I'm surprised there's still nothing about google wallet. I heard some speculation that with kitkat, they were going to announce a way to use it on any phone with NFC (without the secure element the carriers refuse to allow).
Indeed. Acting pissy because someone is legally obligated to tell you to turn off your phone is immature and stupid. If AC is calling them "air bitches," I have a theory on why they're acting bitchy around him.
Too much? You drown and die. Too little? You dehydrate and die. We clearly are the problem here, having a love-hate relationship with it. The TSA can hardly be faulted for that. We just need to make up our mind on it. Besides, if you want water, take a fucking boat! AIR plane, not waterplane!
Indeed. I was trying to research which phone to get this morning on my ipad. Click farms, popup ads, articles which are clearly nothing more than ads. And a few reviews by people who spend wayyyyy too much time thinking about mobile phones. "The bevel was UNACCEPTABLY bumpy, but the WORST PART was the PURELY DECORATIVE SCREWS! Negative a billion points out of five!"
I guess if your job is to talk about phones, and all the phones are pretty similar, it's very easy to develop strong opinions about trivial details. Oblig XKCD
Could someone explain what this means for net neutrality? Lets assume he's opposed to it (evidently he's made some vague statements in favor of it in the past, but let's not be naive). As I understand it, there's a court case currently with Verizon trying to challenge the FCC's ability to regulate net neutrality period.
Can this lobbyist flat out give up on the court case? If the court case upholds the previous rules, can this guy immediately revoke the rules or are they staying?
Can Wheeler singlehandedly end net neutrality forevermore?
Despite Google's lofty rhetoric about open standards, the Gmail protocols are undocumented and not available for licensing. Apps can perform a limited set of interactions with Gmail via its API, but if you want to build a communications app that connects directly to Gmail, you have to use either IMAP or (shudder) POP. Either way, you get a severely compromised experience. And neither configuration gives you access to calendars and contacts.
I've never tried to build yet another e-mail program using Gmail, but there are at least dozens out there for iOS and android, the ones I've used seem to work just great, so I'm inclined to think this is an overstatement.
Also
The biggest problem with getting Gmail to work with third-party clients is that it doesn't use the same filing system they do.
I'm guessing you can actually configure gmail to work that way. I'm also skeptical that there aren't clients out there that work with one of the most popular e-mail services out there. Specifically because I use some of them and they do actually work fine.
He tries to generalize it, but it seems like he's talking about outlook specifically not working with gmail. Maybe he should try not using outlook? I dunno. Maybe that's just me. I hate outlook, but my work seems to love it. I have to forward my work e-mail to a gmail account to use it on anything besides outlook.
I think you're onto something there actually. After the NSA revelations and too big to fail, the government may have realized "Hey, these morons literally do not care what we do, why hide it?"
At what point does it stop being corruption and start being "Stupid shit that we let happen?" I mean, if someone says "I'm going to drive off in your car and not give it back, that cool?" and you're like "Meh," that's not really stealing your car. If Obama says "I'm going to let these industries make their own rules," and we say "Oh, well they have experience, so I guess that makes sense," that's probably not something you could quite call corruption.
Businesses have an addiction to expansion. And they aren't going to be happy with the government saying "Alright, you've tapped enough, close that big fancy plant you built." It will be one plant this year with no effect. Then it will be more for longer. Then they'll be funding studies disputing anthropogenic geothermal change. "Old Faithful was going to stop erupting a decade after we started anyway. Besides, JOBS!"
Perhaps there's enough heat to tap without any effects, just I'd rather err on the side of not allowing greedy people to plunder a national treasure until we know it's actually a hazard not to.
Forcing them to skip coal could indeed be pretty fitting if it backfires on us. First world forces third world to not use the fossil fuels first world nations are addicted to. Third world countries become leaders in clean renewable energy. Those cheap manufacturing jobs and IT jobs that were outsourced there combine to make the third world a formidable economic and political force as the first world crumbles. Third world begins telling the US what's what. Demands we disarm all our nuclear weapons or face sanctions.
Hopefully at this point, technology to reanimate the corpses of the assholes who got the first world into that mess will. Make them work as slaves until the first world is back up to standards. Hopefully I will not be part of that zombie slave class.
... Am I high right now? I don't remember smoking anything...
Careful, they just want us to think that, so that when they pass the "Mandatory rectal monitoring device" and "All citizens are hereby stripped of all rights and must work for the state" acts, we'll think they're something actually good. But surprise! They will ACTUALLY insert machines up our asses that record all our travels and conversations and fiber intakes, and we will ACTUALLY be forced to work in salt mines!
If everyone is doing something that seems stupid to you, then either everyone else is stupid or you are missing something.
