I love how people love to talk with such authority about the real truths behind the s, as if they're privy to some secret information that the government is oblivious to.
No country in the world lets people simply walk in, claim persecution, and get a free pass with refugee status. Every single claim is assessed on a case by case basis, and claims are rejected if they are deemed to be doubtful or inconsistent. If a claim is rejected, the person in question is deported back to their country of origin. If they can't legally be deported, it's because there's a proven likelihood that said person would face persecution (possibly even torture), & doing so would be a violation of human rights treaties - ergo, they'd have a justifiable claim for refugee status.
Do some people fabricate stories and manage to get away with it? Undoubtedly. However tarring everyone with the same brush is both ignorant & offensive.
That so many claims do manage to get accepted, have you ever considered that that could just be because a large part of the world really is in quite a a shit & depressing state? These people have to leave their entire world behind, many without even as much as a backpack (from the pictures I've seen), walk thousands of miles across hostile landscapes, suffer from abuse & persecution from every populace they meet, and many risking slavery, abuse & death at the hands traffickers (& thousands of $'s in debt if they survive). And if they're lucky, they get to start the uphill struggle of rebuilding their life from scratch, alone, in a completely alien environment.
Do you think that's a decision someone makes lightly? They just woke up one Friday morning and decided, "Yeah, that sounds like fun!"?
And yes, they're supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, and many clearly don't. But put yourself in their shoes: If you're in such a desperate position that you would consider taking on such a hostile journey, driven by the hope that you might be able to build a better future for yourself & your family, wouldn't you too aim for a destination that you thought would provide you with the best chances? What have you got to lose? I'm not trying to present a justification, but lets try & have some fucking empathy for those who didn't have our luck of not being born in such a hostile shithole.
They're not fucking economic "migrants", they're refugees. People spoke in the same way about the fleeing Jews in the 1930's and 40's, and history has shown it to to be nothing more than nationalist xenophobia and racism.
1/2 a billion dollar shipments will entail such planning that 3 weeks by shipping container won't be a great deal. The target market here is probably things like that new toy you ordered for next-week delivery on Amazon.
You are not going to beat cargo ships for costs and you're not going to beat air freight for speed -- what the hell is this startup's business case?
The middle ground - those cases that don't need to be delivered within a day, but do need to be delivered within 48 hours/3 weeks. As per TFS, if you only need to guarantee delivery within the next couple of days, currently your only option is to pay for full air-freight at over 4 times the cost.
Why would a shower be used as a daycare unit? The reason for them per Occam's Razor is, they were communal shower units.
Gas chambers would have been built differently...
The rooms were supposed to look like showers, that was the story used to get the POWs to enter them with the minimum of fuss. The key to the efficiency of the camps was the compliance of the prisoners - if they knew they were being sent to certain death, the guards would have had to deal with the extreme resistance of those who having nothing to lose, causing a cascade of panic.
...with gas infeeds and venting systems
Err...you mean plumbing? And yeah, the later chambers did have ventilation systems.
...tightly sealed, massive doors (with massive hinges). None of that is in evidence because it wasn't there. Without that, the gas would have escaped and killed the dispensing team.
What, in the well ventilated outdoors? They weren't exactly using highly effective nerve agents, that'd be expensive & dangerous. The first chambers used nothing more than carbon monoxide, and it took a couple of hours to kill everyone.
Do you really want to accuse the Germans of having set up a sloppy operation? Aren't they renowned for being high quality and effective engineers?
On the contrary, the camps were quite rudimentary. Why would the Germans waste good engineers & materials on the condemned? They had an empire to forge!
The programming language's syntax never changes, however user defined objects & classes will often be in the regional language. That said, it's not uncommon to find English used where there's a well known standardised name for a function.
For technology in general, even when translations happen to exist, English language documentation & community support tends to be of a far higher quality & up-to-date. The result is that some terms are translated into the local language, and others not. This creates a bit of a minefield when trying to guess whether to use the English terminology or translated terminology when communicating with colleagues, there isn't always a standard of which to use & it can differ from person to person.
No, that's based on a common confusion propagated by scientifically ignorant media and politicians.
Green energy & renewable energy are two different things. Biofuels are convenient because they're renewable and fit better with our current infrastructure. Few, however, could be called "green". The problem with green energy is that most sources are comparatively volatile (wind, solar, etc) or politically complicated (nuclear).
Renewable green energy is the way to go, but the process of redesigning our infrastructure is long, complicated & expensive. However the longer we put off investing in it, the more invested we'll become in our dirty, finite energy sources.
in southern south America, insulated from the troubles of the northern hemisphere
Hah! You're either ignorant or naive. Wait until your traveller's honeymoon period fades away & then your eyes'll be opened. Despite all of the problems in the West (TM), they ain't nothin' compared to the political & financial instability of the developing South American economies.
