Thing is that the US should not do this. Libya has used the US as a boogieman for a long time.
The UK shouldn't have any problems, now that Libyan diplomats are flat-out saying Gaddafi ordered the Lockerbie bombing. And they aren't attacking Libya, they're attacking Gaddafi. Gaddafi and Libya are currently at war with one another.
Commit messages and code comments are distinctly different. I know you just want to bash PHP, but how much are you willing to argue that commit messages and code comments are the same thing?
Yeah, I tried to phrase it like the summary I was commenting about. I think it's amusing how most commenters fall right into the trap - they start arguing about the pointless rhetorical questions instead of the supposed "facts", as though they actually are facts. It's a nice tactic for making several assertions, getting your audience to assume they are true, and then leading the discussion where you want it to go. Some marketer has been doing their homework. I just don't really like seeing it on Slashdot, I wish the editors saw through that more often and re-worded the summary as submitted.
The original comment still stands - most PHP "programmers" I know couldn't tell the difference between source control and birth control.
What kind of stupid argument is that? Sure, a lot of people who claim to write PHP code don't know what source control is. But, again, these are commit messages. What percentage of people writing commit messages do you think know what source control is?
I'm thinking that this is a loaded question, due to the fact that the only link in the "summary" is on the text "Canonical more into serving their own interests".
Slashdot summaries are frequently a bunch of opinions stated as if true, followed by pointless questions, submitted by people with a vested interest in the topic. Is this actual journalism, an opening for debate, or does this suggest another purpose?
Ahh, The Zipper. I took my then-girlfriend on that ride once, she instantly became sick and refused to move for hours. Wouldn't even ride the damn Ferris wheel. I would have been bored if it wasn't for the good old Gravitron... which spins around, much like the Earth's core. Back on topic!
Jurors should be selected by lot, and reach their verdict by majority vote, not "consensus".
That's a terrible idea if your goal is to have the jury reach the "correct" verdict. When everyone has to agree the chances are much higher that the result will be more accurate. I was on a jury where we started out around 50%/50% after closing arguments, and it took quite a bit of discussion to get everyone to understand what was said, what the evidence was, and what our instructions were. There were several people who thought the guy was guilty because he wasn't a very likable guy, but it turns out that the combination of the evidence, the timeline presented by the prosecution, and most importantly our instructions from the judge forced a verdict of not guilty. If we had voted on it at the start, that guy would be in jail now.
Unless there is record of a packet header with her cell phone as the originating IP and one of Facebook's servers as the destination IP at the precise moment of the accident (or within 10 seconds or so before the accident), I don't think you can claim that the evidence shows she was using Facebook at the time of the accident.
I bet that those records do in fact exist with the ISP, but I also don't think it matters if the timing of her post perfectly coincided with the accident. The fact is that she was driving around using Facebook. If she was actively posting, or only just reading, she was using Facebook directly before and possibly right up until the accident. I think it's disingenuous to try and say there's no correlation to her using Facebook and getting into an accident, especially when the recorded timestamps do in fact match up like that and every day people get into accidents because they're focused on their phone. Maybe she's just a bad driver, but she's a bad driver who's driving around using Facebook.
That's not in question, the guy called 911 within 60 seconds of her updating her Facebook page. That is the evidence:
Veloz had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas. His right leg was partially severed, and he lost too much blood.
The call to 911 was in response to being hit, and it was placed within 60 seconds of her updating Facebook.
I never said hitting at the exact goddamn second was required, I said that hitting within 10 (which is being very generous to the plaintiff) is required to be distracted by using the phone.
Where did you get the number 10 from? What makes you the authority to decide what is and is not required? Were you in the car? If she was posting on Facebook, isn't it reasonable to assume she was also reading Facebook?
However, I don't think that she should be charged with manslaughter just because she posted on Facebook two blocks before she hit somebody. At that distance, they're unrelated
That's ridiculous. She was using Facebook on her phone directly before she hit the guy. His call was in response to her striking him.
the mother said that the Facebook post occurred while she was sitting in her driveway.
