Let me be the first/second/upmteenth one to say: news for nerds, stuff that matters? In what possible way this relates to anything that might even remotely interest anyone technically/computer inclined?
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but I would guess that giving someone immunity removes their ability to "plead the 5th". So they don't have an excuse to refuse to answer some questions with "I'm pleading the 5th" when prosecution start grilling them on the stand (here's hoping it'll get to that). The whole reason to keep your mouth shut when talking to the police is that no matter how innocent you think you are, your words can *always* be used against you. Watch "Making a murdered" for a real example of how someone very likely innocent can end up in jail for life simply because he is not smart enough (the teenage nephew). Getting an immunity removes the whole possibility of accidentally confessing to a crime you can go to jail for.
So IBM apparently invented forms and frames/windows? Can they now sue any website that uses frameset/frame HTML tags now? Granted, there are not a lot of those any more, but still, WTF? It's a common design pattern. How is this non-obvious to be patentable?!
You are forgetting geothermal, which might be partially nuclear in nature, if I'm not mistaken. Come to think of it, solar power is also nuclear at its root (except fusion, not fission). So it's all nuclear all around.
Is there a single real product out there yet that uses graphene in any substantial capacity that I can buy right now? Searched Amazon and other than raw graphene powder and rubberized sheets only found a couple of tennis rackets that have "graphene" in the title, but might or might not contain actual graphene in them (product descriptions don't mention it).
Heart of mobility my ass. Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said: âoeI hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Ok, I decided to go against the/. tradition and read the linked article. "Most egregious war crimes" my ass! The Sky News link is a total propaganda piece. With images of crying children and "war crimes" claims liberally thrown every couple of paragraphs. So then I went to the source: https://www.amnesty.org/en/lat...
Here are the quotes in the Amnesty source regarding bombing hospitals: "The briefing includes evidence suggesting that Russian authorities may have lied to cover up civilian damage to a mosque from one air strike and a field hospital in another."
So, it wasn't "hospitals", it was one single *field* hospital. Basically, a bunch of tents in a field. Just like a military or training camp would look like from the air. Did it have any identifiable signs of being a hospital? And would ISIS try to use the same to hope to protect its own camps perhaps?
"A witness to an attack just a few metres from Sermin field hospital in Idleb said the attack appeared to have been carried out by a more sophisticated plane as they did not see or hear the plane before the missiles were dropped."
So they don't even have evidence it was Russia, since they didn't see or hear the plane. Does Russia even have stealth bombers?
So from bombing a bunch of tents in the desert by possibly Russian planes we end up with definitive "most egregious war crimes". Wow.
The right-hand side of the page will be left free for Google's own Product Listing Ads.
So they are not ditching ads on the side of the page at all, like the summary claims. Plus, it's Google. They'll likely change their mind in about a week and ditch the search results in the middle, leaving the entire page for Google+, soon to be replaced by Google++.
Deliberately targeting civilians? Deliberately targeted hospitals? Corruption inherent in their society? Propaganda much? Care to provide any credible source of any of your claims?
So, my understanding is that Apple is refusing to create a version of iOS that would allow FBI to crack encryption on this one phone because then it can be used to do the same on other phones, right? I totally get it, privacy of everyone will be compromised and FBI can't be trusted. But in this particular case a (hopefully) independent judge reviewed the case and ordered Apple to help decrypt the phone. It changes everything, and I don't see why it wouldn't be ok to break encryption on a per case basis under judicial system oversight. So, why can't FBI deliver the phone to Apple, and Apple decrypt this one particular phone without releasing the compromised version of iOS to anyone? And do the same if and when a judge orders the same for another particular phone? What am I missing here? Have the "bad" version of iOS encrypted on a USB stick with a passphrase that only Tim Cook knows, so only he can authorize the decryption on a per case basis? Why not?
My "disable ads" check-box isn't working again. OCZ? No thank you. Breaks 30 cents per GB? Ha-ha. You could get Samsung Evo 1Tb for around $290 for a few weeks now.