Now you could say the same filtering has always applied - liberal people tended to read liberal newspapers, conservatives got their views reflected back in what they read.
The difference was that most editors have tried to do two things - present at least some alternative views and make sure that the facts in any story stand up to scrutiny.
Neither applies on Facebook. The News Feed algorithm serves you up whatever it thinks you and your friends want to believe and it certainly does not do any fact-checking.
Stories that accused the Clintons of murder or maintained that Barack Obama was a Muslim will have cropped up in the feeds of millions of people inclined to support Mr Trump.
This cuts both ways - a made-up quote from Mr Trump saying in 1998 that he might one day run as a Republican because "they're the dumbest group of voters in the country" is still being widely shared on social media by his opponents.
Both the Democrats and Republicans have long made ample use of Facebook - indeed it was the Obama campaign of 2008 that pioneered the use of social media in elections.
But for a Trump campaign that saw much of the mainstream media as hostile and biased, both Facebook and Twitter offered a powerful way of getting its message direct to voters unchallenged by any pesky journalists.
I was of a similar mindset until a couple of weeks ago. My inner ethics stood by it being a democratic vote and in this one, we lost. However looking at past precedent, when a popular vote comes down to less than a 2% balance, especially on such an all-impacting decision as this, a second vote/run-off is traditionally called. The margin of the 2014 Scottish referendum was 5 times that of the EU referendum, but the surge in support for the SNP in the following elections put the wind in the sales for calling a second vote. I'm now starting to lean a similar way with regards to the EU vote - make it a party issue & take it to the ballot box.
That's not lost on me, however my gripe is that far too many people (geeks particularly) justify their unrestrained copying of digital content because it's just 1s & 0s. They conveniently overlook the fact that there are still *some* costs involved. This behaviour is especially damaging for indie producers where every single sale counts.
If you developed a piece of software for the market, you wouldn't then try to sell each copy at cost it took to develop. Now fine, someone copying your content isn't necessarily going to incur you any *extra* costs, but it also doesn't provide any return on your risks & investment. I dunno, I think I've just become a bit jaded by the hypocrisy & entitlement that seems to be rife in Slashdot's community today.
You also completely skipped over the key point I tried to make about the elephant in the room, that if people refuse to pay for their content, and they also refuse to accept the advertising that otherwise pays for their consumption, then the only option content producers will have left will be to make the ads the product in the form of product placement, paid content & sponsored branding.
Problem not solved - you expect the money to pay those artists is just conjured out of thin air? Those artists get their pay out of the revenue generated by advertisers paying the platform to spread their brand. As a consumer, you're given a choice as to how to pay for your content - purchase it, subscribe to it, or have a third party pay for it in exchange for you seeing their ads.
Circumventing the site to get the content without paying is akin to shoplifting. The argument that stealing virtual media is different to physical media doesn't wash - someone still had to pay to produce & broadcast that media, and a good majority of the people on this site owe their livelihoods to being able to sell products based on their own virtual media (code).
I fully get the argument of certain types of ads being completely shitty, so I block anything flash & avoid the sites with abusive ads. But unless people start to accept that they either have to pay for the content directly, or indirectly via ad revenue, then we'll soon end up in a world where the product *is* the ad, and I personally think that's far far worse.
I'll play into that daft question...The hits aren't recorded, so the artist misses out on popularity rankings & ad revenue.
If you're using ad-blocking software to avoid YT's ads, then the hits are still recorded, but you're undermining the entire business model that's allowing you to consume the content in the first place. An analogy about eating cake comes to mind...
Whilst I agree in principal, in practice, we know that the 5* service offered by a budget provider will not be equal to the 5* service offered by a reputed provider. A decent datacenter wouldn't be taken down by shoddy cables & ventilation.
There's no problem with choosing a low-cost datacenter...as long as you factor that into your infrastructure design and put the saved money into redundancy. Done right, spreading your risk over several low-cost options can provide a stronger service than putting all of your eggs into an expensive quality service with little contingency. But cutting costs on both infrastructure and redundancy is a fools game.
Slashdot Mirror
I love how people love to talk with such authority about the real truths behind the s, as if they're privy to some secret information that the government is oblivious to.
No country in the world lets people simply walk in, claim persecution, and get a free pass with refugee status. Every single claim is assessed on a case by case basis, and claims are rejected if they are deemed to be doubtful or inconsistent. If a claim is rejected, the person in question is deported back to their country of origin. If they can't legally be deported, it's because there's a proven likelihood that said person would face persecution (possibly even torture), & doing so would be a violation of human rights treaties - ergo, they'd have a justifiable claim for refugee status.
