Even people on Arch don't need to "recompile the kernel to adjust this or that."
No, you don't have to recompile the kernel constantly, but you have to babysit the package manager every time you upgrade. They issue update breaking changes constantly.
Which is usually about a year, and in exceptional cases can be up to three years. No, it's not indefinite detention, but it's a serious injustice nonetheless.
We celebrate those who stood up to and challenged the governments and did so without resorting to taking their own lives or others'.
We also celebrate those who sacrificed their lives for their causes. Whether it's Aaron Swartz or Mohamed Bouazizi, these people deserve to be honored.
You can't actually do this. Grand juries can compel testimony. There are people in prison right now for refusing to testify in front of grand juries. And because it's considered civil contempt, you get no trial, no appeal.
They hostage situation may or may not have cost him the election anyway, but that major fuck-up guaranteed that he couldn't be re-elected.
If the hostage situation guaranteed that Carter couldn't be reelected, why didn't the Iraq war guarantee that Bush couldn't be reelected? The Iraq war was a much larger fuck-up by orders of magniuted. The public doesn't care if you fuck up. They care whether or not you swagger when you fuck up.
The only reason this policy is getting attention is that nobody important (read: major corporations) stands to lose much by changing the policy. It's not an important issue, when compared to drug reform, single payer health care, drone strikes, or jailing bankers. It's just a shiny bauble Obama can use to misdirect us away from these important issues.
Actually, I expect this to get some traction. Cell phone unlocking has been legal for a year or two now, and telcos aren't suffering too much from it. This is a small issue that will win Obama some major positive PR. He needs to deliver on small issues like this so people don't notice he hasn't even tried to deliver anything important.
He doesn't even need to get Congress involved. He just needs to have a chat with the Librarian of Congress and work out some quid pro quo. This won't be hard for Obama to actually accomplish.
What exactly are you concerned about? Describe a situation where providing the evidence against Dotcom to Dotcom would decrease justice. Give me one specific plausible hypothetical.
1. Women do well, on par with men, in professions and communities where they are treated as equal participants. This has been demonstrated in a positive sense by things like GoGaRuCo, the Ruby conference where their call for submissions is evangelized heavily amongst female and minority Ruby communities, so that the submissions pool has sufficient diversity; when blind judging is applied to that submissions pool, then, the resulting mix of speakers shows the same diversity. In other words, when sexism is successfully filtered out of the process, gender becomes irrelevant.
I can't figure out why you think that amounts to an argument that this talk shouldn't have taken place. Gender blind judging is a great idea that will increase the proportion of females, which will make these kinds of talks even more important.
2. Adding a sex talk to a conference at which sex is not a normal topic, among a community that historically has demonstrated that it's bad at treating women as equal participants, will tend to sexualize the atmosphere of the conference and will highlight, rather than diminish, gender issues.
In other words, "If we don't talk about it, it will go away". It would be nice if we didn't need to have these talks, but the problem exists and it's not going to go away if we ignore it.
In this specific case, the talk contained material that could trigger rape survivors
Who are in no way required to be present at talks that make them uncomfortable.
4. We don't need to sexualize every environment. Refraining from doing so has important benefits.
Sorry, whenever there are unattached men of child rearing age the environment will be sexualized. Pretending you can avoid this is naive at best. The correct thing to do is to encourage healthy mingling.
Men are not going to stop hitting on women at conferences. Nor should they be expected to. We have a biological imperitive to procreate. Expecting us to sit on our hands at a con only means we'll be missing out on opportunities to meet women with similar interests. Those opportunities will be taken by some other guy who thereby gains a reproductive advantage.
Geeks are smart, we can learn. If you tell us that maybe a secluded elevator isn't the right place to hit on a woman, we'll adjust our behavior accordingly. If you don't tell us that, it's not our fault if we accidentally creep out some female attendees.
The shorter version of the Ada Initiative's position is this: technology is not essentially gendered or sexualized
Human interaction is essentially sexualized. Trying to pretend otherwise is harmful to everyone involved, male or female. Gender equality means that we should respect both males and females. And part of respecting males is acknowledging that sex is a huge motivator for us, and that there is nothing wrong with that. And denying that females enjoy sexual attention from males isn't very respectful towards them either.
Is there actually more to this argument than "If we don't talk about it, it will go away"? When has that idea ever worked?
This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.
The US should not have to prove his guilt before extradition. But it should have to prove that it has a case. And Dotcom deserves a chance to refute that.