The bells and whistles in those cases are perhaps more to generate buzz among non-nerds. If I go to say university website and it has all the information (like address) I need in plain black text on plain white background, and I can ctrl+F and get on with my life in a second, I appreciate that. However, for every one person like me who doesn't want any frills, there are a dozen silly people who will complain about how boring the website is and oh can't we do better and maybe highlight some of the unique features of state college university like maybe the bell tower and some multiracial group of kids playing frisbee on the quad and the logo and at least have some sports updates and twitter and facebook link and I saw a dancing baby image a few years ago...
It's not made by us and it's not exclusively FOR us. Yes, the bells and whistles shouldn't need to be there, but there are a lot of idiotic customers who want silly bells and whistles, even with health care.
Doesn't justify websites not having their basic functionality of course. I'm not trying to rationalize that.
"Should" and "shouldn't" are fun to discuss, but I think were there not a payoff for lawyers, few lawyers would ever go after giant corporations. Moreover, why not? A company being punished for bad behavior = good. A company being punished for bad behavior AND a few lawyers getting a lot of money = same amount of good.
I guess it depends on if they discriminate against unemployed people. If they don't actively hire people from other companies, and they don't hire unemployed people, and if they don't employ people for life, then that could easily be an abusive situation. A steady stream of fresh employees to replace the ones who would otherwise be getting pay raises, leaving a bunch of unemployed or underemployed people.
But the important question is "will these companies stop the anti-worker conspiracy." It's like hitting your dog with a rolled up newspaper for pooping on the floor. It won't clean up the poop: that's not the point.
Nearly everyone hates hearing other people say things they disagree with.
You might be thinking of immoral, selfish, or stupid people. Honestly, the stupid/immoral/selfish side of the spectrum causes SO many problems that I don't see why you would bother trying to frame it in terms of political spectrum. Sometimes the SIS is associated with the fringes, but there are plenty of political moderates who angrily try to shut down the internet with lawyers when someone says something about them they don't want said.
I don't think anyone would disagree, I think the issue is probably a matter of which resources are valued higher: minerals in the ground or the ground above being pretty and useful for other things in the next few centuries.
The TFA also states that the anesthetic is part of the problem. The implication being, ultimately, that if the US continues to use any anesthetic to put subjects to death, the supply of all of these advanced anesthetics could be cut off.
Even in the face of that possibility, I don't see the US putting an end to the death sentence any time in the next 50 years or os. Therefore, an alternative is needed.
Well yes, that's why GGP proposed a method that would be painless and would not require anesthetic. That's the point of the nitrogen idea. I was saying it needs to be painless and simple enough for prison guards, who are not selected for their technical abilities, to carry out reliably, and the nitrogen idea seems like it would run into problems there.
TFA has a very good point at the very end. An anesthesiologist points out that these procedures need to be foolproof enough for guards with nothing more than a high school education to do. If someone is dosed with anesthetic, pretty much any way of killing them is going to probably be painless, and meets at least some people's definition of humane. And the poison is presumably well tested and super effective.
With nitrogen and no anesthetic, that's a bit more complex than I'd trust a meathead with. Making sure the oxygen is completely replaced in the room, and making sure a person is dead by a monitor rather than just in a coma or nearly dead before you open up the room and let oxygen back in.
Finally, you mean painless. Humane? I don't know. It's going to have to be a sizeable room too, since you don't want prisoners freaking out due to claustrophobia. In addition to that being a cruel way to kill someone, there are security concerns. A prisoner is already going to be on edge when they know they're literally about to die. If they have an irrational fear of suffocation or enclosed spaces, they might try to hurt someone or themselves. That last one might seem like an odd concern, but someone tearing at their throat in their final hysterical minutes shouldn't meet anyone's definition of humane, and if the room is filled with oxygen, no guards can go back in to secure the prisoner. Also, drifting off to sleep seems more humane than suffocating, even if you're not physically in pain.
You can get interesting responses from people who are staunchly pro-death penalty hearing this the first time. The first is an immediate rejection "It couldn't possibly cost that much." Followed by a statement that it shouldn't cost that much to kill someone. "You could just use an empty syringe, that is like $5."
Upon finding out that it's because of the legal fees, you get people saying "Well then they shouldn't be allowed to have as many retrials."
Not saying those immediate responses say anything relevant to the conversation, everyone suffers from cognitive dissonance and few people are open minded. And most people who are pro death penalty aren't really so because they think it's cheaper. Just it's amusing to me that the first suggestions in favor of death penalty as part of the justice system are "Well, I could kill someone pretty cheap" and "How about we give people fewer chances to prove their innocence before we kill them."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised there's still nothing about google wallet. I heard some speculation that with kitkat, they were going to announce a way to use it on any phone with NFC (without the secure element the carriers refuse to allow).
Indeed. Acting pissy because someone is legally obligated to tell you to turn off your phone is immature and stupid. If AC is calling them "air bitches," I have a theory on why they're acting bitchy around him.