Do some people fabricate stories and manage to get away with it? Undoubtedly. However tarring everyone with the same brush is both ignorant & offensive.
That so many claims do manage to get accepted, have you ever considered that that could just be because a large part of the world really is in quite a a shit & depressing state?
These people have to leave their entire world behind, many without even as much as a backpack (from the pictures I've seen), walk thousands of miles across hostile landscapes, suffer from abuse & persecution from every populace they meet, and many risking slavery, abuse & death at the hands traffickers (& thousands of $'s in debt if they survive). And if they're lucky, they get to start the uphill struggle of rebuilding their life from scratch, alone, in a completely alien environment.
Do you think that's a decision someone makes lightly? They just woke up one Friday morning and decided, "Yeah, that sounds like fun!"?
And yes, they're supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, and many clearly don't. But put yourself in their shoes: If you're in such a desperate position that you would consider taking on such a hostile journey, driven by the hope that you might be able to build a better future for yourself & your family, wouldn't you too aim for a destination that you thought would provide you with the best chances? What have you got to lose?
I'm not trying to present a justification, but lets try & have some fucking empathy for those who didn't have our luck of not being born in such a hostile shithole.
They're not fucking economic "migrants", they're refugees. People spoke in the same way about the fleeing Jews in the 1930's and 40's, and history has shown it to to be nothing more than nationalist xenophobia and racism.
Queen's
Look behind you, half the room did.
You seem to be conflating "transport" with "car". In densely populated cities, personal cars are never going to be an efficient way of getting around.
The majority of people who live within London use public transport, of which it has one of the most comprehensive systems in the world.
1/2 a billion dollar shipments will entail such planning that 3 weeks by shipping container won't be a great deal. The target market here is probably things like that new toy you ordered for next-week delivery on Amazon.
You are not going to beat cargo ships for costs and you're not going to beat air freight for speed -- what the hell is this startup's business case?
The middle ground - those cases that don't need to be delivered within a day, but do need to be delivered within 48 hours/3 weeks. As per TFS, if you only need to guarantee delivery within the next couple of days, currently your only option is to pay for full air-freight at over 4 times the cost.
Better nail your laptop down too, then! If they're going to be rumbled anyway, they might as well just take the fucker.
Boom Supersonic!!! "Boom" is what you hear when there is a crash.
Or, y'know, when something goes supersonic...
Why would a shower be used as a daycare unit? The reason for them per Occam's Razor is, they were communal shower units.
Gas chambers would have been built differently...
The rooms were supposed to look like showers, that was the story used to get the POWs to enter them with the minimum of fuss. The key to the efficiency of the camps was the compliance of the prisoners - if they knew they were being sent to certain death, the guards would have had to deal with the extreme resistance of those who having nothing to lose, causing a cascade of panic.
...with gas infeeds and venting systems
Err...you mean plumbing? And yeah, the later chambers did have ventilation systems.
...tightly sealed, massive doors (with massive hinges). None of that is in evidence because it wasn't there. Without that, the gas would have escaped and killed the dispensing team.
What, in the well ventilated outdoors? They weren't exactly using highly effective nerve agents, that'd be expensive & dangerous. The first chambers used nothing more than carbon monoxide, and it took a couple of hours to kill everyone.
Do you really want to accuse the Germans of having set up a sloppy operation? Aren't they renowned for being high quality and effective engineers?
On the contrary, the camps were quite rudimentary. Why would the Germans waste good engineers & materials on the condemned? They had an empire to forge!
And those chambers, seen by millions of visitors every year at the museum that is/was Auschwitz, what's your explanation for them? Daycare units?
From my experience, most immigrants have a better grasp of the English language than the locally born & bred cabbies.
I'm all for this test, however I don't think it should be restricted just to those with foreign passports...
I'm British, living & working in Brazil.
The programming language's syntax never changes, however user defined objects & classes will often be in the regional language. That said, it's not uncommon to find English used where there's a well known standardised name for a function.
For technology in general, even when translations happen to exist, English language documentation & community support tends to be of a far higher quality & up-to-date. The result is that some terms are translated into the local language, and others not. This creates a bit of a minefield when trying to guess whether to use the English terminology or translated terminology when communicating with colleagues, there isn't always a standard of which to use & it can differ from person to person.
Well we wouldn't want those damned conservatives pushing their dirty socialist ideals on us now, would we!
No, that's based on a common confusion propagated by scientifically ignorant media and politicians.
Green energy & renewable energy are two different things. Biofuels are convenient because they're renewable and fit better with our current infrastructure. Few, however, could be called "green".
The problem with green energy is that most sources are comparatively volatile (wind, solar, etc) or politically complicated (nuclear).
