The video-visitation systems also directly generate revenue for jails.
And that, right there, summarizes one of the greatest problems with our penal system. The pursuit of profit. That is not their role. Well, I mean, we've allowed that to become a part of their role, but it's utterly reprehensible.
so you can now just pull it out without a second thought.
I get that the writer is trying to provide a simple description of the changes, but that is not good advice. Honestly? Just "No."
If you yank your drive out in the middle of a write transaction, you're taking your chances. Not having the caching enabled just reduces the risk. Besides, wasn't the default for removable devices always "Quick Removal"? I could be misremembering, but I believe that's been the default setting when I've inspected a device for as long as a care to remember.
God damn. Someone is seriously desperate have others think they understand what is happening here. REALLY pushing the whole "cat" thing. My eyes glazed over at "[laser cat]". Honestly, this just felt...dumb.
Also, while the article may specifically discuss it (didn't bother reading it), I feel the summary could have gone ahead and hyperlinked Schrödinger's cat to something like Wikipedia or whatever.
Hopefully, the energy from this outcry can be harnessed to push for better education about vaccines in areas where superstition and ignorance have lead to such a circumstance.
I'd have said this is a GOOD thing, given all we have to thank them for, but most likely the only part that would really shut down would be the part that pretends to check for prior art or whatever.
So....meh.
OP alluded to that individual as being a "Fatty Fatty McFat". The chosen quote stands as direct contradiction to OP's worthless drivel. Nothing more needed to be said...
And then, YOU, opened your mouth. *shakes head*
Haha. One thousand out of how many? A thousand? A million? A billion?
And, since we're talking fairness, shouldn't we only require half of them to agree?
The mention of 1000 was a semi-random number based on the (perhaps mistaken) belief that most people wouldn't *quite* agree entirely with whatever you came up with. I rather liked your definition of fair; however, how many people will say "I worked hard for my 'x', why should I need to share with someone who didn't" or think "I'd just have to make sure I never ran into someone with less 'x' that I would need to share with"?
Could you, perhaps, expand upon this opinion; show me the good...
I was pretty tired when I wrote my previous reply. It does seem a bit disjointed. The "good" part of the idea was just attempting to involves others, to give them a reason to care, to make it matter. That's why I said it's tricky. I don't have much experience with involving others, but it seems a bit like trying to herd cats.
Compassion is a positive quality which, when applied locally, benefits all - including the compassionate one. The tricky part is perhaps in getting people to realise this simple truth. After that it's mutually reinforcing self interest combined with selflessness...
Yes. I won't, can't argue with this. It's so easy default to a much more selfish position; I find myself doing so too often. Even when recognizing it at an intellectual level, it still requires fighting personal and societal inertia.
Well, seems we'll have to disagree, if mostly on a technicality. The thrust of my comment was that it's like wishing the world was "fair". Please clearly define what would constitute a fair world; then, find 1000 people who will agree with your definition, verbatim. Of course, that's a good way to never accomplish anything...
There is a kernel of truth, a sliver of a good idea in such a concept. That's my opinion, good or bad. People need to CARE. Just, that's a tricky one.
The nation was based on the notion that [real] property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system...This is why some feel those that only rent their home should not have the right to vote.
Not entirely unreasonable. But how far does one take it? Is it a can/can't vote, period?
What about when you own lots of property, though....is it fair that someone who has only a tenth of the stake you do (real property) has the same amount of say as you?
Does this extend only to issues affecting property ownership (such as zoning, taxation, rights, etc) or to everything? If just to property issues, what about people with jobs? Is it fair that people without jobs be able to vote about issues that concern jobs (rights, wages, benefits, taxes)?
I say, only until there aren't enough humans and human technology releasing such emissions to register as even a blip on the figurative radar. Eventually, it'll return to a more "normal" average temperature; or, perhaps, it'll find a new equilibrium at a higher temperature.
Either way, life will continue, adapt, and evolve.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, wait, you mean I have to open a malicious attachment to be exposed to this risk? Your shocking headline had me concerned, for a moment.
The video-visitation systems also directly generate revenue for jails.
And that, right there, summarizes one of the greatest problems with our penal system. The pursuit of profit. That is not their role. Well, I mean, we've allowed that to become a part of their role, but it's utterly reprehensible.
I hate that about this country.
Interview with Bjarne Stroustrup
so you can now just pull it out without a second thought.
I get that the writer is trying to provide a simple description of the changes, but that is not good advice. Honestly? Just "No." If you yank your drive out in the middle of a write transaction, you're taking your chances. Not having the caching enabled just reduces the risk. Besides, wasn't the default for removable devices always "Quick Removal"? I could be misremembering, but I believe that's been the default setting when I've inspected a device for as long as a care to remember.
