Obama even nominated him. Albeit for the republican post at the request of McConnell. Presumably before McConnell said "No, Obama shouldn't get to fill the supreme court seat."
Let no one say Obama played unfair. Especially not when it was really really stupid to play fair.
Also it's a straw man argument to say he wants to deport all immigrants. The right wing is largely okay with approved immigration. If you paid your fees, filled out your paperwork, waited in line, and won the lottery, they won't try to kick you out. If not, their just world fallacy makes them believe you're evil and should be jailed. You're too poor to afford the application fee but still want to do jobs legal citizens are unwilling to do? You must have believed in socialism or something.
But the U.S. District Attorney's Office in Maryland counters Matthews's defense that he was researching child porn--not collecting it--on grounds that the defense also could block the prosecution of pedophiles who have any journalism credentials.
God help us if any of these prosecutor types ever get access to nukes. They'd immediately launch them at their own cities to eliminate any chance of child porn or drug use there.
Inbreeding between cousins? Mentally retarded? Violent? Enemy of decency and civilization? Hey man, last time I drove through Tennessee or any of the flyover states I was scared too, but let's not talk about hillbillies... (ahem) I mean "scots-irish" like that...
Are there really many people interested in using ubuntu on high powered laptops who can't install it on their own?
Have they made it impossible to install your own OS on the rest of their laptops? I haven't tried to install ubuntu on anything in a while, I remember hearing something about how intel was trying to make it harder to install anything other than windows 10.
I seem to remember the following conversation here a few months ago
US Gov: "Give us access to everyone's phone."
Apple: "That would be a massive security threat, everyone could access it."
US Gov: "Then just make it so that only we good government guys could access it."
Apple: "(involuntary eye twitch) You... that's... I mean... (deep breaths) Okay, that's not something that's possible."
US Gov: "Just do it."
Apple: "You know what, fuck off."
US Gov: "Ah, never mind, we figured it out anyway."
I'm sure though the US government only tries to bully giant powerful companies like Apple and Google though, and gives the companies a chance to fire back publicly.
For those of us who aren't familiar with this group, could you provide a citation or at least some explanation? I mean I know slashdot is getting more and more right wing, but I think at least pretending that anti-gun groups aren't inherently something we hate would be good.
Aren't apple's professional laptops really high end while the google laptops mentioned as beating apple in the classroom really low end? I don't bother keeping up with either, but I thought the pro touch bar apple laptop was like $2000 while the chromebooks' upper end was about $500.
Are there any classrooms where apple pro books are standard equipment? I could imagine college kids thinking they needed it, but I'd be surprised if most of them demanded pro machines.
Seems to me like it's the opposite of what you're saying, but apple's still failing to win the low-end education crowd for some reason. I'd guess it's their low-end still isn't low end enough.
We're living in bizarre times. We have the best communication technology available in the history of humankind, and yet it's politically foolish to be a political leader rather than an elected follower.
Frankly, if anyone could have ended our security state, it's Trump. He was only sorta joking when he said he could shoot someone and his voters wouldn't care. He says "we don't need big brother spying on us" and BAM, a good chunk of america decides we don't need security theater. Which makes it all the more frustrating to see what he chooses to do instead.
I'd point out that our current president is not an example of majority rule, but that's just a technicality, and yes yes yes, HRC would have been no different.
I'd more seriously point out that majority rule at least seems to take longer to get to tyranny than minority rule.
I'm sorry if the snark hurt your feelings, snowflake. It's a bit interesting that you can dish it out but not take it. I guess I should be aware by now that many slashdotters are of the opinion that mean sarcastic statements should be directed at women saying they were treated unfairly, never dudes online.
As far as advancing the conversation, demanding evidence in each specific case before... I dunno what you think slashdot is going to do if we're convinced... doesn't either. It's a catch 22. Dudebros online don't believe each new accusation of sexual harassment despite the mountain of previous examples UNTIL evidence is presented. Knowing full well that presenting such evidence publicly will earn the victim a lawsuit.
To me, that's doing your absolute best to end the conversation about how to force the tech industry to cut the fucking frat bro shit.
