Having had to clean up a couple of computers from an infection by a bitcoin mining malware, I don't think that it is a good idea for any organization to accept donations in bitcoin.
Unlike with government-backed currency, which at worst can be earned through criminal enterprise (which does not change its status as legal tender), the VALUE and the particular bitcoin itself can be A criminal enterprise. The mining I.e. creation of the coin being a crime, not a mere product of a crime like money earned from growing and dealing illegal drugs, or forging fake dollars or euros. Bitcoins remain legal but that particular coin, while perfectly fine, is stolen property AND its value (created by illegal mining) is also a whole set of other computer crimes.
Hell, you don't even need a law to make it illegal. All that is needed is an insinuation that the Organization X is taking donations which may be a product of computer crime. Even better, imagine a Daily Mail article with a photo of someone's grandma being all old and dad cause het power bill grew exponentially before her computer died and a title like "Greenpeace donators suspected of robbing the elderly!"
What you are describing is a single person of limited influence voicing personal opinion in an online forum, in a discussion on that particular topic, to persons of similar limited influence without using any of the usual propaganda techniques. You're not even properly qualifying for a troll.
Now... should you coin something like "Card's a Retard! Ender's Game is Lame! Boycott the Bugger!" and put it in your sig so it gets repeated with all your posts and should you then you go making a bunch of posts on various topics in order to spread your anti-Card word... That would be anti-Card propaganda. Probably not very effective, but it would cover both the definitions and the methods and techniques of propaganda. Barely.
Nobody is being honored or praised here. Anti-Card activists are simply practicing intolerance towards intolerance.
And even that is done merely through them calling for a boycott. I.e. Passively. They are not going around spreading anti-Card propaganda and making shit up about him, calling him a pedophile and mentally ill, nor are they joining political movements aimed against him personally. You know... like he does from his bully's pulpit.
As for the movie... could have used half an hour more. But not of the Peter and Violet subplot. Which would be ridiculous today.
Which were used by the US at least since 1959 and various other examples in use or in development since then.
Oh, and as for the AirSea Battle Office, some apparently believe that it is redundant and superfluous as other parts of the US military already got that covered.
Since the ASB Office was first announced in August 2011, the Pentagon has faced charges that it is redundant with missions performed by other parts of the defense bureaucracy. It has often struggled to define how the ASB Office differs from other areas of the Pentagon, and to explain the value it adds to the services.
It's not so much that the right is taken away, as that by taking the life of another (who did not first try to kill you) you have effectively argued, through your actions, that the right does not exist.
If it's a successful argument then where is the crime? There is no right to be trampled - ergo, it is not a crime. Killing someone just became akin to secretly taking an item from someone else's shopping basket and putting it back on the shelve.
Your claim to a right is forfeit only when you violate the same right yourself.
By that logic, as long as a democratic society takes lives of its criminals and/or prisoners - everyone in the society forfeits their own right to live. Cause it is their democratic representatives that are doing the killing. You know... like hired killers.
Now... a king on the other hand may do as he pleases. It's good to be a king.
From "Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power" by Rachel Maddow.
SAY YOU'RE A HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR IN 2007. WE'RE FOUR YEARS into Iraq, and six years into Afghanistan. If you're feeling a call to patriotic duty, a sense of adventure, thinking about the training opportunities offered by a career in the US Armed Forces, where do you tell that recruiter that you'd like to end up? Probably not in a missile silo in Minot, North Dakota. In the post-9/11 era, who'd want the job of sitting through the nuclear winter on the high plains, running maintenance on the thirty-five B-52s, guarding the "silos" that housed 150 giant and largely untested intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), babysitting the hundreds of smaller nuclear warheads stored in sod-topped bunkers like canned fruit shelved in a tornado shelter? The munitions maintenance team and the weapons handlers and the tow crews in Minot could call those bunkers "igloos", but giving stuff funny names didn't make life there any more fun.
"Our younger airmen, once they've reached that decision point, if they have been stationed in one of our northern bases where the environment's a little bit tougher, they tend to leave the service", an Air Force general told the Senate. Those who didn't leave the service didn't stick around the tending-the-nukes life for long. In 2007, an Airman assigned to a nuclear bomber wing could look around and note that more than eight in ten members of her wing's security force were rookies. One senior officer in the Air Force's nuclear enterprise admitted that standing alert duty in missile silos is not considered "deployed", and "if you are not a 'deployer', you do not get promoted." The Air Force pleaded for more missileers, but "deployments in support of regional conventional operations [i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan] decrease manpower available to the nuclear mission." But even without Iraq and Afghanistan siphoning off military talent, would anyone expect that ambitious young airmen would be clamoring for silo duty?
BTW, that's from a chapter titled "An $8 Trillion Fungus Among Us".
Or more precisely, most people don't understand it. The correlation coefficient (which goes from -1 to 1) was 0.05.
I.e. It's VERY CLOSE TO ZERO, meaning that correlation is NEGLIGIBLE.
