Which was kind of the point. If sexual harassment is handled in court, then the presumption of innocence applies. The prevailing sentiment -- at least of those who make the most noise -- is that those accused of sexual harassment should be punished without that standard of proof. And that's why those people push to have punishments meted out by employers rather than the government.
And you don't seem to get that we don't care. The only way to prevent people from abusing the ability to hide their number is to absolutely prohibit it. The very dubious benefit of allowing a company to display their "main" number on the caller ID is so far outweighed by the problems of spoofed numbers that it is not worth considering.
Since the summary didn't bother to mention what the "hyper-tapping" technique from the headline is, here's the explanation from the article:
Unlike many other top players, including Neubauer, Saelee uses hyper-tapping, a technique that requires players to press the D-pad rapidly at the the correct intervals in order to move Tetris pieces in different directions without losing speed. Normally players just hold down left or right on the D-pad. Saeleeâ(TM)s strategy on the other hand requires more than 10 button presses a second to be effective. Itâ(TM)s a riskier and more demanding style of play, but one that ended up paying off.
No. Previous poster was using colloquial English, which is the language that we speak and understand on Slashdot. The only confusion is yours, since you apparently don't understand that the term "average" is correct in this context.
While pedants love to counter with this, you're wrong. In colloquial English, the word "average" means "typical", not necessarily the arithmetic mean. A few sources (from the first three dictionaries that popped up on google):
Furthermore, the statement assumes that it makes sense to measure intelligence on a single scale; and by far the most common scale to do that is using IQ. IQ tests are designed to result in a normal distribution, which means that both the median and the mean are the same, and so we expect right about 50% of people to have an IQ less than the mean.
Although the other half of me thinks that if you go out and talk to some people on the street, you'll probably conclude that the majority of people are far dumber than average.
The aspect of the story that doesn't make sense to me is the revocation of the developer's access. If he had gone and made the license change without consulting anyone, that would make sense, but by all accounts the other lead developers agreed to the change. In that case they should all share responsibility for making the change.
I want free consumer choice and I have made clear what that implies.
Voluntary labeling gives you the ability to choose only non-GMO foods, which is what most of the pro-labelers claim they want. We've already got proof of that, based on the what happens in U.S. supermarkets. You've decided, apparently, that I'm lying about that; I can't help that. Do your own research if you're interested. (Which I know you're not; you're just being difficult.)
So the only thing you seem to be wanting is the ability to choose only GMO foods, since some manufacturers may not label their food GMO-free when they otherwise could. Who are the people who care about that? You realize that it's pretty much just you, right?
Excess government regulation when there is no benefit is absurd.
On the contrary, it's a very real problem for me because I live in Europe where (1) almost no food is labeled as "non-GMO food" because there is almost no GMO food right now,
...And when there is GMO food in your market (assuming that you are correct), why don't you think that it won't follow exactly the same pattern that we've seen in the U.S.? Non-GMO labels get slapped onto every possible product, because the manufacturers know that some people will buy because of it.
Your argument makes no sense. If companies are producing non-GMO food, and there is any demand for it at all, then why wouldn't they want to label it such? If there's no demand, then nobody will be producing alternatives, and then you're stuck regardless.
The fact is that you can get the result you claim to desire -- labeling that allows you to pick non-GMO food -- without adding extra regulation by the government. You claim it's a no-brainer -- try engaging that brain you think you have before talking.
I wasn't arguing for or against nanny states, I was arguing for free consumer choice. Your suggestion does not give customers the choice to buy non-GMO foods, because there is no guarantee that there will be "voluntary labeling of non-GMO food".
Walk into any grocery store today and you will see tons of food voluntarily labeled as non-GMO. This is only a problem in your imagination.
Enforced labeling has to do with anti-GMO scaremongering, not free consumer choice.
The non-nanny-state thing is to have voluntary labeling of non-GMO foods; then you can choose to buy non-GMO foods without forcing anybody to include unsupported "warning" labels.
