapons. But in reality it's more like "hey, you can goad the US into attacking someone if you can control the story of who is to blame for using really nasty shit." So if the rebels have a suitcase of sarin gas in their base which gets released when someone bombs the hell out of it, and they can point and blame Assad, they can draw the USA into the fight. Or the CIA can open a box of sarin gas anywhere Assads forces are active and now Trump can bomb the hell out of them again. Or the Russians can launch some Sarin at Assads forces and make it look like it's retaliation from the Rebels and demand equal treatment from the USA.
until you can take your phone, dock it, and have a monitor, mouse, and keyboard,
Oh, hey, it's been while since I looked. This is totally possible.... if you go out of your way to get a phone that supports MHL (Mobile High-Definition Link), and get a dock that then supports that. The MHL people are fragmented as hell unfortunately.
Today, the company admits that it is throwing in the towel on Unity, as well as its vision for convergence with devices like phones and tablets
About frigging TIME. It sucked. Royally. Props to Canonical for beating Microsoft to the punch with this idea. Having a desktop that's identical to a phone has some good points. Sounds good on paper. It's not like it doesn't have any merit at all. But it's a bloody terrible idea. And trying to shoe-horn your users into a hideous mishmash of interfaces that randomly assume two wildly different I/Os is bound to piss off a lot of people that didn't really need to be pissed off. The gain you get from "oh hey, this looks just like my phone" isn't nearly offset by all the "OMG WTF would you do that?".
One of the big reasons I just don't like windows 10. They could have made it easy. But what's easy and helpful for the desktop is nigh impossible on a phone. And what's useful to a phone is a pain in the ass for a real mouse and keyboard.
And what's the fucking point? Who runs windows 10 on a phone? Who runs Ubuntu on their phone? They were trying to position themselves to tackle the phone market, but this position doesn't make sense until you're already there. And neither got there. EVEN THEN, until you can take your phone, dock it, and have a monitor, mouse, and keyboard, when what's the fucking point of making this OS try to straddle the different hardware?
Slashdot Mirror
using this opportunity to convince him to give NASA more money and resources to implement his vision.
We can't convince him to do anything. The only people who have a remote chance of doing so also stand a VERY large chance of such an attempt getting them expelled from his inner circle.
There is no opportunity.
What we CAN do, is convince other people not to vote for him in 2020.
They're too dumb to know when to shut up and take the money.
There is no money to take. He is not giving them any money. Peggy Whitson's immediate response was "That takes money". So.... That's EXACTLY what happened. "We should go to mars", "That takes time and money", "Well speed it up a bit". Afterwards, us here on the ground without a direct line to the president, can only react to the conversation.
They're balking at how stupid such statements are.
And it's not like
And then he will do, or at least try to do, exactly what he said.
Exit NATO
Prosecute Hilary
Release his tax returns after the audit
Sue all the liars after the election
Even he himself played the "It's sarcasm" card. Half the things out of his mouth sound like sarcasm. When you can retroactively disregard your statements in the past everyone has to take a moment to assess "Did he really mean what he just said?". And some portion of the people will assume he's full of shit every time.
what will he do when he finds out that it's impossible? Will he throw craptons of money at NASA, thinking that he just throw money at the problem? Will he just get pissed off and "fire" NASA?
I think that's amazingly insightful. I imagine he'll fire NASA and have a garage sale of all the partial projects.
I have to agree. The only way Trumps ego would help us get to Mars is if he then increases the budget to do so. Him telling one astronaut to "Speed it up a little bit" does about as much good for science as N. Korea's Hyon Kwang Il, director of NADA's scientific research department, saying they plan to "plant the flag of the DPRK on the moon" by 2026.
This was just another off the cuff bit of braggartry that isn't any more real than the rest of it.
Maybe Biden will have better luck than Hillary in 2020
I don't think it's appropriate to even imply that Hillary will be running in 2020.
No dude. It's over.
Before the decade was out Kennedy spent upwards of $246 Billion dollars (adjusted to 2014 dollars) on NASA. Spending got above 4% of the Federal budget.
Today Trump is asking them to do this on less than $20 billion a year. Less than half a percent. In 4 years, that'll be $80 Billion. And he probably expects them to continue the ISS. Also support for Juno, Cassini, New Horizons, and Dawn. As well as making and launching MAVEN. At least he better.
Thankfully, the James Webb telescope is going up next year. That fucker BETTER not disrupt it. It's way too important.