Of course she said that.
That's true, and a cause of a number of injustices.
Oh, please. Injustice for whom, for the guy who had his leg severed and bled out on the street, or the girl driving around updating Facebook? The law says "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt at all". You're probably also the type of guy who wants a women to present a witness that she was raped, right?
You apparently don't know very much about computers. That is not a proven fact even based on the "evidence" in the article.
It's trivial to reproduce and test that. You know her phone model, her carrier, her location, his carrier, his location, it's not difficult to identify the expected delay. It's not like we're talking about minutes of delay here. The evidence shows that she was using Facebook less than 60 seconds before hitting the guy.
So we're convicting based on thoughtcrime now? If she wasn't on the phone, how was it distracting her?
OK, let's review the charges again:
Cabrales alleges in her suit that Beas operated her vehicle without keeping a proper and sufficient focus, drove while using an electronic communication device, and failed to slow down to avoid an accident.
Was she operating her vehicle without keeping proper and sufficient focus? If she was driving around using Facebook, then yes, she did not have proper focus. Was she using an electronic communication device while driving? Unless she pulled over, yes she was. Did she fail to slow down? Obviously, she severed his leg.
You shouldn't offer your legal services to anyone, because you are an idiot who makes unalterable decisions based on emotion and hearsay.
Nice, personal insults. You must have a good argument.
Why is it that those who are quickest to accuse others of poor reading comprehension often have the worst? Obviously I know she hit submit, I just question the timing. You would have to hit submit, look up, and be running somebody over. What are the odds?
So was she updating her Facebook page while she was driving, or was she not? Is it legal to do that where she was? Does the fact that she had a fatal accident during the same minute she was updating her Facebook page in her car indicate that maybe she wasn't giving her full attention to driving? No one is saying that she hit the guy at the exact goddamn second. Look at the charges:
Cabrales alleges in her suit that Beas operated her vehicle without keeping a proper and sufficient focus, drove while using an electronic communication device, and failed to slow down to avoid an accident.
Do any of those charges require that she was striking the guy at the exact goddamn second that she was posting to Facebook? A "jury of your peers" usually doesn't include 12 pedants. It should be plenty of evidence to convict based on the fact that a Facebook update from her phone and a fatal accident occurred within seconds of each other. She is not being charged with striking the guy right at the exact same instant that she was looking at her phone, just that her phone was distracting her from driving, and she got in a fatal accident because of it. If you disagree, then maybe you should call her up and offer your legal services.
So this general takes credit for a virus that could still be working silently away, screwing the Iranians at every turn, if it had been competently written.
In the current issue of Internet Tough Guy Monthly:
Stuxnet: why you can write better code than the Israeli/American military-industrial complex.
How so? I mean, aside from possible energy issues...how else will it affect my life?
Are you under the assumption that, right now, what happens in the middle east does not affect your life? Do you realize that a very large portion of our military is currently deployed there? If military deployments don't affect you or your family at all, then consider yourself lucky. There have been any number of events that happened over the last 30 years in the middle east which directly affected people's lives here, and most are due to instability. That includes things like the Islamic revolution in Iran, wars with Israel, bombings, etc. If you think you are living in a vacuum, you're not. Believe it or not, but actions on one side of the globe do in fact have effects on the other side.
I mean...sure it is important...mostly to people on that side of the world, but man..enough is enough. Gotta be something new that's newsworthy...
In coming decades, I think you're going to realize that the middle east power change happening now is one of the more significant things you've seen in your life. Sorry if you're bored by it, but it's been a long time coming.
I won't comment on the level design other than saying I thought it was fine for the time, but they did release an update pretty soon after retail that reduced the loading times by a lot.
5) As a marketing guy, he has no clue what he was looking at.
Look at his reply: "Lemme guess... you sank my Battleship?" He's guessing, he doesn't know what the string of characters is. He's in marketing, not engineering. That's why the message got removed, because someone who did know what they're seeing contacted him about it (and he's now probably hoping that he doesn't get fired for it).