In other words, when asked if there is ANY relation between science comprehension and considering oneself a "part of the Tea Party movement", the answer was - WE CAN'T FIND ANY. Same goes for science comprehension and "liberal-conservative ideology and party self-identification" (i.e. science and political conservatism) - only that one is a negative 0.05. Still comes out to bupkis though.
I wonder how would we measure correlation of this study to attention whoring?
Which leaves only 3 devices you'd need a dock for - bigger screen, full-size keyboard and full-size/full-function mouse.
Laptop stand is not really a device and is a product of the docking process, not a reason FOR it.
My point was that, as you dock first and foremost to have access to those 3 pieces of hardware above, UNLESS you're using your laptop constantly FOR THE SAME REASON AS WHEN DOCKED (i.e. work) when you detach it from the docking station (i.e. you're taking your work with you on your commute back home) WHILE at the same time you absolutely, positively do not have or want or need a replica of your docking and working solution at home - YOU COULD JUST AS WELL USE A DEDICATED WORK COMPUTER.
If you're taking your work home on a regular basis, undocking at work, docking back in once home - two dedicated computers would be simpler and probably cheaper and probably more powerful than two docks + laptop. Files are online or on a USB drive.
If you ONLY work at your workplace, using laptop for personal stuff after work - again you could use a dedicated computer instead of a dock. Get something more portable for email, news and entertainment.
If you're working during commute, I'm guessing, but you're probably providing free service for your company which would have been calculated as overtime had you remained in the office to finish it. You're probably throwing out the window several complete replicas of your work station doing that, every couple of paychecks.
In any case, because everyone would be docking primarily in order to be able to use a huge screen and regular keyboard/mouse, docking onto it something that is underpowered and overpriced for the sake of fitting inside your pocket makes no sense - CAUSE A DEDICATED COMPUTER IS CHEAPER AND MORE POWERFUL. You're not going to do any work on your phone, on your way home, for which you need a 20" screen.
Docking a phone means wasting money on underpowered hardware - which was not built to work 8-16 hours at full capacity or to be upgraded as needed. Like you said. Pocket warmers. They were not designed for efficient cooling while working on all of their cores so you could get done the work you really need a couple of i7s for. Nor do they have the memory, nor drive space, nor graphic cards etc. etc.
Docking is a concept from back in the day, when laptops were significantly smaller in dimensions than "real" honest-to-god workstations and when connecting to various peripherals meant dealing with a bunch of cables, not all of which your average laptop could be connected to at the same time, and when syncing over various computers was a nuisance.
Also, one of the main reasons for laptop size was not elegance or even portability (they were quite heavy, compared to their abilities, thanks to those old hardware components and batteries) - but screen size. Small screen + small, often even incomplete keyboard + alternative pointing solutions that were never as useful of precise as a mouse + short battery life + not enough ports to plug in all those wired peripherals = need for docking.
You need docking if you need to connect to a bigger screen, a wired network, another separate cable for a printer, one more for a scanner, one for a modem, perhaps an external CD or floppy drive... All of that, apart from the bigger screen, can be done over wifi/bluetooth. Or is not needed anymore - like that old 14400 modem. Meanwhile all your files now fit neatly inside your laptop, can be transferred to other devices without the use of cables, or you keep them online.
Which leaves only 3 devices you'd need a dock for - bigger screen, full-size keyboard and full-size/full-function mouse. None of which can really get smaller than they need to be. Even screens actually got bigger, only losing their backside.
All of the peripherals that you need docking to ALREADY TAKE UP SO MUCH SPACE YOU CAN JUST AS WELL ADD A FULL-BLOWN COMPUTER. Like inside the screen.
The only reason left for docking is cost-saving. By paying way too much for memory and processing power jammed into a tiny phone instead of using off the shelf components which are dirt cheap and super fast in comparison.
...only no one understands that yet. That is why I predict that some day, someone successful will try doing the same thing I've failed at. Which proves, regardless of success or failure of that theoretical venture I just described, how awesome and ahead of its time my concept was and how brilliant I am.
In fact, the failure I mention was not my failure at all - it was the failure of the world to recognize the opportunity to exploit my genius.
Ethnicity or ethnic group (from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group):...is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on a perceived shared social experience or ancestry.
You still fail to grasp, even though you're linking to it, that culture alone does not correlate with NOR does it constitute ethnicity.
From the very article you linked without understanding it:
Membership of an ethnic group tends to be associated with and ideologies of shared cultural heritage, ancestry, history, homeland, language or dialect, and with symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc.
Note ALL those other share attributes. Now imagine sharing SOME of them, but not all of them.
Here, try this. A person of American culture. But of Irish ethnicity. A person of American culture. But of German ethnicity.
Ethnicity and culture do not determine each other nor is there are an obligatory unidirectional or bidirectional relation between those two. That's why you can pick and choose your culture, mesh cultures together, import into it elements of foreign cultures and export your own culture to others.
That's why white people can enjoy "black music".