So? He wants to go to another planet in 4 years. Is he going to pay for it?
But regardless of how much money you throw at it, such a program would take more than 4 years.
Absolute garbage.
Baseless language holy war spoken from ignorance and a skewed vision of the past. "It uses libraries!" Really? Is that really all you're trying to bring to the table here? And he discovers that you can use actual code rather than pseudo code?
Scrap away the buzzwords and the remaining statements are just plain false. Does he think C doesn't make use of libraries?
It's garbage and shouldn't have made it's way to Slashdot. Come on msmash, are you just trying to get a rise out of us?
OPEC oil production really did rise in 2010. Right around the time that US shale oil production came online. Buuuuuut maybe you missed it, but there was this little thing that happened around the 2008 time-frame known as the econopocalpyse. OPEC dropped it's production because no one was buying and the price of a barrel fell from $150 to $40. Prices went back up and they increased production back to where it was before the crisis. OPEC is indeed just along for the ride. Blaming them is like blaming the weather.
Also from another chart on that page, if OPEC was trying to maintain a price just below $100/bbl, they did a really shitty job of price-fixing.
Anyway, the meme is: "OPEC refused to cut production" and that they're engaging in a price war. ....But the US ENTERED the market with the invention of fracking and brought it's shale to market. If you want to talk about a price war, that's like an invasion. I'm just not buying the meme. Some companies are facing hard times due to the low price of oil (WOO HOO! Let the good times roll for everyone else), and they're blaming evil foreign boogeymen. ...Naw dude. Naw. That just tastes like propaganda. Spin. Nationalism. Bias. Dare I say... "Fake news".
Does OPEC even give a shit about US nat-gas production? Does it compete with their oil sales? ...Holy cow, they ship liquefied nat gas cooled down to -163 C. I guess they probably do.
I would question what year it happened. Because US shale came online in 2010.
The OPEC embargo in the 70's should most certainly classified as "shenanigans". And it's kinda the reason OPEC exists. But I think they've lost all control over their members and they can't convince themselves to tighten their belts to try and control prices.
It's about killing off the massive, expensive, and intrusive regulatory infrastructure that protects the environment and forces the energy industry to account for and avoid externalities.
Trump signs bill quashing the Office of Surface Mining's Obama-era Stream Protection Rule, a regulation to protect waterways from coal mining waste
Did you know they still make buggy whips? No joke. But while everyone on the road used to need a buggy whip, their demand is now greatly diminished.
Just like shoe repair, mainframes*, and mechanical typewriters. Hell, people still listen to the RADIO. These things never really go away. They just fade and diminish. Become niche. Reach the other end of the batthtub curve. Get reclassified as "quaint".
*Oh man, I interviewed at a place that was in the business of selling a virtual tape-drive for an antiquated mainframe from the 70's. Every little tidbit of horror they revealed just bumped up my asking salary a little and eventually they walked away.
large oil companies entering the shale game after OPEC decided to try and destroy the US shale market through supply shenanigans.
I remember that meme. The news orgs pushed it pretty hard. But digging in, it just looked like nationalism talking. That or the oil companies were directly writing the script. What "shenanigans" did OPEC play?
Because as far as I can tell, the only shenanigans was that they didn't reduce their own production. The US increases production, and is pissed off that OPEC doesn't slit their own throat and reduce theirs. That's REALLY not shenanigans. That's actually what's SUPPOSED to happen. Two big giants having a price war and refusing to try and artificially boost market prices through restricting supply. YAY free market.
And... Do you see the paradox in your statement? US enters shale market after OPEC tries to destroy US shale market? One of those things happened first.
Anyone got a better explanation for this?
I get this argument. And you're not entirely wrong because it's not an entirely black and white issue. But remember that freedom of speech is an ideal. It is not limited to the first amendment which provides the legal right to keep the government from restricting your speech. It's not something that only applies to other people.
Take Slashdot comments for example. Is it censorship if people have their comments voted down? Everyone can still see them if they choose to. But I think no one would argue that without some way for the quality posts to float to the top and the shitty trolls to sink to the bottom, slashdot's forum would be a giant pile of crap that no-one would want to wade through. And should it allow anonymous commentary? There are a lot of REALLY good reasons to let people comment on something anonymously, but it opens the obvious security hole of letting a single person control the majority of the debate. You've got to expect shills, trolls, and sock puppets any time you've got a group of eyeballs.