US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith.
What evidence is that that any of the US's actions in this case have been done in good faith?
Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.
He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.
The second was failing to grease the right palms in Washington. They learned their lesson, began giving out the campaign donations, and all of a sudden the case went from seriously considering the breakup of the OS and application divisions to a settlement that amounted to a slap on the wrist.
Quoted for emphasis. Microsoft dramatically increased their campaign contributions at the same time they were being prosecuted by the DOJ. It's a perfect example of how corrupt this government has been for decades.
If my parents did anything I truly felt was horrible (say instigating a war that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people as some sort of dick waving contest), I'd take them out of the equation myself. I would hope that they would do the same to me. I'd do the same to the US today if there was any way for one man to overthrow a country.
Are people perfect? No. Should you love them despite their imperfections? Yes. But there's a big difference between minor personal flaws and outright evil.
Then, with huge records showing what items sell best, EA can create their own version of the Eiffel Tower and Empire State Building and Lolcat Statue, etc., ban the third-party "copies" from the marketplace, and take all the money then on for themselves for those items
The Empire State Building and Eiffel Tower are trademarked.
Hey, I'm in my 30s and I still eat. That doesn't mean I'm part of the McDonald's market. I play a ton of video games too. That doesn't mean I'm part of the EA market. They don't need my money.
I mean theoretically, as in the dynamic range available is greater with 16 bit audio. And the Nyquist limit of 44.1khz audio is above the range of human hearing. And the noise floor is lower with digital audio.
And I mean practically, in that you will not be able to ABX a 16/44.1 recording from the 24/96 masters. 16/44.1 audio is transparent to the human ear. Period. With vinyl, otoh, you might be able to ABX the vinyl from the masters.
Slashdot Mirror
Hear, hear!
Even people on Arch don't need to "recompile the kernel to adjust this or that."
No, you don't have to recompile the kernel constantly, but you have to babysit the package manager every time you upgrade. They issue update breaking changes constantly.
Lots. The most honest of dudes will answer "Do I look fat in this?" incorrectly.
Which is usually about a year, and in exceptional cases can be up to three years. No, it's not indefinite detention, but it's a serious injustice nonetheless.
We celebrate those who stood up to and challenged the governments and did so without resorting to taking their own lives or others'.
We also celebrate those who sacrificed their lives for their causes. Whether it's Aaron Swartz or Mohamed Bouazizi, these people deserve to be honored.
You can't actually do this. Grand juries can compel testimony. There are people in prison right now for refusing to testify in front of grand juries. And because it's considered civil contempt, you get no trial, no appeal.
They hostage situation may or may not have cost him the election anyway, but that major fuck-up guaranteed that he couldn't be re-elected.
If the hostage situation guaranteed that Carter couldn't be reelected, why didn't the Iraq war guarantee that Bush couldn't be reelected? The Iraq war was a much larger fuck-up by orders of magniuted. The public doesn't care if you fuck up. They care whether or not you swagger when you fuck up.
No, he doesn't answer to the president. That doesn't mean the president can't influence him.
The only reason this policy is getting attention is that nobody important (read: major corporations) stands to lose much by changing the policy. It's not an important issue, when compared to drug reform, single payer health care, drone strikes, or jailing bankers. It's just a shiny bauble Obama can use to misdirect us away from these important issues.
Actually, I expect this to get some traction. Cell phone unlocking has been legal for a year or two now, and telcos aren't suffering too much from it. This is a small issue that will win Obama some major positive PR. He needs to deliver on small issues like this so people don't notice he hasn't even tried to deliver anything important.
He doesn't even need to get Congress involved. He just needs to have a chat with the Librarian of Congress and work out some quid pro quo. This won't be hard for Obama to actually accomplish.
This is not DRM; it is product-life expiration.
The life of a DRM'd product artificially expires once the DRM servers are taken down. Product-life expiration is a feature of every DRM system.
Sure it's not 101'x202'x40.4'?
EGA monitors are pretty rare these days. If you find some, offer them to the folks at the Vintage Computer Forums, they'll be appreciated.
VCF would be a great place to find good homes for a lot of these items actually. Things like EMS cards for XT machines, or anything EISA.
I really hate people who automatically associate intelligence with political alignment. Google "non sequitur."
Seriously, how could people be that stupid?
What exactly are you concerned about? Describe a situation where providing the evidence against Dotcom to Dotcom would decrease justice. Give me one specific plausible hypothetical.