The rest of your argument, hinging on "culture==ethnicity", is simply invalid.
Sometimes existing law is simply not adequate for changing technology or new social norms.
So we take a lover's scuffle and make that into a crime cause it constitutes inflicting emotional harm, and cause the studies show that it's the same or worse than physical harm. Next up, any form of conflict is a crime.
I mean, if we're gonna go widening the scope here to include talk about rape.
And in fact, this law is proposing to use the framework of an existing law, and simply includes new behaviour in its scope.
The fact that they are rewriting the existing law points out quite clearly that they are not using it for anything but a template. Also, because they are lazy and not in it to prevent or handle the actual cases they are supposedly creating the alterations in the law for. Most of what they "came up with" is obviously already covered by existing laws - or they would have come up with an entirely new law, right? Meanwhile, they failed to address the actual issues of "changing technology or new social norms".
Again... "Tough/strong on X". Maximum news coverage with minimum work or effect.
This bill would provide that any person who photographs or records by any means the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, under circumstances where the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private, and the person subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress, is guilty of disorderly conduct and subject to that same punishment.
Implies that the photographer AND the distributor are the same person. Also, it implies that "parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private". So I guess, one person does not agree or claims not to understand that and it's OK?
And then there's that "intent to cause serious emotional distress" bit. What if that was not the intention, but say... pride? "Look everyone! This is what I get to fuck every night!" You can be distressed all you like baby, I did this out of love, not to cause you harm.
What about lack of intention cause the photos were on a phone, computer, drive etc. that got lost or stolen? "I don't know how those photos got online you honor. I lost my phone after getting drunk when this person broke up with me."
Nor does the existing disorderly conduct law address that:
(4) (A) Any person who photographs or records by any means the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, under circumstances where the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private, and the person subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress.
This looks like basically one of those "Strong on X" laws, which protect no one but which make the public paranoid cause they can get innocent people in jail easily and retroactively should the judge have a bad day.
And then there's that bit where the lower half of the boob is now far more dangerous, but that was already there.
(B) As used in this paragraph, intimate body part means any portion of the genitals, and in the case of a female, also includes any portion of the breasts below the top of the areola, that is either uncovered or visible through less than fully opaque clothing.
Well, while it may seem like something else to you, what you DID wrote was:
1. ethnicity and culture correlate somehow,
2. based on that, somehow, ethnicity can be defined as criminal.
Which is really fun, cause you've never established that definition previously, for the premise you base your argument on. What was the name of that... does not follow... Ah yes! Non sequitur.
To make it more fun (I guess) you added a "(by others' standards)" to the non sequitur above. Which is just a weaselly way of saying "Hey, maybe, somewhere, in the desert, there's a guy, with a frog in his pocket and a cardboard box on his head... and he may not like that thing you do... and you know... he may think that's criminal... I don't know... we can't rule it out... it's possible... he may be authority... of some kind... theoretically..."
But the really fun bit is where by adding those weasel words to your non sequitur you transform it into a rootin'-tootin' STRAW-MAN! Pam-pam-Paaaam! Up until that, you could argue "Oh, I forgot... crime is implied in the culture because my grandma told me to watch for those people listening to the devil's music. They're all criminals." But that weasel there really clinched it.
But! One strawman was clearly not enough for you! So you add another one. In the form of:
3. The Huns! As a cultural standard of comparison, from 4th century CE. Which is not only funny cause nearly all cultures did the same shit to everyone else back in the day, but because that "were definitely criminals by everybody else's standards" crap that just BEGS for comparison with what "EVERYONE THOUGHT" back then about Africans, Asians, later Americans and basically every tribe not directly related to their own.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, cause this is in'rnet, the most generous and loving place in the world, and say that you were satirizing the whole concept of attaching criminality to culture and ethnicity. Huns are a joke, weasels are there on purpose (for fun), just like that non sequitur. It's all a big joke.
That you're playing on someone whose arguing those same points but as a real, actual, problem. Which is where you choose to turn their points into a joking matter. You must be a real hoot at parties. I'd love to see what you could do with child molestation and prison rape.
Sorry, but when I see, say, a pretty girl with a Roma appearance in a major european city approaching tourists, the odds are heavily in favor of her being a pickpocket. You might call that ethnic profiling, I call it reality.
Ah... Ye olde "excrement is in the eye of the beholder" situation.
I'm gonna make a wild guess here and make an assumption or two. One, you can't really describe that many cases of what you are mentioning there. The whole schtick. Girl. Gypsy. Tourist. Pickpocket. You. Witness. For realz. And two, you have acted in some way, whether by stopping the said criminal act, calling the police or by informing the tourist in... shall we say... oh... NEVER.
Just a guess. Please, if I'm wrong, do provide an extensive list of your encounters with tourist pickpocketing gypsy girls. I'm sure everyone would love to read about that. Particularly all those cases where you didn't inform the police immediately. Something-something failure to report something-something.
Then later on, we're gonna have a fun example of what "the odds are".