Does she or doesn't she have them? I can say I have a pet unicorn in my back yard, too.
No one is going to sue you for slander for saying you have a pet unicorn. Douchebags often do if you shame them publicly.
Astonishingly, this can happen even if the accusations are true. Because you see, they're often not nice people. I know suggesting that our legal system won't always function perfectly to protect the victims and punish the bad guys will come as quite a shock to the people of slashdot, but it's true.
Finally, it's possible that she's not interested in posting the evidence that the guy she didn't name (again: suing) because there's not much advantage in doing so. Slashdotters and other dudes online would be slightly more inclined to believe her, and all the benefits that confers, but maybe she doesn't care to prove her case to you?
I think Jay-Z would argue you think there isn't good music for the problems he listed with radio, they go for MTV too. Specifically he's saying they play for one demographic that's mainly listening, which causes the music industry to promote music for that one demographic, which causes that one demographic to become even more the only one that's listening.
The same thing has been true of MTV for a very long time. It caters to a specific demographic, evidently junior high schoolers.
I suspect it'll get worse as things like pandora draw off more and more people. When radio was the only option for listening to music in the car, there were still other audiences. With Pandora/spotify/google/tidal/etc if I get annoyed with all radio stations playing nothing but Taylor Swift, I don't need to listen to the radio at all.
IIRC the assistant features on allo were all done online, not the phone itself. The strategy behind allo seems to have been expanding into places where bleeding edge phones weren't the norm, like India, or, you know, normal people whose lives don't revolve around awaiting the latest mobile processor from quallcom or whoever.
So yeah, it seems weird to say "ooh, it's coming to OLDER phone systems" when talking about 16 month old versions of android. That's not "old" that's "I just bought it not too long ago" to most people.
If it's not a hardware issue, why not be really daring and offer it to people who haven't been able to update their phones in... (gasp) TWO YEARS?!? Seems like the people who are going to get the most use out of a virtual assistant are people who are more likely to not have the latest phones.
I'd question whether the ability to just use one app in 20+ countries is really that big of a deal to many people. I had been only using lyft, I landed in kansas city and realized they didn't allow lyft but did allow uber. I signed up. It took like five minutes tops. Email, credit card, and phone is about all you need. If I suddenly find myself in Malaysia and lyft doesn't work there, I don't think "Oh no, I'll have to download another app and sign up" is going to be high on my list of problems.
Not only that but sales people use uber religiously as they don't even need to expense their uber travel, they just charge it to the company card, that's a massive, massive boost.
Fucks sake, why is it you precious snowflakes need constant acknolwedgement that politicians on both sides are have sins?
Democrats at the moment DO have a moral superiority. Self-dealing with buisiness interests, fake charities, discriminating against people based on religion, endangering the freedom of the press... Hillary didn't do anything like that, nor has any democratic president.
The commercials I've seen have promoted it as a panacea, it'll fix your dick, your brain, and everything else.
To be fair, we really didn't need studies showing those commercials were bullshit. If you're capable of understanding the slashdot summary, you would have already been able to tell it was bullshit.
GP was pointing out a general error with humans. I think everyone on slashdot who isn't a alt-right troll would admit that NYT is real news while fox is not, sure. But convincing ourselves that we're immune because our media is better than that would be the worst thing to do.
For instance, there are plenty of slashdotters who don't believe wiki citations when wiki disagrees with them. It's not perfect, sure, but neither is anything else.
A good number of Trump supporters I know personally don't question the unethical things Trump or the right wing does because they've firmly established in their minds that the right wing is the correct wing and Trump is a good guy. They are willing to ignore when Trump says wildly innacurate stuff because they've convinced themselves he's the honest one. If we convince ourselves that because our media is at the moment more accurate, we're always right, we're liable to do things that might damage the country like the right wing is now.
So...
1: England triggers article 50 tomorrow
2: The rest of the EU decides they don't like free trade if the Brits aren't involved and promptly all also do article 50
3: All the member state governments settle for each of their prime ministers get a new iphone, they don't really want to bother with that 14 billion
4: Those evil evil refugees trying to rape all the women and blow everything up are utterly unable to do anything bad, kill selves non-exposively or work with the west
5: Jobs jobs jobs jobs. JOBS!