All the advantages of a stick shift are negated if you ever even once had to stop halfway up a hill and then start moving again. My car with an auto transmission doesn't move back even an inch no matter what kind of a hill I'm on, and I've driven in San Francisco up what feels like 45-degree hills in stop and go traffic. My first car was a stick shift, and I still get occasional nightmares because I lived in an apartment complex at the time that had a short uphill driveway with a security gate halfway up, and I used to literally pray that nobody would be driving behind me when I got home...
Stack Overflow's main value is in user-generated content. The users are the ones who write questions and answers, and rate them to filter out garbage. It's no surprise that they would rather have 20% of users block ads, than to lose that 20%. When someone comes to Stack Overflow with ads blocked, the site will still potentially gain something from that user, in the form of a question/answer/rating. Wired, on the other hand, has very little user-generated content, as far as I know. So if someone browses Wired with ads blocked, the site has absolutely nothing to lose by kicking them out (or asking to pay). Along the same lines, Slashdot would probably not care about blocked ads (if the new owners are smart), New York Times -- very much so.
Jebus Christ on a stick! The Earth isn't round, it's an oblate spheroid. The Sun also orbits the Earth, just not as much. It's called a Solar *System* for a reason. Also, if you pick Earth as the center of your coordinate system, then Sun does orbit the Earth. It's just the rest of the planets will have much more complicated paths. The devil is in the detail. Saying "science is settled" is like saying there is nothing left to learn about something, which is practically never true.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me be the first/second/upmteenth one to say: news for nerds, stuff that matters? In what possible way this relates to anything that might even remotely interest anyone technically/computer inclined?
If her email server was never compromised then she never committed a single crime.
Using the same logic, driving under the influence isn't a crime if you haven't run anyone over. Right?
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but I would guess that giving someone immunity removes their ability to "plead the 5th". So they don't have an excuse to refuse to answer some questions with "I'm pleading the 5th" when prosecution start grilling them on the stand (here's hoping it'll get to that). The whole reason to keep your mouth shut when talking to the police is that no matter how innocent you think you are, your words can *always* be used against you. Watch "Making a murdered" for a real example of how someone very likely innocent can end up in jail for life simply because he is not smart enough (the teenage nephew). Getting an immunity removes the whole possibility of accidentally confessing to a crime you can go to jail for.
So IBM apparently invented forms and frames/windows? Can they now sue any website that uses frameset/frame HTML tags now? Granted, there are not a lot of those any more, but still, WTF? It's a common design pattern. How is this non-obvious to be patentable?!
Clickbait article uses the exact same words as President Obama!
You are forgetting geothermal, which might be partially nuclear in nature, if I'm not mistaken. Come to think of it, solar power is also nuclear at its root (except fusion, not fission). So it's all nuclear all around.
Is there a single real product out there yet that uses graphene in any substantial capacity that I can buy right now? Searched Amazon and other than raw graphene powder and rubberized sheets only found a couple of tennis rackets that have "graphene" in the title, but might or might not contain actual graphene in them (product descriptions don't mention it).
Heart of mobility my ass. Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said: âoeI hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Except for Bernie Sanders. Do yourself a favor and go google top corporate contributors for him and compare to Hillary. And make your own conclusions.
Same way you drill a square hole!
Ok, I decided to go against the /. tradition and read the linked article. "Most egregious war crimes" my ass! The Sky News link is a total propaganda piece. With images of crying children and "war crimes" claims liberally thrown every couple of paragraphs. So then I went to the source: https://www.amnesty.org/en/lat...
Here are the quotes in the Amnesty source regarding bombing hospitals:
"The briefing includes evidence suggesting that Russian authorities may have lied to cover up civilian damage to a mosque from one air strike and a field hospital in another."
So, it wasn't "hospitals", it was one single *field* hospital. Basically, a bunch of tents in a field. Just like a military or training camp would look like from the air. Did it have any identifiable signs of being a hospital? And would ISIS try to use the same to hope to protect its own camps perhaps?
