This hit every other website a day and a half ago.
But that's impossible! I thought the whole reason that slashdot "editors" don't proofread or dupe-check was so that they could get the stories posted faster.
The submitter used a link to the announcement of a 4.2.1 minor bugfix release, which isn't very informative if you want to know about new features in 4.2.x. They really should have linked to this announcement instead, which says:
Hello everyone,
it is my pleasure to announce release of GNU Screen v.4.2.0
available at http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/screen/ (I will also upload to ftp.gnu.org as soon as my access is authorized)
Many are probably using it due to their distributions packaging development versions, so they know at least some of changes. Short list of them:
* layouts
* window groups
* better mouse support
* vertical split
* new and expanded commands
For full list of changes please check Changelog.
Please note that due to some changes it may be not possible to attach to sessions created with older binaries.
With this I also plan to put v.4 into maintenance mode and start developing v.5 with cleaned up source code, new features (some already in development tree, currently outside of official repository):
* 256 color hardstatus
* truecolor
* firstline hardstatus
* top line caption
and more
The assholes who put them there and the assholes who made them.
It is rather doubtful that any of the people participating in this discussion did either. So if that's the answer to the question, then the original comment was directed towards the wrong people.
You want to bring up cost effective? Well fuck you, economics should have ZERO argument in this issue. Clean the fucking things up.
It's called Doing the Right goddamn thing.
Whose responsibility is it to clean them up? Everybody's? If so, then why is it the "Right" thing to expend my resources on this problem rather than in one of any number of other ways that will have a greater impact?
It is estimated that there are 110 million landmines in the ground right now; one for every 52 inhabitants on the planet.
52 (people/mine) * 110 million (mines) = 5.72 billion people. Unless there's been a recent disaster that killed off more than a billion people that I didn't hear about, I think their math's a little off.
The Wikipedia article on dark matter discusses this in depth. Although I'm no astrophysicist and can't vouch for the article's accuracy, it does outline some of the reasons why those studying it believe that objects like this cannot account for the amount of dark matter required to explain how galaxies behave.
Hey Soulskill -- JImbob0i0 may be a new submitter, but you're not a new editor. How about editing the content of the submission so that it actually makes sense?
What exactly is it they pay you to do? I'm sure I could write a shell script that would randomly select a few stories every day to copy to the front page.
How long does it take before you're no longer allowed to justify what "your guy" does by pointing out the the "other guy" did bad stuff too? Does that end after Obama's current term, or are we still going to be hearing the "Bush did it too" excuse in 2020?
My understanding is that capital gains tax is lower because the business you're investing in has already paid its half in corporate income tax.
Not really; after all, the government has no trouble "double-taxing" money any time you give them half a chance; and if that was really the concern then the amount of time that the investment was held wouldn't matter. The fundamental reason for the lower tax rate is to encourage long-term investment -- and the theory is that by so doing, corporations have a better opportunity to be profitable (which of course translates into more incoming tax dollars.)
Even if just 56% of them become rich that's good enough a chance for me.
The thing is that being a millionaire really isn't the same as being rich.
Think about it -- if you were of retirement age today, how much would you want in assets to feel comfortable retiring? A quarter million? A half million?
Now consider the amount of time that you actually have left until then. Depending on how long it will be, a half million dollars today will very likely be equivalent to over a million when you will need it.
I would venture to say that most people who are relatively early in their careers, and expect to be able to put away the money they'll need for retirement, should expect to be worth at least a million dollars at some point in their lives -- and that won't be being rich; that's just going to be "comfortable."
Wait -- you originally said that "I see no reason that people should be trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of." Indicating that you think that having the people move to a country that they want to be a part of is not acceptable. But for some reason, you don't believe that the "losers" of this referendum are "trapped" in the same way. That seems rather contradictory.
So why don't the people in the Crimean area who want to be Russians just move into Russia? Why should a majority of of people in an area be able to vote and force an ethnic minority to leave their homes?