Same damn thing applies to news aggregators. Editors at news agencies too. Instead of individuals making submissions, you've got the wide and wild smorgasbord of news agencies, Reuters reporters, crack-pots, and crack-pot Reuters reporters working for news agencies. If you feed a raw and random assortment of news tidbits, people will get their news blurbs elsewhere. Determining what is and isn't "news worthy" is the job of a news editor. Every act they do is the sort of thing where they soft-censor non-news-worthy stuff simply by not showing it front and center. Only one thing can get the top spot at any given time. So how do you balance that?
Flat out censoring is wrong. If they have a profile of a... white supremacist, it's ethically wrong to simply block all content from the KKK. Connecting those two monsters to each other is, while an ostensibly bad thing, a better option than letting Google not connect them.
Having some sort of "But that's bullshit" flag from Google might be the best. It would be better than them trying to silently and selectively squash information. That sort of power would go right to their heads and would be abused and for sale within a year. They certainly have the power to so, it's only the fear of public backlash that keeps them from being monsters.
Google's business model is to be useful to people so they get eyeballs and sell ads. Popularity is certainly their goal. If 90% of the populace violently burned down anything saying anything remotely nice about the purple-people, Google wouldn't commit suicide by defending them. Probably. And so I think it's really important to remind people to get REALLY FUCKING PISSED at any effort by the gate-keepers of the Internet, namely Google and Facebook for this topic, to try and censor the Internet.
Having Google or Facebook build some sort of "truth-rating-agency" that judges all content on the Internet for truth sounds like a a path to a real dystopian hellscape. You know there would be "Google Truth Optimization" right around the corner just like SEO bullshit. How much of our sovereignty to we want to give a single self-serving group?
And what's the solution to mind-controlling google overlords? Alternative search engines. Any single point of failure is bound to fail eventually.
They don't know what's going to be in future feature updates, but they're sure as shit not going to be backwards compatible.
They couldn't be more obvious as trying to move to OS-as-a-Service aka "We own you, pay us every month".
Well props to management for playing along and helping Raj bag a wife.
Ok, you're a Software Developer.
And I'm a software engineer. I wrote life-critical code for OBOGS. It's the thing that let's jet fighter pilots breath. The code itself was dirt simple, but the paperwork and testing behind it was stringent. Behold the joy that is DO-178C.
I have to agree with you about the bullshit flowery job titles. Dear god there are a lot that simply don't make sense and they're just trying to pump up their egos. And hey, I'm guilty of that. I had a stint doing business development. Mostly SQL reports. woo. But I still called myself a software engineer (and cried myself to sleep).
A lot of the titles are just code-monkeys that know a certain set of skills. And honestly, SW engineering is mostly knowing the process and adhering to it. Remember kids, telling the PM to go fuck himself is the epitome of professionalism if and when he's suggesting you bypass testing the code that measures the O2 output of a device someone's life will depend upon.
Lemme talk about the book. Heinline experimented with a lot of stuff. He wrote a couple of utopia novels. Like "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a libertarian utopia. Their ideal. It assumes their world-view is simply correct. Same with his Starship Troopers. He assumes pro-military jingoism is the correct world-view and writes a story from there. It's ok. An interesting read if you can suspend your disbelief. At least it's not as crazy as his latter books.
The movie on the other hand is different. The director didn't even read all the book and stopped in disgust. And he was already making a Man-vs-spaceBug movie. Corporate acquired the rights to the name because it was so similar, and thought the authors name would help. I dunno, maybe that's just a bit of hollywood narrative and they knew it was Starship Troopers the entire time but only officially got the rights later.
Anyway, the director hated the Jingoism having first-hand experience with fascists. What parts of the book he incorporated he used as satire. He was making fun of fascists in an over-the-top "look how ridiculous they are" sort of way. Blind patriotism, big-brother knows best, blatant propaganda, brainwashing children. ....And then people took it seriously.
People who really like Starship Troopers are like people who worship Pastafarianism as a real legit religion and don't think it's a joke. And this sort of "my way or the high way" attitude is the EXACT sort of in-character tongue-in-cheek praise that I'm positive goes right over some people's heads. It's like the movie version of Poe's Law.
Zardoz, I never understood that movie.
Far future. A society has solved death. People can live forever and get remade if they come to a violent end. They can't even commit suicide. This has a variety of social effects and the movie is really just an excuse to show them off. There's ALSO the uncivilized primitive people. Kinda like in the Time Machine, where you have the Eloi and the Murlochs? These are the have-nots that are treated like animals.