Sorry if it doesn't sound politically correct to you but ethnicity and culture go hand in hand and, therefore, is perfectly possible to define an ethnicity as criminal (by others' standards): Huns, for instace, were definitely criminals by everybody else's standards. Do you find that to be unreasonable?
One... Where does it say that ethnicity and culture "go hand in hand"? What does that even mean? In like... you know... scientific terms? That there is a strong positive correlation between one's ethnic background and one's cultural leanings? An entire culture and an entire ethnic background have leanings to certain actions or objects? So Irish people are predestined to be potato-eating, jig-dancing, bar-fighting terrorist drunks?
Second... You seem to imply some... deeper, more general relation there. Cause you're ascribing that bullshit to an ENTIRE ETHNICITY. HOLY SHIT! Generalize much? Like in your spare time? When you're not busy performing whichever it is nasty stereotype that fits your ethnic heritage?
And seriously? Huns? 4th century CE nomadic tribe is your standard for cultural attributes? Well, shit! Then you have to include that by EVERYONE ELSE'S 4th century CE standards (and for a long time after that) - Africans are complete savages. And so are American Indians. Australian Aborigines too. Same goes for Asians. And let's not even start with those fucking Vikings.
This makes Slashdot about pictures first, then summaries, then... maybe... comments.
You can forget discussions. Comment systems are not designed for discussions - that's what forums and boards are for. Where people discuss topics and issues, which can sometimes branch out into topic different from the original but still interesting to the people who are taking part in the discussion. Text takes up as much space as needed, cause people often quote the people they're talking with, make counterpoints, link and copy sources etc.
Comments on the other hand are just a stack of singular, insular, bite-sized OPINIONS. That's why you have those small nvarchar(254) comment boxes. It was never intended for the CONSUMER of the news or blog to make long insightful or informative posts which might turn out to be more interesting than the original story, warranting further discussion both to the sides and downward, horizontally (replying to a reply of a reply...) and downward only, vertically (replying to the original post/comment).
Comments, limited from the sides, can only go downward or upward. Newest or best, yay or nay. Forget reading other people's opinions - it would take too long to scroll through all that junk. Instead, have fun reading 3 or 4 same comments over and over as people keep making them over and over... until you get it down to under a 100 comments or so PER STORY. I.e. Until you cull the herd of visitors to a couple of dozen regular, diehard, commenters with the rest of the crowd being anonymous likers and haters, spammers and trolls.
Bonus points for the spam now taking up more space - cause it's all vertical, taking up more screen realestate.
They are literally killing the site and making it into just another blog. Designed for consumers, who just read instead of discussing, who watch rather than read, skim rather than watch. Going for that imgur audience I guess.
This makes Slashdot about pictures first, then summaries, then... maybe... comments.
You can forget discussions. Comment systems are not designed for discussions - that's what forums and boards are for. Where people discuss topics and issues, which can sometimes branch out into topic different from the original but still interesting to the people who are taking part in the discussion. Text takes up as much space as needed, cause people often quote the people they're talking with, make counterpoints, link and copy sources etc.
Comments on the other hand are just a stack of singular, insular, bite-sized OPINIONS. That's why you have those small nvarchar(254) comment boxes. It was never intended for the CONSUMER of the news or blog to make long insightful or informative posts which might turn out to be more interesting than the original story, warranting further discussion both to the sides and downward, horizontally (replying to a reply of a reply...) and downward only, vertically (replying to the original post/comment).
Comments, limited from the sides, can only go downward or upward. Newest or best, yay or nay. Forget reading other people's opinions - it would take too long to scroll through all that junk. Instead, have fun reading 3 or 4 same comments over and over as people keep making them over and over... until you get it down to under a 100 comments or so PER STORY. I.e. Until you cull the herd of visitors to a couple of dozen regular, diehard, commenters with the rest of the crowd being anonymous likers and haters, spammers and trolls.
Bonus points for the spam now taking up more space - cause it's all vertical, taking up more screen realestate.
They are literally killing the site and making it into just another blog. Designed for consumers, who just read instead of discussing, who watch rather than read, skim rather than watch. Going for that imgur audience I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Having had to clean up a couple of computers from an infection by a bitcoin mining malware, I don't think that it is a good idea for any organization to accept donations in bitcoin.
Unlike with government-backed currency, which at worst can be earned through criminal enterprise (which does not change its status as legal tender), the VALUE and the particular bitcoin itself can be A criminal enterprise.
The mining I.e. creation of the coin being a crime, not a mere product of a crime like money earned from growing and dealing illegal drugs, or forging fake dollars or euros.
Bitcoins remain legal but that particular coin, while perfectly fine, is stolen property AND its value (created by illegal mining) is also a whole set of other computer crimes.
Hell, you don't even need a law to make it illegal.
All that is needed is an insinuation that the Organization X is taking donations which may be a product of computer crime.