Be thankful it's only a war on water. If TSA and the public realize one could hide explosives in body cavities, it would be a war on your anus.
Too much? You drown and die. Too little? You dehydrate and die. We clearly are the problem here, having a love-hate relationship with it. The TSA can hardly be faulted for that. We just need to make up our mind on it. Besides, if you want water, take a fucking boat! AIR plane, not waterplane!
Indeed. I was trying to research which phone to get this morning on my ipad. Click farms, popup ads, articles which are clearly nothing more than ads. And a few reviews by people who spend wayyyyy too much time thinking about mobile phones. "The bevel was UNACCEPTABLY bumpy, but the WORST PART was the PURELY DECORATIVE SCREWS! Negative a billion points out of five!"
I guess if your job is to talk about phones, and all the phones are pretty similar, it's very easy to develop strong opinions about trivial details. Oblig XKCD
Could someone explain what this means for net neutrality? Lets assume he's opposed to it (evidently he's made some vague statements in favor of it in the past, but let's not be naive). As I understand it, there's a court case currently with Verizon trying to challenge the FCC's ability to regulate net neutrality period.
Can this lobbyist flat out give up on the court case? If the court case upholds the previous rules, can this guy immediately revoke the rules or are they staying?
Can Wheeler singlehandedly end net neutrality forevermore?
Duh, that's cause the NSA needs more money and powers!
I'm kidding of course, I... oh, I've just received the nomination to run for congress from both the republican and the democrat parties...
Despite Google's lofty rhetoric about open standards, the Gmail protocols are undocumented and not available for licensing. Apps can perform a limited set of interactions with Gmail via its API, but if you want to build a communications app that connects directly to Gmail, you have to use either IMAP or (shudder) POP. Either way, you get a severely compromised experience. And neither configuration gives you access to calendars and contacts.
I've never tried to build yet another e-mail program using Gmail, but there are at least dozens out there for iOS and android, the ones I've used seem to work just great, so I'm inclined to think this is an overstatement.
Also
The biggest problem with getting Gmail to work with third-party clients is that it doesn't use the same filing system they do.
I'm guessing you can actually configure gmail to work that way. I'm also skeptical that there aren't clients out there that work with one of the most popular e-mail services out there. Specifically because I use some of them and they do actually work fine.
He tries to generalize it, but it seems like he's talking about outlook specifically not working with gmail. Maybe he should try not using outlook? I dunno. Maybe that's just me. I hate outlook, but my work seems to love it. I have to forward my work e-mail to a gmail account to use it on anything besides outlook.
Read the whole line you quoted. Lets be sure it's actually a hazard and actually will be solved by plundering it first.
I think you're onto something there actually. After the NSA revelations and too big to fail, the government may have realized "Hey, these morons literally do not care what we do, why hide it?"
At what point does it stop being corruption and start being "Stupid shit that we let happen?" I mean, if someone says "I'm going to drive off in your car and not give it back, that cool?" and you're like "Meh," that's not really stealing your car. If Obama says "I'm going to let these industries make their own rules," and we say "Oh, well they have experience, so I guess that makes sense," that's probably not something you could quite call corruption.
Businesses have an addiction to expansion. And they aren't going to be happy with the government saying "Alright, you've tapped enough, close that big fancy plant you built." It will be one plant this year with no effect. Then it will be more for longer. Then they'll be funding studies disputing anthropogenic geothermal change. "Old Faithful was going to stop erupting a decade after we started anyway. Besides, JOBS!"
Perhaps there's enough heat to tap without any effects, just I'd rather err on the side of not allowing greedy people to plunder a national treasure until we know it's actually a hazard not to.
Forcing them to skip coal could indeed be pretty fitting if it backfires on us. First world forces third world to not use the fossil fuels first world nations are addicted to. Third world countries become leaders in clean renewable energy. Those cheap manufacturing jobs and IT jobs that were outsourced there combine to make the third world a formidable economic and political force as the first world crumbles. Third world begins telling the US what's what. Demands we disarm all our nuclear weapons or face sanctions.
... Am I high right now? I don't remember smoking anything...
Hopefully at this point, technology to reanimate the corpses of the assholes who got the first world into that mess will. Make them work as slaves until the first world is back up to standards. Hopefully I will not be part of that zombie slave class.
Think of it as a worldwide life-alert system! Except that they won't send an ambulance if they hear you having a heart attack.
Careful, they just want us to think that, so that when they pass the "Mandatory rectal monitoring device" and "All citizens are hereby stripped of all rights and must work for the state" acts, we'll think they're something actually good. But surprise! They will ACTUALLY insert machines up our asses that record all our travels and conversations and fiber intakes, and we will ACTUALLY be forced to work in salt mines!
If everyone is doing something that seems stupid to you, then either everyone else is stupid or you are missing something.