Although that sounds reasonable at first, it leads to a lot of problematic situations. One obvious example in this case there is a minority of people in Crimea that are strongly against it, but because of the tyranny of the majority they have been forced to join Russia. Why should those people be "trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of"?
All the provision does is lift the statute of limitations on collecting an unpaid debt. I really don't see the problem with that. The actual problem seems to be that they're going after the wrong people to get their money -- and that seems to be based on a policy that allows the government to go after children who may have benefited from overpayments. Seems to me that the person you really should be going after is the one who implemented that policy -- or passed the laws that allow that policy.
These attacks have cost them 10s to 100s of millions. Yet, they are only willing to put up.25M. This shows how poorly ran American companies are today.
The amount of money they offer for a reward only has to be high enough to make it worthwhile for someone who has information to come forward. The amount of money they lost in the attack is really irrelevant. It's not like they'll get that money back if there's a conviction.
According to the author, apparently "free-to-play" is a new business model. Funny, I've been playing "free-to-play" games for well over twenty years now; and back in the old shareware days it was fairly common to have a feature-limited free version that you had to upgrade to get the whole game.
Yes, some of the mechanics of ways to make money off of a free-to-play game have changed along with technology, but in concept things really haven't changed that much.
If you want the government to protect people from being fired for donating to a political campaign, then they should protect everyone, regardless of their job title or responsibilites. If you don't like the ramifications of that, then you should re-think whether the government should be offering this protection to anyone in the first place. But in this case, the benefits of the law probably outweigh the disadvantages.
Of course a CEO is in a "special position". So what? He's still a person, and it is wrong to deny him the rights and protections given to everyone else.
Your argument is based on dehumanizing a class of people.
meh, there is something to be said for some groups needing legal protections more then others, and in general people with wealth and power tend to have enough of their own resources and political power to take care of themselves and still come out on top.
I'm not buying this argument. Just because some group may "need it less" doesn't mean that you should arbitrarily take those protections away from them. That's just an excuse to take away those rights, not a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because one set of criminals gets off easier than they should, it does not follow that all other criminals should be treated leniently.
This hit every other website a day and a half ago.
But that's impossible! I thought the whole reason that slashdot "editors" don't proofread or dupe-check was so that they could get the stories posted faster.
I also found this comical link to "End of Pi Found" on some Physics forum:
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/...
*SPOILER ALERT*
It's a '4'.
What's with people trotting out the "looks ugly" criticism?
Because if the goal is to get people driving electric cars, then aesthetics are important.
The submitter used a link to the announcement of a 4.2.1 minor bugfix release, which isn't very informative if you want to know about new features in 4.2.x. They really should have linked to this announcement instead, which says:
And the Changelog is here: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/screen.git/tree/src/ChangeLog?h=screen-v4.
The assholes who put them there and the assholes who made them.
It is rather doubtful that any of the people participating in this discussion did either. So if that's the answer to the question, then the original comment was directed towards the wrong people.
You want to bring up cost effective? Well fuck you, economics should have ZERO argument in this issue. Clean the fucking things up.
It's called Doing the Right goddamn thing.
Whose responsibility is it to clean them up? Everybody's? If so, then why is it the "Right" thing to expend my resources on this problem rather than in one of any number of other ways that will have a greater impact?
It is estimated that there are 110 million landmines in the ground right now; one for every 52 inhabitants on the planet.
52 (people/mine) * 110 million (mines) = 5.72 billion people. Unless there's been a recent disaster that killed off more than a billion people that I didn't hear about, I think their math's a little off.
The Wikipedia article on dark matter discusses this in depth. Although I'm no astrophysicist and can't vouch for the article's accuracy, it does outline some of the reasons why those studying it believe that objects like this cannot account for the amount of dark matter required to explain how galaxies behave.
Hey Soulskill -- JImbob0i0 may be a new submitter, but you're not a new editor. How about editing the content of the submission so that it actually makes sense?
What exactly is it they pay you to do? I'm sure I could write a shell script that would randomly select a few stories every day to copy to the front page.