Sure, it charges fast. What is the magnitude of effect on the battery's usable lifetime, if any? Is the battery replaceable? (lol, as if)
Google and other search engines should pay attention to this. Obviously, linking criminal math is a crime!
God damn. Someone is seriously desperate have others think they understand what is happening here. REALLY pushing the whole "cat" thing. My eyes glazed over at "[laser cat]". Honestly, this just felt...dumb. Also, while the article may specifically discuss it (didn't bother reading it), I feel the summary could have gone ahead and hyperlinked Schrödinger's cat to something like Wikipedia or whatever.
Hopefully, the energy from this outcry can be harnessed to push for better education about vaccines in areas where superstition and ignorance have lead to such a circumstance.
I'd have said this is a GOOD thing, given all we have to thank them for, but most likely the only part that would really shut down would be the part that pretends to check for prior art or whatever. So....meh.
"We often seek patents for technology we never implement, and patents should not be taken as an indication of future plans."
That sounds suspiciously like proudly admitting to being a patent troll.
OP alluded to that individual as being a "Fatty Fatty McFat". The chosen quote stands as direct contradiction to OP's worthless drivel. Nothing more needed to be said...
And then, YOU, opened your mouth. *shakes head*
No, they're just fine for identification...just not for authentication.
the technology will enable "machine-speed, real-time moderation of everything we say online."
XKCD #2015
I'd forgotten about skinning....I wonder if I still have my Armitage III and/or Gunnm skins somewhere. Heh.
It has had to pull one blockbuster game and seen others censured.
Censured? Or censored? I'm curious as to whether this was a typo or intentional, haha.
Haha. One thousand out of how many? A thousand? A million? A billion?
And, since we're talking fairness, shouldn't we only require half of them to agree?
The mention of 1000 was a semi-random number based on the (perhaps mistaken) belief that most people wouldn't *quite* agree entirely with whatever you came up with. I rather liked your definition of fair; however, how many people will say "I worked hard for my 'x', why should I need to share with someone who didn't" or think "I'd just have to make sure I never ran into someone with less 'x' that I would need to share with"?
Could you, perhaps, expand upon this opinion; show me the good...
I was pretty tired when I wrote my previous reply. It does seem a bit disjointed.
The "good" part of the idea was just attempting to involves others, to give them a reason to care, to make it matter. That's why I said it's tricky. I don't have much experience with involving others, but it seems a bit like trying to herd cats.
Compassion is a positive quality which, when applied locally, benefits all - including the compassionate one. The tricky part is perhaps in getting people to realise this simple truth. After that it's mutually reinforcing self interest combined with selflessness...
Yes. I won't, can't argue with this. It's so easy default to a much more selfish position; I find myself doing so too often. Even when recognizing it at an intellectual level, it still requires fighting personal and societal inertia.
Not entirely unreasonable.
Of course it's unreasonable.
Well, seems we'll have to disagree, if mostly on a technicality. The thrust of my comment was that it's like wishing the world was "fair". Please clearly define what would constitute a fair world; then, find 1000 people who will agree with your definition, verbatim. Of course, that's a good way to never accomplish anything...
There is a kernel of truth, a sliver of a good idea in such a concept. That's my opinion, good or bad. People need to CARE. Just, that's a tricky one.
The nation was based on the notion that [real] property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system...This is why some feel those that only rent their home should not have the right to vote.
Not entirely unreasonable. But how far does one take it? Is it a can/can't vote, period?
What about when you own lots of property, though....is it fair that someone who has only a tenth of the stake you do (real property) has the same amount of say as you?
Does this extend only to issues affecting property ownership (such as zoning, taxation, rights, etc) or to everything? If just to property issues, what about people with jobs? Is it fair that people without jobs be able to vote about issues that concern jobs (rights, wages, benefits, taxes)?
My ebooks are epubs stored on two RAID hard disks.
Yes, but do you have backups? ;-)
Think about it! How much less interesting would films like The Mighty Ducks series be if the referees could be truly considered impartial!
I'm quite well aware the "draft" versions of standards...my joke was in regards to the "on the fly" bit. :-)
TLS 1.3 was added to Firefox 52.0, which was released in March 2017
TLS 1.3 was defined in RFC 8446 in August 2018.
And the summary:
it is possible to take 20 years of deployed legacy code and change it on the fly
First, I disagree with "on the fly" in this context.
Second, *shudder*
Whoosh? ;-)
Either way, life will continue, adapt, and evolve.
Don't worry...I think he's asleep.