What's important is whether they are disrupting the learning of anyone else. You can't force someone to learn. Kids have been tuning out their teachers forever; phones have nothing to do with that.
The problem is, that would be hell to enforce. You would literally need teachers walking up and down the halls monitoring this. Teachers shouldn't be doing that.
I bet you think that laws are ineffective if you don't have a policeman looking over your shoulder 24/7 as well, too.
You don't need teachers monitoring every kid every moment. You just have a consequence when the teachers see a kid with a phone. (And for the kids who are smart enough to prevent the teachers from ever noticing... well then, the phone isn't really a disruption anymore, is it?)
Hm. So either you can't use it until the class is over, or you try to hide it under your desk, and if you get caught... you can't use it until the class is over.
I suspect I know which choice a lot of the kids made...
No, it won't "cost us our clean-energy future." As the article points out itself, the growth rate in the energy cost of bitcoin is unsustainable. Eventually bitcoin transactions are going to become more and more infeasible.
I can't see how anyone expects that Bitcoin will be able to maintain its value if you can't transfer it to other people. And if its value goes down, then so will the demand for energy to keep it running.
You should try an Android phone made at some point after 2013.
...and he'll find the exact same problems. If you're not buying high-end models of smartphones, Android is slow as molasses.
I use an Android phone and tablets because the features and usability are way ahead of the iPhone, but performance absolutely sucks. There should be absolutely no excuse for any hardware made in the last thirty years to have trouble rendering a text box and allowing you to type into it. And yet lower-end Android phones can't even do that without significant lag.
Well, that's the problem with android - "fragmentation". You can't expect every developer to own every single Android device out there, so somewhere along the line they have to take the leap that it works. And if you don't own an Android 8 device, well, the emulator is all you have. Given the emulator is running a real Android 8 image you would expect it to be faithfully reproduce the Android 8 experience.
I might buy that if this was a case of a feature that would work on his phone but was broken on another. But apparently the "adaptive icons" support was added in Android 8 -- so the developer apparently used a new feature, specifically for Android 8, that he couldn't (or just didn't bother) test at all on real hardware. That shouldn't be considered acceptable, and nobody should give him a pass for it.
And yeah, Google screwed up big time too -- both with the bug, and the fact that apparently their emulator doesn't work.
While I haven't read anything about how this works beyond the Slashdot summary, it sounds to me like this could appeal to the type of people who have a smartphone as their only computing device. They may not want to get a "new computer", but if they could plug their phone into a dock when they want to write a document, or browse the web with a normal keyboard in mouse, they might go for it.
The font changes are interesting but...... until other browsers support it, who in their right mind is going to design a chrome-only website? Maybe some kind of feature test could support this optimization, but then you'd have divergent code paths and that gets messy too. This is why it's better to work on updating STANDARDS instead of just adding one-off features... else it's internet explorer all over again.
After reading your first sentence, my first thought was "the same sort of people who used to design IE-only websites."
I got stuck using a Chrome-only website for a "training course" for work a couple days ago. Since Chrome now has a share of about 60%, this sort of thing is going to keep happening.
The article's headline said that these were businesses "facing extinction in ten years." In reality, very few (if any) of the businesses they identified actually are extinct.
Within the article, they did include weasel language under almost every single item to the effect that "it will be around, but their business will decline." Of course, if they had headlined their article "10 businesses that will decline in the next 10 years," nobody would have given it a second glance.
Someone should tell these people that sticking random punctuation into your brand names is a fad that died long ago. It was dumb back with the:CueCat, and today it looks hopelessly moronic.
Could have been going there to try to deposit them or exchange them, converting them to "real" money, and got cold feet at the last second.
And so he stuck around, cut up the bills, and flushed them down the toilet at the bank... and then walked to three nearby restaurants and did the same thing?
Not saying it's not possible -- people do weird things under pressure -- but it sure doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I'm surprised that it's only 50%. Given that voter turnout in the average presidential election is only about 50-60% without extra incentives not to vote, it's hard to imagine that you couldn't come up with another 10% who would skip voting in exchange for a big pile of cash.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Which means he has every right to utilize DMCA to have an account removed, by Slashdot's own fucking admission.
I don't see anything in there that says that you have permission to misuse the DMCA to censor trolls.