Even better, imagine a Daily Mail article with a photo of someone's grandma being all old and dad cause het power bill grew exponentially before her computer died and a title like "Greenpeace donators suspected of robbing the elderly!"
I've made several comments on this site about how Card's work mostly sucks, so....guilty of anti-Card propaganda.
...and all that.
What you are describing is a single person of limited influence voicing personal opinion in an online forum, in a discussion on that particular topic, to persons of similar limited influence without using any of the usual propaganda techniques.
You're not even properly qualifying for a troll.
Now... should you coin something like "Card's a Retard! Ender's Game is Lame! Boycott the Bugger!" and put it in your sig so it gets repeated with all your posts and should you then you go making a bunch of posts on various topics in order to spread your anti-Card word...
That would be anti-Card propaganda.
Probably not very effective, but it would cover both the definitions and the methods and techniques of propaganda.
Barely.
Nobody is being honored or praised here.
Anti-Card activists are simply practicing intolerance towards intolerance.
And even that is done merely through them calling for a boycott. I.e. Passively.
They are not going around spreading anti-Card propaganda and making shit up about him, calling him a pedophile and mentally ill, nor are they joining political movements aimed against him personally.
You know... like he does from his bully's pulpit.
As for the movie... could have used half an hour more.
But not of the Peter and Violet subplot. Which would be ridiculous today.
The Dell smell. Not even your cat will know the difference.
Which were used by the US at least since 1959 and various other examples in use or in development since then.
Oh, and as for the AirSea Battle Office, some apparently believe that it is redundant and superfluous as other parts of the US military already got that covered.
Since the ASB Office was first announced in August 2011, the Pentagon has faced charges that it is redundant with missions performed by other parts of the defense bureaucracy. It has often struggled to define how the ASB Office differs from other areas of the Pentagon, and to explain the value it adds to the services.
It's not so much that the right is taken away, as that by taking the life of another (who did not first try to kill you) you have effectively argued, through your actions, that the right does not exist.
If it's a successful argument then where is the crime? There is no right to be trampled - ergo, it is not a crime.
Killing someone just became akin to secretly taking an item from someone else's shopping basket and putting it back on the shelve.
Your claim to a right is forfeit only when you violate the same right yourself.
By that logic, as long as a democratic society takes lives of its criminals and/or prisoners - everyone in the society forfeits their own right to live.
Cause it is their democratic representatives that are doing the killing. You know... like hired killers.
Now... a king on the other hand may do as he pleases. It's good to be a king.
There are also a significant portion of lifers who just don't care/
...that you are SIGNIFICANTLY pulling that statistic from your ass.
From "Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power" by Rachel Maddow.
SAY YOU'RE A HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR IN 2007. WE'RE FOUR YEARS into Iraq, and six years into Afghanistan. If you're feeling a call to patriotic duty, a sense of adventure, thinking about the training opportunities offered by a career in the US Armed Forces, where do you tell that recruiter that you'd like to end up?
Probably not in a missile silo in Minot, North Dakota. In the post-9/11 era, who'd want the job of sitting through the nuclear winter on the high plains, running maintenance on the thirty-five B-52s, guarding the "silos" that housed 150 giant and largely untested intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), babysitting the hundreds of smaller nuclear warheads stored in sod-topped bunkers like canned fruit shelved in a tornado shelter? The munitions maintenance team and the weapons handlers and the tow crews in Minot could call those bunkers "igloos", but giving stuff funny names didn't make life there any more fun.
"Our younger airmen, once they've reached that decision point, if they have been stationed in one of our northern bases where the environment's a little bit tougher, they tend to leave the service", an Air Force general told the Senate. Those who didn't leave the service didn't stick around the tending-the-nukes life for long.
In 2007, an Airman assigned to a nuclear bomber wing could look around and note that more than eight in ten members of her wing's security force were rookies. One senior officer in the Air Force's nuclear enterprise admitted that standing alert duty in missile silos is not considered "deployed", and "if you are not a 'deployer', you do not get promoted."
The Air Force pleaded for more missileers, but "deployments in support of regional conventional operations [i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan] decrease manpower available to the nuclear mission." But even without Iraq and Afghanistan siphoning off military talent, would anyone expect that ambitious young airmen would be clamoring for silo duty?
BTW, that's from a chapter titled "An $8 Trillion Fungus Among Us".
...made into life-governing philosophy.
Everything new is great and should not be controlled or regulated.
I.e. Had human society chosen such a way of living 100 or so years ago we'd be having our rejuvenating dose of radium with our cornflakes every morning.
Or more precisely, most people don't understand it.
The correlation coefficient (which goes from -1 to 1) was 0.05.
I.e. It's VERY CLOSE TO ZERO, meaning that correlation is NEGLIGIBLE.
In other words, when asked if there is ANY relation between science comprehension and considering oneself a "part of the Tea Party movement", the answer was - WE CAN'T FIND ANY.
Same goes for science comprehension and "liberal-conservative ideology and party self-identification" (i.e. science and political conservatism) - only that one is a negative 0.05.