The reason why the anti-GMO people don't like that is that not enough people agree with them, so they want to try to manipulate public opinion by putting extra warning labels on your food.
I see so many of these "I won't spend $x on a phone" posts and I'm never sure if people are just thrifty or if they're dressing up lack of disposable income as thrift or some kind of insight into lack of utility.
"Not spending $1000 on a phone" is not being thrifty, it's just not being stupid.
30% is a fair market price for the service provided.
The fact that the publisher chose to go this route is a pretty significant indication that the price is actually too high. If the price was right, then there wouldn't be much incentive to cut out the middleman -- especially considering that they certainly know that this will cut into their overall number of sales.
/. has a lot of older folks on it, many of them have done quite well for themselves and many are right wing. Many voted for Trump (few seem to want to admit it).
Then how do you know that many voted for Trump? ESP?
The term "brown people" is not, in reality, a term generally used in a racist context. It is used primarily by those accusing others of racism. Try googling the term for examples.
I'm betting you say it a lot more on a daily basis.
This is what I'm talking about. I don't agree with you, so you immediately try to imply that I'm a racist. That is the kind of person that uses the term "brown people".
Slashdot Mirror
Which was kind of the point. If sexual harassment is handled in court, then the presumption of innocence applies. The prevailing sentiment -- at least of those who make the most noise -- is that those accused of sexual harassment should be punished without that standard of proof. And that's why those people push to have punishments meted out by employers rather than the government.
Because "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't satisfy the mob.
incoming calls should be free.
its a spammers wet dream system where you as receiver pay for it.
It's impossible for incoming spam calls to be free. No matter what, they cost you in time and aggravation.
Yeah, you guys bring this up every single time.
And you don't seem to get that we don't care. The only way to prevent people from abusing the ability to hide their number is to absolutely prohibit it. The very dubious benefit of allowing a company to display their "main" number on the caller ID is so far outweighed by the problems of spoofed numbers that it is not worth considering.
So for 75% of all phones that make phone calls, your solution is to show nothing on caller ID instead of an actual return phone number?
That sounds pretty retarded and far worse.
Try "awesome". We would configure our phones and voicemail to drop all such calls. If somebody wants to call me, they can find a real phone.
This is what they are referring to. Code like (from that link):
Is it any real surprise that a high percentage of blockchain sites are kind of shady?
On this note, perhaps Slashdot should start sharing information with themselves about what they posted yesterday.
Since the summary didn't bother to mention what the "hyper-tapping" technique from the headline is, here's the explanation from the article:
Unlike many other top players, including Neubauer, Saelee uses hyper-tapping, a technique that requires players to press the D-pad rapidly at the the correct intervals in order to move Tetris pieces in different directions without losing speed. Normally players just hold down left or right on the D-pad. Saeleeâ(TM)s strategy on the other hand requires more than 10 button presses a second to be effective. Itâ(TM)s a riskier and more demanding style of play, but one that ended up paying off.
The Amber Alert system already gets abused all the time, why wouldn't this be abused as well?
DST is a waste of time. Now it is time for the U.S. to do the same.
Now that the EU has got rid of it, the US will start changing the clocks four time times a year just to be contrary.
No. Previous poster was using colloquial English, which is the language that we speak and understand on Slashdot. The only confusion is yours, since you apparently don't understand that the term "average" is correct in this context.
You have confused average with median.
While pedants love to counter with this, you're wrong. In colloquial English, the word "average" means "typical", not necessarily the arithmetic mean. A few sources (from the first three dictionaries that popped up on google):
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/average?s=t
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/average
Furthermore, the statement assumes that it makes sense to measure intelligence on a single scale; and by far the most common scale to do that is using IQ. IQ tests are designed to result in a normal distribution, which means that both the median and the mean are the same, and so we expect right about 50% of people to have an IQ less than the mean.