For anyone who is curious (I looked it up, since I was), apparently somebody registered a 'cdreimer' account to troll creimer. This isn't terribly surprising, because he not only posts a lot of nonsense, but also engages in flamewars with trolls, which is the one sure way to get more people to troll you. Instead of acting like an adult and ignoring the troll, apparently he filed a DMCA complaint to get the cdreimer account removed.
Since that account wasn't infringing upon his copyrights, that is of course complete bull.
People don't like DACA? Fine. Rolling it back is easy enough. As you point out, it's not a law. But why not simply grandfather everyone in, in perpetuity, and simply stop allowing new applicants.
It's funny, how everyone who likes amnesty for illegals always say, "we'll do this last amnesty, and then we'll start enforcing the laws. Honest! Promise!"
If you want cruel, how about the guy who promised amnesty to all these people when he knew damn well that he didn't have the legal authority to do so and it stood a good chance of being overturned?
But at best, they are carbon neutral. Any carbon they might pull from the atmosphere is temporarily stored, then released back to the atmosphere after they die and decay.
Not if you take measures to prevent their decay after they die.
After all, that's how all this carbon got into the ground in the first place, so it's obviously not impossible.
In a previous life it was very important that management could hire.js people, as the new budget required they get rid of anyone expensive. Like the chief architect (;-))
Our management tells us that "Agile Development" means that anyone can develop anything. Why would we need expensive chief architects anymore?
Slashdot Mirror
What's important is whether they are disrupting the learning of anyone else. You can't force someone to learn. Kids have been tuning out their teachers forever; phones have nothing to do with that.
The problem is, that would be hell to enforce. You would literally need teachers walking up and down the halls monitoring this. Teachers shouldn't be doing that.
I bet you think that laws are ineffective if you don't have a policeman looking over your shoulder 24/7 as well, too.
You don't need teachers monitoring every kid every moment. You just have a consequence when the teachers see a kid with a phone. (And for the kids who are smart enough to prevent the teachers from ever noticing ... well then, the phone isn't really a disruption anymore, is it?)
Hm. So either you can't use it until the class is over, or you try to hide it under your desk, and if you get caught ... you can't use it until the class is over.
I suspect I know which choice a lot of the kids made...
No, it won't "cost us our clean-energy future." As the article points out itself, the growth rate in the energy cost of bitcoin is unsustainable. Eventually bitcoin transactions are going to become more and more infeasible.
I can't see how anyone expects that Bitcoin will be able to maintain its value if you can't transfer it to other people. And if its value goes down, then so will the demand for energy to keep it running.
You should try an Android phone made at some point after 2013.
...and he'll find the exact same problems. If you're not buying high-end models of smartphones, Android is slow as molasses.
I use an Android phone and tablets because the features and usability are way ahead of the iPhone, but performance absolutely sucks. There should be absolutely no excuse for any hardware made in the last thirty years to have trouble rendering a text box and allowing you to type into it. And yet lower-end Android phones can't even do that without significant lag.
...large-scale programs that showed people how to spot fake news...
Fortunately, our president is on the job. Just watch his Twitter, he'll identify all the Fake News! for you.
When I came to IBM, it was a big discussion: Why does IBM not have a bespoke typeface? Why are we still clinging on to Helvetica?
This should tell you all you need to know about whether the "creative director of brand experience and design" adds any value to the company.
Well, that's the problem with android - "fragmentation". You can't expect every developer to own every single Android device out there, so somewhere along the line they have to take the leap that it works. And if you don't own an Android 8 device, well, the emulator is all you have. Given the emulator is running a real Android 8 image you would expect it to be faithfully reproduce the Android 8 experience.
I might buy that if this was a case of a feature that would work on his phone but was broken on another. But apparently the "adaptive icons" support was added in Android 8 -- so the developer apparently used a new feature, specifically for Android 8, that he couldn't (or just didn't bother) test at all on real hardware. That shouldn't be considered acceptable, and nobody should give him a pass for it.
And yeah, Google screwed up big time too -- both with the bug, and the fact that apparently their emulator doesn't work.
If you voted for Hilary Clinton instead of a sane candidate who would have unquestionably defeated Trump, this is your fault. Fuck you.