Still comes out to bupkis though.
I wonder how would we measure correlation of this study to attention whoring?
Technology to do the same thing was invented a LONG time ago. Its called a sweater.
It's keeping one foot out from under the covers.
While actually confirming what I said.
Which leaves only 3 devices you'd need a dock for - bigger screen, full-size keyboard and full-size/full-function mouse.
Laptop stand is not really a device and is a product of the docking process, not a reason FOR it.
My point was that, as you dock first and foremost to have access to those 3 pieces of hardware above, UNLESS you're using your laptop constantly FOR THE SAME REASON AS WHEN DOCKED (i.e. work) when you detach it from the docking station (i.e. you're taking your work with you on your commute back home) WHILE at the same time you absolutely, positively do not have or want or need a replica of your docking and working solution at home - YOU COULD JUST AS WELL USE A DEDICATED WORK COMPUTER.
If you're taking your work home on a regular basis, undocking at work, docking back in once home - two dedicated computers would be simpler and probably cheaper and probably more powerful than two docks + laptop. Files are online or on a USB drive.
If you ONLY work at your workplace, using laptop for personal stuff after work - again you could use a dedicated computer instead of a dock. Get something more portable for email, news and entertainment.
If you're working during commute, I'm guessing, but you're probably providing free service for your company which would have been calculated as overtime had you remained in the office to finish it.
You're probably throwing out the window several complete replicas of your work station doing that, every couple of paychecks.
In any case, because everyone would be docking primarily in order to be able to use a huge screen and regular keyboard/mouse, docking onto it something that is underpowered and overpriced for the sake of fitting inside your pocket makes no sense - CAUSE A DEDICATED COMPUTER IS CHEAPER AND MORE POWERFUL.
You're not going to do any work on your phone, on your way home, for which you need a 20" screen.
Docking a phone means wasting money on underpowered hardware - which was not built to work 8-16 hours at full capacity or to be upgraded as needed.
Like you said. Pocket warmers.
They were not designed for efficient cooling while working on all of their cores so you could get done the work you really need a couple of i7s for.
Nor do they have the memory, nor drive space, nor graphic cards etc. etc.
Docking is a concept from back in the day, when laptops were significantly smaller in dimensions than "real" honest-to-god workstations and when connecting to various peripherals meant dealing with a bunch of cables, not all of which your average laptop could be connected to at the same time, and when syncing over various computers was a nuisance.
Also, one of the main reasons for laptop size was not elegance or even portability (they were quite heavy, compared to their abilities, thanks to those old hardware components and batteries) - but screen size.
Small screen + small, often even incomplete keyboard + alternative pointing solutions that were never as useful of precise as a mouse + short battery life + not enough ports to plug in all those wired peripherals = need for docking.
You need docking if you need to connect to a bigger screen, a wired network, another separate cable for a printer, one more for a scanner, one for a modem, perhaps an external CD or floppy drive...
All of that, apart from the bigger screen, can be done over wifi/bluetooth.
Or is not needed anymore - like that old 14400 modem.
Meanwhile all your files now fit neatly inside your laptop, can be transferred to other devices without the use of cables, or you keep them online.
Which leaves only 3 devices you'd need a dock for - bigger screen, full-size keyboard and full-size/full-function mouse.
None of which can really get smaller than they need to be. Even screens actually got bigger, only losing their backside.
All of the peripherals that you need docking to ALREADY TAKE UP SO MUCH SPACE YOU CAN JUST AS WELL ADD A FULL-BLOWN COMPUTER.
Like inside the screen.
The only reason left for docking is cost-saving.
By paying way too much for memory and processing power jammed into a tiny phone instead of using off the shelf components which are dirt cheap and super fast in comparison.
...only no one understands that yet.
That is why I predict that some day, someone successful will try doing the same thing I've failed at.
Which proves, regardless of success or failure of that theoretical venture I just described, how awesome and ahead of its time my concept was and how brilliant I am.
In fact, the failure I mention was not my failure at all - it was the failure of the world to recognize the opportunity to exploit my genius.
Ethnicity or ethnic group (from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group): ...is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on a perceived shared social experience or ancestry.
You still fail to grasp, even though you're linking to it, that culture alone does not correlate with NOR does it constitute ethnicity.
From the very article you linked without understanding it:
Membership of an ethnic group tends to be associated with and ideologies of shared cultural heritage, ancestry, history, homeland, language or dialect, and with symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc.
Note ALL those other share attributes. Now imagine sharing SOME of them, but not all of them.
Here, try this.
A person of American culture. But of Irish ethnicity.
A person of American culture. But of German ethnicity.
Ethnicity and culture do not determine each other nor is there are an obligatory unidirectional or bidirectional relation between those two.
That's why you can pick and choose your culture, mesh cultures together, import into it elements of foreign cultures and export your own culture to others.
That's why white people can enjoy "black music".
The rest of your argument, hinging on "culture==ethnicity", is simply invalid.