Renewable green energy is the way to go, but the process of redesigning our infrastructure is long, complicated & expensive. However the longer we put off investing in it, the more invested we'll become in our dirty, finite energy sources.
in southern south America, insulated from the troubles of the northern hemisphere
Hah! You're either ignorant or naive. Wait until your traveller's honeymoon period fades away & then your eyes'll be opened. Despite all of the problems in the West (TM), they ain't nothin' compared to the political & financial instability of the developing South American economies.
Tequila!
It's not so much a direct result of the viral news & posts that get passed around social media, but the echo chamber people find themselves in.
Was it Facebook 'wot won it'?
Now you could say the same filtering has always applied - liberal people tended to read liberal newspapers, conservatives got their views reflected back in what they read.
The difference was that most editors have tried to do two things - present at least some alternative views and make sure that the facts in any story stand up to scrutiny.
Neither applies on Facebook. The News Feed algorithm serves you up whatever it thinks you and your friends want to believe and it certainly does not do any fact-checking.
Stories that accused the Clintons of murder or maintained that Barack Obama was a Muslim will have cropped up in the feeds of millions of people inclined to support Mr Trump.
This cuts both ways - a made-up quote from Mr Trump saying in 1998 that he might one day run as a Republican because "they're the dumbest group of voters in the country" is still being widely shared on social media by his opponents.
Both the Democrats and Republicans have long made ample use of Facebook - indeed it was the Obama campaign of 2008 that pioneered the use of social media in elections.
But for a Trump campaign that saw much of the mainstream media as hostile and biased, both Facebook and Twitter offered a powerful way of getting its message direct to voters unchallenged by any pesky journalists.
I was of a similar mindset until a couple of weeks ago. My inner ethics stood by it being a democratic vote and in this one, we lost.
However looking at past precedent, when a popular vote comes down to less than a 2% balance, especially on such an all-impacting decision as this, a second vote/run-off is traditionally called.
The margin of the 2014 Scottish referendum was 5 times that of the EU referendum, but the surge in support for the SNP in the following elections put the wind in the sales for calling a second vote. I'm now starting to lean a similar way with regards to the EU vote - make it a party issue & take it to the ballot box.
That's not lost on me, however my gripe is that far too many people (geeks particularly) justify their unrestrained copying of digital content because it's just 1s & 0s. They conveniently overlook the fact that there are still *some* costs involved. This behaviour is especially damaging for indie producers where every single sale counts.
If you developed a piece of software for the market, you wouldn't then try to sell each copy at cost it took to develop. Now fine, someone copying your content isn't necessarily going to incur you any *extra* costs, but it also doesn't provide any return on your risks & investment.
I dunno, I think I've just become a bit jaded by the hypocrisy & entitlement that seems to be rife in Slashdot's community today.
You also completely skipped over the key point I tried to make about the elephant in the room, that if people refuse to pay for their content, and they also refuse to accept the advertising that otherwise pays for their consumption, then the only option content producers will have left will be to make the ads the product in the form of product placement, paid content & sponsored branding.
But that's a different argument, one often abused by those trying to justify their freeloading.
It's akin to stealing food from the supermarket because you don't think the farmers get paid enough.
Problem not solved - you expect the money to pay those artists is just conjured out of thin air? Those artists get their pay out of the revenue generated by advertisers paying the platform to spread their brand. As a consumer, you're given a choice as to how to pay for your content - purchase it, subscribe to it, or have a third party pay for it in exchange for you seeing their ads.
Circumventing the site to get the content without paying is akin to shoplifting. The argument that stealing virtual media is different to physical media doesn't wash - someone still had to pay to produce & broadcast that media, and a good majority of the people on this site owe their livelihoods to being able to sell products based on their own virtual media (code).
I fully get the argument of certain types of ads being completely shitty, so I block anything flash & avoid the sites with abusive ads. But unless people start to accept that they either have to pay for the content directly, or indirectly via ad revenue, then we'll soon end up in a world where the product *is* the ad, and I personally think that's far far worse.
I'll play into that daft question...The hits aren't recorded, so the artist misses out on popularity rankings & ad revenue.
If you're using ad-blocking software to avoid YT's ads, then the hits are still recorded, but you're undermining the entire business model that's allowing you to consume the content in the first place. An analogy about eating cake comes to mind...
5 minutes & a screwdriver will easily fix that switch...
Whilst I agree in principal, in practice, we know that the 5* service offered by a budget provider will not be equal to the 5* service offered by a reputed provider.
A decent datacenter wouldn't be taken down by shoddy cables & ventilation.
There's no problem with choosing a low-cost datacenter...as long as you factor that into your infrastructure design and put the saved money into redundancy. Done right, spreading your risk over several low-cost options can provide a stronger service than putting all of your eggs into an expensive quality service with little contingency. But cutting costs on both infrastructure and redundancy is a fools game.