How long does it take before you're no longer allowed to justify what "your guy" does by pointing out the the "other guy" did bad stuff too? Does that end after Obama's current term, or are we still going to be hearing the "Bush did it too" excuse in 2020?
My understanding is that capital gains tax is lower because the business you're investing in has already paid its half in corporate income tax.
Not really; after all, the government has no trouble "double-taxing" money any time you give them half a chance; and if that was really the concern then the amount of time that the investment was held wouldn't matter. The fundamental reason for the lower tax rate is to encourage long-term investment -- and the theory is that by so doing, corporations have a better opportunity to be profitable (which of course translates into more incoming tax dollars.)
Even if just 56% of them become rich that's good enough a chance for me.
The thing is that being a millionaire really isn't the same as being rich.
Think about it -- if you were of retirement age today, how much would you want in assets to feel comfortable retiring? A quarter million? A half million?
Now consider the amount of time that you actually have left until then. Depending on how long it will be, a half million dollars today will very likely be equivalent to over a million when you will need it.
I would venture to say that most people who are relatively early in their careers, and expect to be able to put away the money they'll need for retirement, should expect to be worth at least a million dollars at some point in their lives -- and that won't be being rich; that's just going to be "comfortable."
Wait -- you originally said that "I see no reason that people should be trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of." Indicating that you think that having the people move to a country that they want to be a part of is not acceptable. But for some reason, you don't believe that the "losers" of this referendum are "trapped" in the same way. That seems rather contradictory.
So why don't the people in the Crimean area who want to be Russians just move into Russia? Why should a majority of of people in an area be able to vote and force an ethnic minority to leave their homes?
Although that sounds reasonable at first, it leads to a lot of problematic situations. One obvious example in this case there is a minority of people in Crimea that are strongly against it, but because of the tyranny of the majority they have been forced to join Russia. Why should those people be "trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of"?
All the provision does is lift the statute of limitations on collecting an unpaid debt. I really don't see the problem with that. The actual problem seems to be that they're going after the wrong people to get their money -- and that seems to be based on a policy that allows the government to go after children who may have benefited from overpayments. Seems to me that the person you really should be going after is the one who implemented that policy -- or passed the laws that allow that policy.
If needed, it can be powered through electricity according to the Dutch news source.
Perhaps by placing a lamp above the road...
These attacks have cost them 10s to 100s of millions. Yet, they are only willing to put up .25M. This shows how poorly ran American companies are today.
The amount of money they offer for a reward only has to be high enough to make it worthwhile for someone who has information to come forward. The amount of money they lost in the attack is really irrelevant. It's not like they'll get that money back if there's a conviction.
According to the author, apparently "free-to-play" is a new business model. Funny, I've been playing "free-to-play" games for well over twenty years now; and back in the old shareware days it was fairly common to have a feature-limited free version that you had to upgrade to get the whole game.
Yes, some of the mechanics of ways to make money off of a free-to-play game have changed along with technology, but in concept things really haven't changed that much.
If you want the government to protect people from being fired for donating to a political campaign, then they should protect everyone, regardless of their job title or responsibilites. If you don't like the ramifications of that, then you should re-think whether the government should be offering this protection to anyone in the first place. But in this case, the benefits of the law probably outweigh the disadvantages.
That's not what the law says. And that's not what the law should say. If anyone is protected, then everyone should be.
Nobody is taking protections away from them, but they do not need special protections tailored for them either.
I agree with that. They should get no more, nor no less, protection than any other person.
Of course a CEO is in a "special position". So what? He's still a person, and it is wrong to deny him the rights and protections given to everyone else.
Your argument is based on dehumanizing a class of people.
meh, there is something to be said for some groups needing legal protections more then others, and in general people with wealth and power tend to have enough of their own resources and political power to take care of themselves and still come out on top.
I'm not buying this argument. Just because some group may "need it less" doesn't mean that you should arbitrarily take those protections away from them. That's just an excuse to take away those rights, not a reason.