Oh hey, I've just recieved an e-mail that this post has gotten me elected to the redneck part of England, wherever that is. Sweet! Oh, I mean jolly good!
I've never been sexually harassed at work. Most other slashdotters haven't either. Therefore clearly, sexism in the workplace isn't happening. What's the alternative? Suggesting that middle aged white dudes who sit at a computer all day long AREN'T considered universally attractive?!?!
Yeah, it's not nearly as good as that other unbiased and always accurate source of information we all know about...
Sarcasm aside, there's also the fact that he didn't suggest he created the internet. He had a slightly awkwardly phrased statement taken out of context.
In my experience, google should have just suggested they'd go with a competitor.
Google: "How much for us to run fiber on your network nationwide?"
Comcast: "TEN BILLION DOLLARS!!!"
Google: "Hmm... hey, do you know what centurylink's phone number is?"
Comcast: "I MEAN TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!"
Google: "I've heard good things about verizon's network..."
Comcast: "WE WILL PAY YOU A MILLION DOLLARS!"
I know they are willing to take a big reduction in their outrageous profits just to maintain their near monopoly status, and google wouldn't be dealing with that, but still I'm always amazed at how quickly they fold on the phone. Still shitty service, but at least it feels like I'm getting a good deal.
people with economic interests will say "we can always bring them back" just the same as they say "we can use technology to cool the climate" now.
From where I'm sitting, I hear them saying "NO. NO. NOOOO. CLIMATE CHANGE NOT HAPPENING. NO! AND GAS PRICES AND JOBS! TAXES TAXES TAXES! EVIL!" and voters saying "Hmm... that sounds more reasonable than the scientists." Geoengineering and de-extinction are unnecessary arguments given that people already are being convinced by simple denials and short-sighted economic scare arguments.
So I think you have it backwards. We need both technologies as backups because the dumb masses are too stupid to make the right choice. And for the record, I held that opinion long before the most recent presidential election.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama even nominated him. Albeit for the republican post at the request of McConnell. Presumably before McConnell said "No, Obama shouldn't get to fill the supreme court seat."
Let no one say Obama played unfair. Especially not when it was really really stupid to play fair.
There's a difference between being racist for racism's sake and being racist to make racists vote for you. And yes, plenty of his voters don't like Indians.
Also it's a straw man argument to say he wants to deport all immigrants. The right wing is largely okay with approved immigration. If you paid your fees, filled out your paperwork, waited in line, and won the lottery, they won't try to kick you out. If not, their just world fallacy makes them believe you're evil and should be jailed. You're too poor to afford the application fee but still want to do jobs legal citizens are unwilling to do? You must have believed in socialism or something.
But the U.S. District Attorney's Office in Maryland counters Matthews's defense that he was researching child porn--not collecting it--on grounds that the defense also could block the prosecution of pedophiles who have any journalism credentials.
God help us if any of these prosecutor types ever get access to nukes. They'd immediately launch them at their own cities to eliminate any chance of child porn or drug use there.
Inbreeding between cousins? Mentally retarded? Violent? Enemy of decency and civilization? Hey man, last time I drove through Tennessee or any of the flyover states I was scared too, but let's not talk about hillbillies... (ahem) I mean "scots-irish" like that...
Are there really many people interested in using ubuntu on high powered laptops who can't install it on their own?
Have they made it impossible to install your own OS on the rest of their laptops? I haven't tried to install ubuntu on anything in a while, I remember hearing something about how intel was trying to make it harder to install anything other than windows 10.
I seem to remember the following conversation here a few months ago
US Gov: "Give us access to everyone's phone."
Apple: "That would be a massive security threat, everyone could access it."
US Gov: "Then just make it so that only we good government guys could access it."
Apple: "(involuntary eye twitch) You... that's... I mean... (deep breaths) Okay, that's not something that's possible."
US Gov: "Just do it."
Apple: "You know what, fuck off."
US Gov: "Ah, never mind, we figured it out anyway."