While I haven't read anything about how this works beyond the Slashdot summary, it sounds to me like this could appeal to the type of people who have a smartphone as their only computing device. They may not want to get a "new computer", but if they could plug their phone into a dock when they want to write a document, or browse the web with a normal keyboard in mouse, they might go for it.
The font changes are interesting but...... until other browsers support it, who in their right mind is going to design a chrome-only website? Maybe some kind of feature test could support this optimization, but then you'd have divergent code paths and that gets messy too. This is why it's better to work on updating STANDARDS instead of just adding one-off features... else it's internet explorer all over again.
After reading your first sentence, my first thought was "the same sort of people who used to design IE-only websites."
I got stuck using a Chrome-only website for a "training course" for work a couple days ago. Since Chrome now has a share of about 60%, this sort of thing is going to keep happening.
Or if you want to keep it, then don't complain when your files get reviewed by an invasive dictatorship.
If you want to prevent your data from being reviewed by an invasive dictatorship, then you probably shouldn't be listening to the NSA either.
The article's headline said that these were businesses "facing extinction in ten years." In reality, very few (if any) of the businesses they identified actually are extinct.
Within the article, they did include weasel language under almost every single item to the effect that "it will be around, but their business will decline." Of course, if they had headlined their article "10 businesses that will decline in the next 10 years," nobody would have given it a second glance.
Someone should tell these people that sticking random punctuation into your brand names is a fad that died long ago. It was dumb back with the :CueCat, and today it looks hopelessly moronic.
Could have been going there to try to deposit them or exchange them, converting them to "real" money, and got cold feet at the last second.
And so he stuck around, cut up the bills, and flushed them down the toilet at the bank ... and then walked to three nearby restaurants and did the same thing?
Not saying it's not possible -- people do weird things under pressure -- but it sure doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
As someone who has successfully utilized the DMCA to defend my websites, no, you are the incorrect party.
Just because you were "successful" doesn't mean that you had a valid DMCA claim. Trolling somebody may be wrong, but it's not a copyright violation.
I'm surprised that it's only 50%. Given that voter turnout in the average presidential election is only about 50-60% without extra incentives not to vote, it's hard to imagine that you couldn't come up with another 10% who would skip voting in exchange for a big pile of cash.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Which means he has every right to utilize DMCA to have an account removed, by Slashdot's own fucking admission.
I don't see anything in there that says that you have permission to misuse the DMCA to censor trolls.
For anyone who is curious (I looked it up, since I was), apparently somebody registered a 'cdreimer' account to troll creimer. This isn't terribly surprising, because he not only posts a lot of nonsense, but also engages in flamewars with trolls, which is the one sure way to get more people to troll you. Instead of acting like an adult and ignoring the troll, apparently he filed a DMCA complaint to get the cdreimer account removed.
Since that account wasn't infringing upon his copyrights, that is of course complete bull.
It's not a very good place to be considering all narcissists and trolls.
Sounds like a representative sample of humanity to me.
The problem was that nobody told the students not to cheat. Now that that little misunderstanding has been cleared up, the problem is fixed.
People don't like DACA? Fine. Rolling it back is easy enough. As you point out, it's not a law. But why not simply grandfather everyone in, in perpetuity, and simply stop allowing new applicants.
It's funny, how everyone who likes amnesty for illegals always say, "we'll do this last amnesty, and then we'll start enforcing the laws. Honest! Promise!"
If you want cruel, how about the guy who promised amnesty to all these people when he knew damn well that he didn't have the legal authority to do so and it stood a good chance of being overturned?
But at best, they are carbon neutral. Any carbon they might pull from the atmosphere is temporarily stored, then released back to the atmosphere after they die and decay.
Not if you take measures to prevent their decay after they die.
After all, that's how all this carbon got into the ground in the first place, so it's obviously not impossible.
In a previous life it was very important that management could hire .js people, as the new budget required they get rid of anyone expensive. Like the chief architect (;-))
Our management tells us that "Agile Development" means that anyone can develop anything. Why would we need expensive chief architects anymore?
Perhaps Britain should declare war on Windows the same way they have on Kodi. It would make at least as much sense.
...so this means that people like the KKK and white supremacists can finally avoid being censored?
That's good, right?
Yes.
Because if you can censor the KKK, you can censor anyone. And those that support censorship are never satisfied.