The bells and whistles in those cases are perhaps more to generate buzz among non-nerds. If I go to say university website and it has all the information (like address) I need in plain black text on plain white background, and I can ctrl+F and get on with my life in a second, I appreciate that. However, for every one person like me who doesn't want any frills, there are a dozen silly people who will complain about how boring the website is and oh can't we do better and maybe highlight some of the unique features of state college university like maybe the bell tower and some multiracial group of kids playing frisbee on the quad and the logo and at least have some sports updates and twitter and facebook link and I saw a dancing baby image a few years ago...
It's not made by us and it's not exclusively FOR us. Yes, the bells and whistles shouldn't need to be there, but there are a lot of idiotic customers who want silly bells and whistles, even with health care.
Doesn't justify websites not having their basic functionality of course. I'm not trying to rationalize that.
"Should" and "shouldn't" are fun to discuss, but I think were there not a payoff for lawyers, few lawyers would ever go after giant corporations. Moreover, why not? A company being punished for bad behavior = good. A company being punished for bad behavior AND a few lawyers getting a lot of money = same amount of good.
I guess it depends on if they discriminate against unemployed people. If they don't actively hire people from other companies, and they don't hire unemployed people, and if they don't employ people for life, then that could easily be an abusive situation. A steady stream of fresh employees to replace the ones who would otherwise be getting pay raises, leaving a bunch of unemployed or underemployed people.
But the important question is "will these companies stop the anti-worker conspiracy." It's like hitting your dog with a rolled up newspaper for pooping on the floor. It won't clean up the poop: that's not the point.
Nearly everyone hates hearing other people say things they disagree with.
You might be thinking of immoral, selfish, or stupid people. Honestly, the stupid/immoral/selfish side of the spectrum causes SO many problems that I don't see why you would bother trying to frame it in terms of political spectrum. Sometimes the SIS is associated with the fringes, but there are plenty of political moderates who angrily try to shut down the internet with lawyers when someone says something about them they don't want said.
Please, stop this madness, and stick to clicking on stories that interest you.
This comment of "I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS TOPIC" does not belong on this site.
Also, vote in the fucking firehose and stop complaining.
I don't think anyone would disagree, I think the issue is probably a matter of which resources are valued higher: minerals in the ground or the ground above being pretty and useful for other things in the next few centuries.
The TFA also states that the anesthetic is part of the problem. The implication being, ultimately, that if the US continues to use any anesthetic to put subjects to death, the supply of all of these advanced anesthetics could be cut off. Even in the face of that possibility, I don't see the US putting an end to the death sentence any time in the next 50 years or os. Therefore, an alternative is needed.
Well yes, that's why GGP proposed a method that would be painless and would not require anesthetic. That's the point of the nitrogen idea. I was saying it needs to be painless and simple enough for prison guards, who are not selected for their technical abilities, to carry out reliably, and the nitrogen idea seems like it would run into problems there.
TFA has a very good point at the very end. An anesthesiologist points out that these procedures need to be foolproof enough for guards with nothing more than a high school education to do. If someone is dosed with anesthetic, pretty much any way of killing them is going to probably be painless, and meets at least some people's definition of humane. And the poison is presumably well tested and super effective.
With nitrogen and no anesthetic, that's a bit more complex than I'd trust a meathead with. Making sure the oxygen is completely replaced in the room, and making sure a person is dead by a monitor rather than just in a coma or nearly dead before you open up the room and let oxygen back in.
Finally, you mean painless. Humane? I don't know. It's going to have to be a sizeable room too, since you don't want prisoners freaking out due to claustrophobia. In addition to that being a cruel way to kill someone, there are security concerns. A prisoner is already going to be on edge when they know they're literally about to die. If they have an irrational fear of suffocation or enclosed spaces, they might try to hurt someone or themselves. That last one might seem like an odd concern, but someone tearing at their throat in their final hysterical minutes shouldn't meet anyone's definition of humane, and if the room is filled with oxygen, no guards can go back in to secure the prisoner. Also, drifting off to sleep seems more humane than suffocating, even if you're not physically in pain.
(Disclaimer: I'm extremely anti-death-penalty.)
You can get interesting responses from people who are staunchly pro-death penalty hearing this the first time. The first is an immediate rejection "It couldn't possibly cost that much." Followed by a statement that it shouldn't cost that much to kill someone. "You could just use an empty syringe, that is like $5."
Upon finding out that it's because of the legal fees, you get people saying "Well then they shouldn't be allowed to have as many retrials."
Not saying those immediate responses say anything relevant to the conversation, everyone suffers from cognitive dissonance and few people are open minded. And most people who are pro death penalty aren't really so because they think it's cheaper. Just it's amusing to me that the first suggestions in favor of death penalty as part of the justice system are "Well, I could kill someone pretty cheap" and "How about we give people fewer chances to prove their innocence before we kill them."
Party? You must be new here.