Sometimes existing law is simply not adequate for changing technology or new social norms.
So we take a lover's scuffle and make that into a crime cause it constitutes inflicting emotional harm, and cause the studies show that it's the same or worse than physical harm.
Next up, any form of conflict is a crime.
I mean, if we're gonna go widening the scope here to include talk about rape.
And in fact, this law is proposing to use the framework of an existing law, and simply includes new behaviour in its scope.
The fact that they are rewriting the existing law points out quite clearly that they are not using it for anything but a template.
Also, because they are lazy and not in it to prevent or handle the actual cases they are supposedly creating the alterations in the law for.
Most of what they "came up with" is obviously already covered by existing laws - or they would have come up with an entirely new law, right?
Meanwhile, they failed to address the actual issues of "changing technology or new social norms".
Again... "Tough/strong on X". Maximum news coverage with minimum work or effect.
people who aren't
Are we talking fast clones, androids or shape-shifting aliens masquerading as humans?
...to handle these issues in civil courts, and/or through existing laws.
Instead of creating yet another crime.
And then there's the option of writing a detailed AND precise law that would actually address the issues it was supposedly created to handle.
Forgot to mention that regarding the "strong on X" stuff.
Narrow on the area of effect, vague on intent yet powerful in the headlines.
California Outlaws 'Revenge Porn'*
*for certain values of "outlaws", "porn" and/or "revenge".
This bill would provide that any person who photographs or records
by any means the image of the intimate body part or parts of another
identifiable person, under circumstances where the parties agree or
understand that the image shall remain private, and the person
subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause
serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious
emotional distress, is guilty of disorderly conduct and subject to
that same punishment.
Implies that the photographer AND the distributor are the same person.
Also, it implies that "parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private".
So I guess, one person does not agree or claims not to understand that and it's OK?
And then there's that "intent to cause serious emotional distress" bit.
What if that was not the intention, but say... pride? "Look everyone! This is what I get to fuck every night!"
You can be distressed all you like baby, I did this out of love, not to cause you harm.
What about lack of intention cause the photos were on a phone, computer, drive etc. that got lost or stolen?
"I don't know how those photos got online you honor. I lost my phone after getting drunk when this person broke up with me."
Nor does the existing disorderly conduct law address that:
(4) (A) Any person who photographs or records by any means the
image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable
person, under circumstances where the parties agree or understand
that the image shall remain private, and the person subsequently
distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious
emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional
distress.
This looks like basically one of those "Strong on X" laws, which protect no one but which make the public paranoid cause they can get innocent people in jail easily and retroactively should the judge have a bad day.
And then there's that bit where the lower half of the boob is now far more dangerous, but that was already there.
(B) As used in this paragraph, intimate body part means any
portion of the genitals, and in the case of a female, also includes
any portion of the breasts below the top of the areola, that is
either uncovered or visible through less than fully opaque clothing.
Well, while it may seem like something else to you, what you DID wrote was:
1. ethnicity and culture correlate somehow,
2. based on that, somehow, ethnicity can be defined as criminal.
Which is really fun, cause you've never established that definition previously, for the premise you base your argument on. What was the name of that... does not follow... Ah yes! Non sequitur.
To make it more fun (I guess) you added a "(by others' standards)" to the non sequitur above.
Which is just a weaselly way of saying "Hey, maybe, somewhere, in the desert, there's a guy, with a frog in his pocket and a cardboard box on his head... and he may not like that thing you do... and you know... he may think that's criminal... I don't know... we can't rule it out... it's possible... he may be authority... of some kind... theoretically..."
But the really fun bit is where by adding those weasel words to your non sequitur you transform it into a rootin'-tootin' STRAW-MAN! Pam-pam-Paaaam!
Up until that, you could argue "Oh, I forgot... crime is implied in the culture because my grandma told me to watch for those people listening to the devil's music. They're all criminals."
But that weasel there really clinched it.
But! One strawman was clearly not enough for you! So you add another one. In the form of:
3. The Huns! As a cultural standard of comparison, from 4th century CE.
Which is not only funny cause nearly all cultures did the same shit to everyone else back in the day, but because that "were definitely criminals by everybody else's standards" crap that just BEGS for comparison with what "EVERYONE THOUGHT" back then about Africans, Asians, later Americans and basically every tribe not directly related to their own.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, cause this is in'rnet, the most generous and loving place in the world, and say that you were satirizing the whole concept of attaching criminality to culture and ethnicity.
Huns are a joke, weasels are there on purpose (for fun), just like that non sequitur.
It's all a big joke.
That you're playing on someone whose arguing those same points but as a real, actual, problem.
Which is where you choose to turn their points into a joking matter. You must be a real hoot at parties.
I'd love to see what you could do with child molestation and prison rape.
Sorry, but when I see, say, a pretty girl with a Roma appearance in a major european city approaching tourists, the odds are heavily in favor of her being a pickpocket. You might call that ethnic profiling, I call it reality.