You do scale down your images before you host them, right?
Of course. Everyone posting their copyrighted images to Flickr, Tumblr, and other sites missing vowels always resize their images first, including making their own thumbnails. No one relies on the site to make its own thumbnails or show the image at various sizes.
Search engines themselves hold only the data that they gathered and the data injected by their search algorithms (e.g. what links they think are most relevant).
That's right. And this data coming from Google's site is part of Bing's data set.
So, what Microsoft is indexing isn't relevance, it's just Google's weightings.
It's more accurate to say that what Google thinks is relevant is part of the weight that Bing gives certain results. I would also assume that the results people actually click on are another point of data for Bing.
It exposes you to poisoning of your data set by your competitors
Only if they're actively trying to poison you. If Google wasn't testing bogus searches for the purpose of seeing if they showed up in Bing, then they wouldn't show up in Bing. In other words, if Google was doing things normally then there wouldn't be a problem. And again, these results are just one more point of data for Bing, there's nothing to indicate that Google results all of a sudden shoot to the top of any results page on Bing. Using nonsense searches isn't a good indication for that because the only results at all are what Google manually added to their database.
and it exposes you to public shaming.
Something tells me that Microsoft has a pretty thick skin.
Only in cases where Google is more correct than Bing
I think you're making the assumption, correct or not, that results scraped from Google are considered 100% relevant by Bing. I think it's far more likely that the results coming from Google are given a certain weight, probably higher than that of data scraped by other methods, but not necessarily 100%. It's just another data point.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is that the US should not do this. Libya has used the US as a boogieman for a long time.
The UK shouldn't have any problems, now that Libyan diplomats are flat-out saying Gaddafi ordered the Lockerbie bombing. And they aren't attacking Libya, they're attacking Gaddafi. Gaddafi and Libya are currently at war with one another.
Commit messages and code comments are distinctly different. I know you just want to bash PHP, but how much are you willing to argue that commit messages and code comments are the same thing?
Yeah, I tried to phrase it like the summary I was commenting about. I think it's amusing how most commenters fall right into the trap - they start arguing about the pointless rhetorical questions instead of the supposed "facts", as though they actually are facts. It's a nice tactic for making several assertions, getting your audience to assume they are true, and then leading the discussion where you want it to go. Some marketer has been doing their homework. I just don't really like seeing it on Slashdot, I wish the editors saw through that more often and re-worded the summary as submitted.
Or maybe he was tracking commit messages and this has nothing to do with code comments.
The original comment still stands - most PHP "programmers" I know couldn't tell the difference between source control and birth control.
What kind of stupid argument is that? Sure, a lot of people who claim to write PHP code don't know what source control is. But, again, these are commit messages. What percentage of people writing commit messages do you think know what source control is?
I'm thinking that this is a loaded question, due to the fact that the only link in the "summary" is on the text "Canonical more into serving their own interests".
Slashdot summaries are frequently a bunch of opinions stated as if true, followed by pointless questions, submitted by people with a vested interest in the topic. Is this actual journalism, an opening for debate, or does this suggest another purpose?
Ahh, The Zipper. I took my then-girlfriend on that ride once, she instantly became sick and refused to move for hours. Wouldn't even ride the damn Ferris wheel. I would have been bored if it wasn't for the good old Gravitron... which spins around, much like the Earth's core. Back on topic!
Jurors should be selected by lot, and reach their verdict by majority vote, not "consensus".
That's a terrible idea if your goal is to have the jury reach the "correct" verdict. When everyone has to agree the chances are much higher that the result will be more accurate. I was on a jury where we started out around 50%/50% after closing arguments, and it took quite a bit of discussion to get everyone to understand what was said, what the evidence was, and what our instructions were. There were several people who thought the guy was guilty because he wasn't a very likable guy, but it turns out that the combination of the evidence, the timeline presented by the prosecution, and most importantly our instructions from the judge forced a verdict of not guilty. If we had voted on it at the start, that guy would be in jail now.