I'm sure though the US government only tries to bully giant powerful companies like Apple and Google though, and gives the companies a chance to fire back publicly.
For those of us who aren't familiar with this group, could you provide a citation or at least some explanation? I mean I know slashdot is getting more and more right wing, but I think at least pretending that anti-gun groups aren't inherently something we hate would be good.
Aren't apple's professional laptops really high end while the google laptops mentioned as beating apple in the classroom really low end? I don't bother keeping up with either, but I thought the pro touch bar apple laptop was like $2000 while the chromebooks' upper end was about $500.
Are there any classrooms where apple pro books are standard equipment? I could imagine college kids thinking they needed it, but I'd be surprised if most of them demanded pro machines.
Seems to me like it's the opposite of what you're saying, but apple's still failing to win the low-end education crowd for some reason. I'd guess it's their low-end still isn't low end enough.
We're living in bizarre times. We have the best communication technology available in the history of humankind, and yet it's politically foolish to be a political leader rather than an elected follower.
Frankly, if anyone could have ended our security state, it's Trump. He was only sorta joking when he said he could shoot someone and his voters wouldn't care. He says "we don't need big brother spying on us" and BAM, a good chunk of america decides we don't need security theater. Which makes it all the more frustrating to see what he chooses to do instead.
I'd point out that our current president is not an example of majority rule, but that's just a technicality, and yes yes yes, HRC would have been no different.
I'd more seriously point out that majority rule at least seems to take longer to get to tyranny than minority rule.
I'm sorry if the snark hurt your feelings, snowflake. It's a bit interesting that you can dish it out but not take it. I guess I should be aware by now that many slashdotters are of the opinion that mean sarcastic statements should be directed at women saying they were treated unfairly, never dudes online.
As far as advancing the conversation, demanding evidence in each specific case before... I dunno what you think slashdot is going to do if we're convinced... doesn't either. It's a catch 22. Dudebros online don't believe each new accusation of sexual harassment despite the mountain of previous examples UNTIL evidence is presented. Knowing full well that presenting such evidence publicly will earn the victim a lawsuit.
To me, that's doing your absolute best to end the conversation about how to force the tech industry to cut the fucking frat bro shit.
But after buying my headphones, I can't afford the extra $10 a month!
Does she or doesn't she have them? I can say I have a pet unicorn in my back yard, too.
No one is going to sue you for slander for saying you have a pet unicorn. Douchebags often do if you shame them publicly.
Astonishingly, this can happen even if the accusations are true. Because you see, they're often not nice people. I know suggesting that our legal system won't always function perfectly to protect the victims and punish the bad guys will come as quite a shock to the people of slashdot, but it's true.
Finally, it's possible that she's not interested in posting the evidence that the guy she didn't name (again: suing) because there's not much advantage in doing so. Slashdotters and other dudes online would be slightly more inclined to believe her, and all the benefits that confers, but maybe she doesn't care to prove her case to you?
I think Jay-Z would argue you think there isn't good music for the problems he listed with radio, they go for MTV too. Specifically he's saying they play for one demographic that's mainly listening, which causes the music industry to promote music for that one demographic, which causes that one demographic to become even more the only one that's listening.
The same thing has been true of MTV for a very long time. It caters to a specific demographic, evidently junior high schoolers.
I suspect it'll get worse as things like pandora draw off more and more people. When radio was the only option for listening to music in the car, there were still other audiences. With Pandora/spotify/google/tidal/etc if I get annoyed with all radio stations playing nothing but Taylor Swift, I don't need to listen to the radio at all.
You could call it the fox news effect.
It's almost like in the minute between the story being posted and you posting, you didn't read the summary...
IIRC the assistant features on allo were all done online, not the phone itself. The strategy behind allo seems to have been expanding into places where bleeding edge phones weren't the norm, like India, or, you know, normal people whose lives don't revolve around awaiting the latest mobile processor from quallcom or whoever.
So yeah, it seems weird to say "ooh, it's coming to OLDER phone systems" when talking about 16 month old versions of android. That's not "old" that's "I just bought it not too long ago" to most people.