Anyway, someone in the high society gets cynical or something and wants to tear it all down. He/she/they/Iforget make one of the barbarians smarter than the average cookie with the intent that he'll come and tear down the high society. Oh, and they were supplying his group with weapons and training/compelling them to go exterminate the other riff-raff. So yeah, this guy comes into high-society, who react in different ways. A lot like Brave New World in that aspect. He eventually gets his bros inside, and they kill everyone because that's what they're trained to do. ...at least that's what I remembered. But holy shit, WTF is going on!? The 70's were a special time. Alright. Never mind. I never understood that movie.
Sitting on a zero-day vulnerability without telling the maintainers certainly makes the USA less secure and runs afoul of their duty to protect the USA...
...But have they actually prevented a company from fixing exploits? Like a court order telling Microsoft to leave a vulnerability in place?
Obviously we just need autonomous kill bots that can operate in aggressive electronic warfare environments. Can't jam standing order stored locally. And with shielding they can even survive these little guys.
What could possibly go wrong?
There's absolutely no argument against Network Neutrality. It's the way the Internet has been since it's inception and a goal for a healthy Internet.
But there could be some arguments against regulation or legislation enforcing Network Neutrality. There are a billion different ways to screw it up and a lot of people worry about government takeover more than they worry about a handful of corporates taking over after consolidation.
Wow, it's like supporting the bad guy is a bad idea just as much as toppling the bad guy is a bad idea. Can we please learn the lesson to stop dicking around in this desert?
Historically, removing the dictator lead to ~3,000 dead us troops, trillions of dollars wasted, and ~300,000 dead civvies.
I know you want to try and fix things. And overthrowing "the bad guy(tm)" sounds like a great idea. But it did NOT work out last time.
Honestly, that would be a good use of our military.
But this was a retaliation. It didn't stop the murder of those 74 people. Furthermore, while Trump and the UK foreign secretary claim that it was Assad's forces, Assad and Russia claim it was gas released when they bombed a rebel weapon depot, and it was the rebels who had the Sarin.
Historically, Assad and Russia haven't exactly been super-fond of that whole "truth" thing. But then again, neither has Trump.
Ostensibly, it's a warning to everyone else thinking of using chemical weapons. But in reality it's more like "hey, you can goad the US into attacking someone if you can control the story of who is to blame for using really nasty shit." So if the rebels have a suitcase of sarin gas in their base which gets released when someone bombs the hell out of it, and they can point and blame Assad, they can draw the USA into the fight. Or the CIA can open a box of sarin gas anywhere Assads forces are active and now Trump can bomb the hell out of them again. Or the Russians can launch some Sarin at Assads forces and make it look like it's retaliation from the Rebels and demand equal treatment from the USA.
WEEEEEEE! Welcome to the middle east.
until you can take your phone, dock it, and have a monitor, mouse, and keyboard,
Oh, hey, it's been while since I looked. This is totally possible.... if you go out of your way to get a phone that supports MHL (Mobile High-Definition Link), and get a dock that then supports that. The MHL people are fragmented as hell unfortunately.
Today, the company admits that it is throwing in the towel on Unity, as well as its vision for convergence with devices like phones and tablets
About frigging TIME. It sucked. Royally. Props to Canonical for beating Microsoft to the punch with this idea. Having a desktop that's identical to a phone has some good points. Sounds good on paper. It's not like it doesn't have any merit at all. But it's a bloody terrible idea. And trying to shoe-horn your users into a hideous mishmash of interfaces that randomly assume two wildly different I/Os is bound to piss off a lot of people that didn't really need to be pissed off. The gain you get from "oh hey, this looks just like my phone" isn't nearly offset by all the "OMG WTF would you do that?".
One of the big reasons I just don't like windows 10. They could have made it easy. But what's easy and helpful for the desktop is nigh impossible on a phone. And what's useful to a phone is a pain in the ass for a real mouse and keyboard.
And what's the fucking point? Who runs windows 10 on a phone? Who runs Ubuntu on their phone? They were trying to position themselves to tackle the phone market, but this position doesn't make sense until you're already there. And neither got there. EVEN THEN, until you can take your phone, dock it, and have a monitor, mouse, and keyboard, when what's the fucking point of making this OS try to straddle the different hardware?