1. Women do well, on par with men, in professions and communities where they are treated as equal participants. This has been demonstrated in a positive sense by things like GoGaRuCo, the Ruby conference where their call for submissions is evangelized heavily amongst female and minority Ruby communities, so that the submissions pool has sufficient diversity; when blind judging is applied to that submissions pool, then, the resulting mix of speakers shows the same diversity. In other words, when sexism is successfully filtered out of the process, gender becomes irrelevant.
I can't figure out why you think that amounts to an argument that this talk shouldn't have taken place. Gender blind judging is a great idea that will increase the proportion of females, which will make these kinds of talks even more important.
2. Adding a sex talk to a conference at which sex is not a normal topic, among a community that historically has demonstrated that it's bad at treating women as equal participants, will tend to sexualize the atmosphere of the conference and will highlight, rather than diminish, gender issues.
In other words, "If we don't talk about it, it will go away". It would be nice if we didn't need to have these talks, but the problem exists and it's not going to go away if we ignore it.
In this specific case, the talk contained material that could trigger rape survivors
Who are in no way required to be present at talks that make them uncomfortable.
4. We don't need to sexualize every environment. Refraining from doing so has important benefits.
Sorry, whenever there are unattached men of child rearing age the environment will be sexualized. Pretending you can avoid this is naive at best. The correct thing to do is to encourage healthy mingling.
Men are not going to stop hitting on women at conferences. Nor should they be expected to. We have a biological imperitive to procreate. Expecting us to sit on our hands at a con only means we'll be missing out on opportunities to meet women with similar interests. Those opportunities will be taken by some other guy who thereby gains a reproductive advantage.
Geeks are smart, we can learn. If you tell us that maybe a secluded elevator isn't the right place to hit on a woman, we'll adjust our behavior accordingly. If you don't tell us that, it's not our fault if we accidentally creep out some female attendees.
The shorter version of the Ada Initiative's position is this: technology is not essentially gendered or sexualized
Human interaction is essentially sexualized. Trying to pretend otherwise is harmful to everyone involved, male or female. Gender equality means that we should respect both males and females. And part of respecting males is acknowledging that sex is a huge motivator for us, and that there is nothing wrong with that. And denying that females enjoy sexual attention from males isn't very respectful towards them either.
Is there actually more to this argument than "If we don't talk about it, it will go away"? When has that idea ever worked?
This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.
The US should not have to prove his guilt before extradition. But it should have to prove that it has a case. And Dotcom deserves a chance to refute that.
US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith.
What evidence is that that any of the US's actions in this case have been done in good faith?
Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.
He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.
In what way would you expect Dotcom to "affect" the evidence? Why would the provide copies in a writable format?
The second was failing to grease the right palms in Washington. They learned their lesson, began giving out the campaign donations, and all of a sudden the case went from seriously considering the breakup of the OS and application divisions to a settlement that amounted to a slap on the wrist.
Quoted for emphasis. Microsoft dramatically increased their campaign contributions at the same time they were being prosecuted by the DOJ. It's a perfect example of how corrupt this government has been for decades.
If my parents did anything I truly felt was horrible (say instigating a war that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people as some sort of dick waving contest), I'd take them out of the equation myself. I would hope that they would do the same to me. I'd do the same to the US today if there was any way for one man to overthrow a country.
Are people perfect? No. Should you love them despite their imperfections? Yes. But there's a big difference between minor personal flaws and outright evil.
Did you happen to notice that my post was a question?
Then, with huge records showing what items sell best, EA can create their own version of the Eiffel Tower and Empire State Building and Lolcat Statue, etc., ban the third-party "copies" from the marketplace, and take all the money then on for themselves for those items
The Empire State Building and Eiffel Tower are trademarked.
Hey, I'm in my 30s and I still eat. That doesn't mean I'm part of the McDonald's market. I play a ton of video games too. That doesn't mean I'm part of the EA market. They don't need my money.
That's a shitty implementation of a difficulty slider. Why turn the difficulty up if you're just going to cheat with the auction house?
I mean theoretically, as in the dynamic range available is greater with 16 bit audio. And the Nyquist limit of 44.1khz audio is above the range of human hearing. And the noise floor is lower with digital audio.
And I mean practically, in that you will not be able to ABX a 16/44.1 recording from the 24/96 masters. 16/44.1 audio is transparent to the human ear. Period. With vinyl, otoh, you might be able to ABX the vinyl from the masters.