Although the other half of me thinks that if you go out and talk to some people on the street, you'll probably conclude that the majority of people are far dumber than average.
The aspect of the story that doesn't make sense to me is the revocation of the developer's access. If he had gone and made the license change without consulting anyone, that would make sense, but by all accounts the other lead developers agreed to the change. In that case they should all share responsibility for making the change.
Is there something else going on with this guy?
The article said it will cost $350.
Then how can it be a shameless copy? They missed the iPhone's primary feature.
I want free consumer choice and I have made clear what that implies.
Voluntary labeling gives you the ability to choose only non-GMO foods, which is what most of the pro-labelers claim they want. We've already got proof of that, based on the what happens in U.S. supermarkets. You've decided, apparently, that I'm lying about that; I can't help that. Do your own research if you're interested. (Which I know you're not; you're just being difficult.)
So the only thing you seem to be wanting is the ability to choose only GMO foods, since some manufacturers may not label their food GMO-free when they otherwise could. Who are the people who care about that? You realize that it's pretty much just you, right?
Excess government regulation when there is no benefit is absurd.
On the contrary, it's a very real problem for me because I live in Europe where (1) almost no food is labeled as "non-GMO food" because there is almost no GMO food right now,
...And when there is GMO food in your market (assuming that you are correct), why don't you think that it won't follow exactly the same pattern that we've seen in the U.S.? Non-GMO labels get slapped onto every possible product, because the manufacturers know that some people will buy because of it.
Your argument makes no sense. If companies are producing non-GMO food, and there is any demand for it at all, then why wouldn't they want to label it such? If there's no demand, then nobody will be producing alternatives, and then you're stuck regardless.
The fact is that you can get the result you claim to desire -- labeling that allows you to pick non-GMO food -- without adding extra regulation by the government. You claim it's a no-brainer -- try engaging that brain you think you have before talking.
I wasn't arguing for or against nanny states, I was arguing for free consumer choice. Your suggestion does not give customers the choice to buy non-GMO foods, because there is no guarantee that there will be "voluntary labeling of non-GMO food".
Walk into any grocery store today and you will see tons of food voluntarily labeled as non-GMO. This is only a problem in your imagination.
Enforced labeling has to do with anti-GMO scaremongering, not free consumer choice.
The non-nanny-state thing is to have voluntary labeling of non-GMO foods; then you can choose to buy non-GMO foods without forcing anybody to include unsupported "warning" labels.
The reason why the anti-GMO people don't like that is that not enough people agree with them, so they want to try to manipulate public opinion by putting extra warning labels on your food.
I see so many of these "I won't spend $x on a phone" posts and I'm never sure if people are just thrifty or if they're dressing up lack of disposable income as thrift or some kind of insight into lack of utility.
"Not spending $1000 on a phone" is not being thrifty, it's just not being stupid.
30% is a fair market price for the service provided.
The fact that the publisher chose to go this route is a pretty significant indication that the price is actually too high. If the price was right, then there wouldn't be much incentive to cut out the middleman -- especially considering that they certainly know that this will cut into their overall number of sales.
Details missing: did you pee before or after the breakfast?
Joke's on you, the answer is "during".
/. has a lot of older folks on it, many of them have done quite well for themselves and many are right wing. Many voted for Trump (few seem to want to admit it).
Then how do you know that many voted for Trump? ESP?
Wait, when did I call you racist?
Playing dumb, I see, in hopes that people won't look at context.
You first said that calling people "brown" is "the term used by the racist scum."
And then you just said (addressing me) that "I'm betting you say it a lot more on a daily basis."
The implication is very clear.
The term "brown people" is not, in reality, a term generally used in a racist context. It is used primarily by those accusing others of racism. Try googling the term for examples.
I'm betting you say it a lot more on a daily basis.
This is what I'm talking about. I don't agree with you, so you immediately try to imply that I'm a racist. That is the kind of person that uses the term "brown people".