Unless there is record of a packet header with her cell phone as the originating IP and one of Facebook's servers as the destination IP at the precise moment of the accident (or within 10 seconds or so before the accident), I don't think you can claim that the evidence shows she was using Facebook at the time of the accident.
I bet that those records do in fact exist with the ISP, but I also don't think it matters if the timing of her post perfectly coincided with the accident. The fact is that she was driving around using Facebook. If she was actively posting, or only just reading, she was using Facebook directly before and possibly right up until the accident. I think it's disingenuous to try and say there's no correlation to her using Facebook and getting into an accident, especially when the recorded timestamps do in fact match up like that and every day people get into accidents because they're focused on their phone. Maybe she's just a bad driver, but she's a bad driver who's driving around using Facebook.
OK, keep your heart bleeding for the girls driving around updating Facebook.
I don't know. Do you?
The evidence shows she was.
That's not a fact, that's what's in question.
That's not in question, the guy called 911 within 60 seconds of her updating her Facebook page. That is the evidence:
Veloz had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas. His right leg was partially severed, and he lost too much blood.
The call to 911 was in response to being hit, and it was placed within 60 seconds of her updating Facebook.
I never said hitting at the exact goddamn second was required, I said that hitting within 10 (which is being very generous to the plaintiff) is required to be distracted by using the phone.
Where did you get the number 10 from? What makes you the authority to decide what is and is not required? Were you in the car? If she was posting on Facebook, isn't it reasonable to assume she was also reading Facebook?
However, I don't think that she should be charged with manslaughter just because she posted on Facebook two blocks before she hit somebody. At that distance, they're unrelated
That's ridiculous. She was using Facebook on her phone directly before she hit the guy. His call was in response to her striking him.
the mother said that the Facebook post occurred while she was sitting in her driveway.
Of course she said that.
That's true, and a cause of a number of injustices.
Oh, please. Injustice for whom, for the guy who had his leg severed and bled out on the street, or the girl driving around updating Facebook? The law says "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt at all". You're probably also the type of guy who wants a women to present a witness that she was raped, right?
You apparently don't know very much about computers. That is not a proven fact even based on the "evidence" in the article.
It's trivial to reproduce and test that. You know her phone model, her carrier, her location, his carrier, his location, it's not difficult to identify the expected delay. It's not like we're talking about minutes of delay here. The evidence shows that she was using Facebook less than 60 seconds before hitting the guy.
So we're convicting based on thoughtcrime now? If she wasn't on the phone, how was it distracting her?
OK, let's review the charges again:
Cabrales alleges in her suit that Beas operated her vehicle without keeping a proper and sufficient focus, drove while using an electronic communication device, and failed to slow down to avoid an accident.
Was she operating her vehicle without keeping proper and sufficient focus? If she was driving around using Facebook, then yes, she did not have proper focus. Was she using an electronic communication device while driving? Unless she pulled over, yes she was. Did she fail to slow down? Obviously, she severed his leg.
You shouldn't offer your legal services to anyone, because you are an idiot who makes unalterable decisions based on emotion and hearsay.
Nice, personal insults. You must have a good argument.
It shows that Beas used her phone at the same time as the 911 call - which obviously was after the accident.
There were 2 accidents. The old guy got in a minor accident first, got out of his car, presumably dialed 911, and then was struck by another car.
Why is it that those who are quickest to accuse others of poor reading comprehension often have the worst? Obviously I know she hit submit, I just question the timing. You would have to hit submit, look up, and be running somebody over. What are the odds?
So was she updating her Facebook page while she was driving, or was she not? Is it legal to do that where she was? Does the fact that she had a fatal accident during the same minute she was updating her Facebook page in her car indicate that maybe she wasn't giving her full attention to driving? No one is saying that she hit the guy at the exact goddamn second. Look at the charges:
Cabrales alleges in her suit that Beas operated her vehicle without keeping a proper and sufficient focus, drove while using an electronic communication device, and failed to slow down to avoid an accident.