"A witness to an attack just a few metres from Sermin field hospital in Idleb said the attack appeared to have been carried out by a more sophisticated plane as they did not see or hear the plane before the missiles were dropped."
So they don't even have evidence it was Russia, since they didn't see or hear the plane. Does Russia even have stealth bombers?
So from bombing a bunch of tents in the desert by possibly Russian planes we end up with definitive "most egregious war crimes". Wow.
The right-hand side of the page will be left free for Google's own Product Listing Ads.
So they are not ditching ads on the side of the page at all, like the summary claims. Plus, it's Google. They'll likely change their mind in about a week and ditch the search results in the middle, leaving the entire page for Google+, soon to be replaced by Google++.
Deliberately targeting civilians? Deliberately targeted hospitals? Corruption inherent in their society? Propaganda much? Care to provide any credible source of any of your claims?
Can I please know less about this... hrm... best artist of all time? News for nerds, my ass. What's next, Kardashian section on Slashdot?
So, my understanding is that Apple is refusing to create a version of iOS that would allow FBI to crack encryption on this one phone because then it can be used to do the same on other phones, right? I totally get it, privacy of everyone will be compromised and FBI can't be trusted. But in this particular case a (hopefully) independent judge reviewed the case and ordered Apple to help decrypt the phone. It changes everything, and I don't see why it wouldn't be ok to break encryption on a per case basis under judicial system oversight. So, why can't FBI deliver the phone to Apple, and Apple decrypt this one particular phone without releasing the compromised version of iOS to anyone? And do the same if and when a judge orders the same for another particular phone? What am I missing here? Have the "bad" version of iOS encrypted on a USB stick with a passphrase that only Tim Cook knows, so only he can authorize the decryption on a per case basis? Why not?
In other words, Google says Google is better. How about an *independent* study?
He was Dr.House's butler.
He was actually quoting Mark Twain.
Kotlin is yet another language to be run in the JVM.
Only on Slashdot you have to read the user comments to actually understand what the fuck the summary was about. And it only took one simple sentence.
described as "a system for discovering reliable and trustworthy information on the Internet."
So, Wikipedia isn't going to be the top result for many searches?
My "disable ads" check-box isn't working again.
OCZ? No thank you.
Breaks 30 cents per GB? Ha-ha. You could get Samsung Evo 1Tb for around $290 for a few weeks now.
So, you are saying that all generalizations are wrong? Including this one?
All the advantages of a stick shift are negated if you ever even once had to stop halfway up a hill and then start moving again. My car with an auto transmission doesn't move back even an inch no matter what kind of a hill I'm on, and I've driven in San Francisco up what feels like 45-degree hills in stop and go traffic. My first car was a stick shift, and I still get occasional nightmares because I lived in an apartment complex at the time that had a short uphill driveway with a security gate halfway up, and I used to literally pray that nobody would be driving behind me when I got home...
Stack Overflow's main value is in user-generated content. The users are the ones who write questions and answers, and rate them to filter out garbage. It's no surprise that they would rather have 20% of users block ads, than to lose that 20%. When someone comes to Stack Overflow with ads blocked, the site will still potentially gain something from that user, in the form of a question/answer/rating. Wired, on the other hand, has very little user-generated content, as far as I know. So if someone browses Wired with ads blocked, the site has absolutely nothing to lose by kicking them out (or asking to pay). Along the same lines, Slashdot would probably not care about blocked ads (if the new owners are smart), New York Times -- very much so.
Jebus Christ on a stick! The Earth isn't round, it's an oblate spheroid. The Sun also orbits the Earth, just not as much. It's called a Solar *System* for a reason. Also, if you pick Earth as the center of your coordinate system, then Sun does orbit the Earth. It's just the rest of the planets will have much more complicated paths. The devil is in the detail. Saying "science is settled" is like saying there is nothing left to learn about something, which is practically never true.