Ah... Ye olde "excrement is in the eye of the beholder" situation.
I'm gonna make a wild guess here and make an assumption or two.
One, you can't really describe that many cases of what you are mentioning there. The whole schtick. Girl. Gypsy. Tourist. Pickpocket. You. Witness. For realz.
And two, you have acted in some way, whether by stopping the said criminal act, calling the police or by informing the tourist in... shall we say... oh... NEVER.
Just a guess.
Please, if I'm wrong, do provide an extensive list of your encounters with tourist pickpocketing gypsy girls.
I'm sure everyone would love to read about that. Particularly all those cases where you didn't inform the police immediately.
Something-something failure to report something-something.
Then later on, we're gonna have a fun example of what "the odds are".
Sorry if it doesn't sound politically correct to you but ethnicity and culture go hand in hand and, therefore, is perfectly possible to define an ethnicity as criminal (by others' standards): Huns, for instace, were definitely criminals by everybody else's standards. Do you find that to be unreasonable?
One... Where does it say that ethnicity and culture "go hand in hand"?
What does that even mean? In like... you know... scientific terms?
That there is a strong positive correlation between one's ethnic background and one's cultural leanings?
An entire culture and an entire ethnic background have leanings to certain actions or objects?
So Irish people are predestined to be potato-eating, jig-dancing, bar-fighting terrorist drunks?
Second... You seem to imply some... deeper, more general relation there. Cause you're ascribing that bullshit to an ENTIRE ETHNICITY.
HOLY SHIT! Generalize much? Like in your spare time?
When you're not busy performing whichever it is nasty stereotype that fits your ethnic heritage?
And seriously? Huns? 4th century CE nomadic tribe is your standard for cultural attributes?
Well, shit! Then you have to include that by EVERYONE ELSE'S 4th century CE standards (and for a long time after that) - Africans are complete savages.
And so are American Indians. Australian Aborigines too. Same goes for Asians.
And let's not even start with those fucking Vikings.
This makes Slashdot about pictures first, then summaries, then... maybe...
comments.
You can forget discussions.
Comment systems are not designed for discussions - that's what forums and
boards are for.
Where people discuss topics and issues, which can sometimes branch out
into topic different from the original but still interesting to the people who are
taking part in the discussion.
Text takes up as much space as needed, cause people often quote the
people they're talking with, make counterpoints, link and copy sources etc.
Comments on the other hand are just a stack of singular, insular, bite-sized
OPINIONS.
That's why you have those small nvarchar(254) comment boxes.
It was never intended for the CONSUMER of the news or blog to make long
insightful or informative posts which might turn out to be more interesting
than the original story, warranting further discussion both to the sides and
downward, horizontally (replying to a reply of a reply...) and downward only,
vertically (replying to the original post/comment).
Comments, limited from the sides, can only go downward or upward. Newest
or best, yay or nay.
Forget reading other people's opinions - it would take too long to scroll
through all that junk.
Instead, have fun reading 3 or 4 same comments over and over as people
keep making them over and over... until you get it down to under a 100
comments or so PER STORY.
I.e. Until you cull the herd of visitors to a couple of dozen regular, diehard,
commenters with the rest of the crowd being anonymous likers and haters,
spammers and trolls.
Bonus points for the spam now taking up more space - cause it's all vertical,
taking up more screen realestate.
They are literally killing the site and making it into just another blog.
Designed for consumers, who just read instead of discussing, who watch
rather than read, skim rather than watch.
Going for that imgur audience I guess.
This makes Slashdot about pictures first, then summaries, then... maybe... comments.
You can forget discussions.
Comment systems are not designed for discussions - that's what forums and boards are for.
Where people discuss topics and issues, which can sometimes branch out into topic different from the original but still interesting to the people who are taking part in the discussion.
Text takes up as much space as needed, cause people often quote the people they're talking with, make counterpoints, link and copy sources etc.
Comments on the other hand are just a stack of singular, insular, bite-sized OPINIONS.
That's why you have those small nvarchar(254) comment boxes.
It was never intended for the CONSUMER of the news or blog to make long insightful or informative posts which might turn out to be more interesting than the original story, warranting further discussion both to the sides and downward, horizontally (replying to a reply of a reply...) and downward only, vertically (replying to the original post/comment).
Comments, limited from the sides, can only go downward or upward. Newest or best, yay or nay.
Forget reading other people's opinions - it would take too long to scroll through all that junk.
Instead, have fun reading 3 or 4 same comments over and over as people keep making them over and over... until you get it down to under a 100 comments or so PER STORY.
I.e. Until you cull the herd of visitors to a couple of dozen regular, diehard, commenters with the rest of the crowd being anonymous likers and haters, spammers and trolls.
Bonus points for the spam now taking up more space - cause it's all vertical, taking up more screen realestate.
They are literally killing the site and making it into just another blog.
Designed for consumers, who just read instead of discussing, who watch rather than read, skim rather than watch.
Going for that imgur audience I guess.