Do any of those charges require that she was striking the guy at the exact goddamn second that she was posting to Facebook? A "jury of your peers" usually doesn't include 12 pedants. It should be plenty of evidence to convict based on the fact that a Facebook update from her phone and a fatal accident occurred within seconds of each other. She is not being charged with striking the guy right at the exact same instant that she was looking at her phone, just that her phone was distracting her from driving, and she got in a fatal accident because of it. If you disagree, then maybe you should call her up and offer your legal services.
who cares?
The shareholders of his publicly-traded personality cult care.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that putting a "large paper poster" on their booth doesn't really count as "vandalism".
So this general takes credit for a virus that could still be working silently away, screwing the Iranians at every turn, if it had been competently written.
In the current issue of Internet Tough Guy Monthly:
Stuxnet: why you can write better code than the Israeli/American military-industrial complex.
How so? I mean, aside from possible energy issues...how else will it affect my life?
Are you under the assumption that, right now, what happens in the middle east does not affect your life? Do you realize that a very large portion of our military is currently deployed there? If military deployments don't affect you or your family at all, then consider yourself lucky. There have been any number of events that happened over the last 30 years in the middle east which directly affected people's lives here, and most are due to instability. That includes things like the Islamic revolution in Iran, wars with Israel, bombings, etc. If you think you are living in a vacuum, you're not. Believe it or not, but actions on one side of the globe do in fact have effects on the other side.
I mean...sure it is important...mostly to people on that side of the world, but man..enough is enough. Gotta be something new that's newsworthy...
In coming decades, I think you're going to realize that the middle east power change happening now is one of the more significant things you've seen in your life. Sorry if you're bored by it, but it's been a long time coming.
I won't comment on the level design other than saying I thought it was fine for the time, but they did release an update pretty soon after retail that reduced the loading times by a lot.
I think you missed a major possibility:
5) As a marketing guy, he has no clue what he was looking at.
Look at his reply: "Lemme guess... you sank my Battleship?" He's guessing, he doesn't know what the string of characters is. He's in marketing, not engineering. That's why the message got removed, because someone who did know what they're seeing contacted him about it (and he's now probably hoping that he doesn't get fired for it).
It's clear the company no longer thinks this model is a good one, and wants to accelerate its release cycle
It sort of sounds more like they want to remove minor version numbers, and make every update a new major version.
You do scale down your images before you host them, right?
Of course. Everyone posting their copyrighted images to Flickr, Tumblr, and other sites missing vowels always resize their images first, including making their own thumbnails. No one relies on the site to make its own thumbnails or show the image at various sizes.
A pay site with only images, huh? That makes me feel nostalgic.
Now why are you going to write a missive on the word "fuck", complete with 10 uses of it, but then refuse to spell it?
Search engines themselves hold only the data that they gathered and the data injected by their search algorithms (e.g. what links they think are most relevant).
That's right. And this data coming from Google's site is part of Bing's data set.
So, what Microsoft is indexing isn't relevance, it's just Google's weightings.
It's more accurate to say that what Google thinks is relevant is part of the weight that Bing gives certain results. I would also assume that the results people actually click on are another point of data for Bing.
It exposes you to poisoning of your data set by your competitors
Only if they're actively trying to poison you. If Google wasn't testing bogus searches for the purpose of seeing if they showed up in Bing, then they wouldn't show up in Bing. In other words, if Google was doing things normally then there wouldn't be a problem. And again, these results are just one more point of data for Bing, there's nothing to indicate that Google results all of a sudden shoot to the top of any results page on Bing. Using nonsense searches isn't a good indication for that because the only results at all are what Google manually added to their database.
and it exposes you to public shaming.
Something tells me that Microsoft has a pretty thick skin.
Only in cases where Google is more correct than Bing
I think you're making the assumption, correct or not, that results scraped from Google are considered 100% relevant by Bing. I think it's far more likely that the results coming from Google are given a certain weight, probably higher than that of data scraped by other methods, but not necessarily 100%. It's just another data point.