If it's not a hardware issue, why not be really daring and offer it to people who haven't been able to update their phones in... (gasp) TWO YEARS?!? Seems like the people who are going to get the most use out of a virtual assistant are people who are more likely to not have the latest phones.
Not only that but sales people use uber religiously as they don't even need to expense their uber travel, they just charge it to the company card, that's a massive, massive boost.
I've expensed lyft rides too before pretty sure.
Fucks sake, why is it you precious snowflakes need constant acknolwedgement that politicians on both sides are have sins?
Democrats at the moment DO have a moral superiority. Self-dealing with buisiness interests, fake charities, discriminating against people based on religion, endangering the freedom of the press... Hillary didn't do anything like that, nor has any democratic president.
The commercials I've seen have promoted it as a panacea, it'll fix your dick, your brain, and everything else.
To be fair, we really didn't need studies showing those commercials were bullshit. If you're capable of understanding the slashdot summary, you would have already been able to tell it was bullshit.
GP was pointing out a general error with humans. I think everyone on slashdot who isn't a alt-right troll would admit that NYT is real news while fox is not, sure. But convincing ourselves that we're immune because our media is better than that would be the worst thing to do.
For instance, there are plenty of slashdotters who don't believe wiki citations when wiki disagrees with them. It's not perfect, sure, but neither is anything else.
A good number of Trump supporters I know personally don't question the unethical things Trump or the right wing does because they've firmly established in their minds that the right wing is the correct wing and Trump is a good guy. They are willing to ignore when Trump says wildly innacurate stuff because they've convinced themselves he's the honest one. If we convince ourselves that because our media is at the moment more accurate, we're always right, we're liable to do things that might damage the country like the right wing is now.
So...
1: England triggers article 50 tomorrow
2: The rest of the EU decides they don't like free trade if the Brits aren't involved and promptly all also do article 50
3: All the member state governments settle for each of their prime ministers get a new iphone, they don't really want to bother with that 14 billion
4: Those evil evil refugees trying to rape all the women and blow everything up are utterly unable to do anything bad, kill selves non-exposively or work with the west
5: Jobs jobs jobs jobs. JOBS!
Oh hey, I've just recieved an e-mail that this post has gotten me elected to the redneck part of England, wherever that is. Sweet! Oh, I mean jolly good!
I've never been sexually harassed at work. Most other slashdotters haven't either. Therefore clearly, sexism in the workplace isn't happening. What's the alternative? Suggesting that middle aged white dudes who sit at a computer all day long AREN'T considered universally attractive?!?!
Yeah, it's not nearly as good as that other unbiased and always accurate source of information we all know about...
Sarcasm aside, there's also the fact that he didn't suggest he created the internet. He had a slightly awkwardly phrased statement taken out of context.
In my experience, google should have just suggested they'd go with a competitor.
Google: "How much for us to run fiber on your network nationwide?"
Comcast: "TEN BILLION DOLLARS!!!"
Google: "Hmm... hey, do you know what centurylink's phone number is?"
Comcast: "I MEAN TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!"
Google: "I've heard good things about verizon's network..."
Comcast: "WE WILL PAY YOU A MILLION DOLLARS!"
I know they are willing to take a big reduction in their outrageous profits just to maintain their near monopoly status, and google wouldn't be dealing with that, but still I'm always amazed at how quickly they fold on the phone. Still shitty service, but at least it feels like I'm getting a good deal.
people with economic interests will say "we can always bring them back" just the same as they say "we can use technology to cool the climate" now.
From where I'm sitting, I hear them saying "NO. NO. NOOOO. CLIMATE CHANGE NOT HAPPENING. NO! AND GAS PRICES AND JOBS! TAXES TAXES TAXES! EVIL!" and voters saying "Hmm... that sounds more reasonable than the scientists." Geoengineering and de-extinction are unnecessary arguments given that people already are being convinced by simple denials and short-sighted economic scare arguments.
So I think you have it backwards. We need both technologies as backups because the dumb masses are too stupid to make the right choice. And for the record, I held that opinion long before the most recent presidential election.