As opposed to those literally Fascist SJW Nazis who believe brain-dead bullshit like "speech is violence"?
Medical science too.
If words had no effect on people then they wouldn't be able to cause stress, depression and other mental illnesses. These illnesses have physical manifestations. Words literally have a physical affect on a human's body.
Those people who decide to shoot up schools or YouTube or drive a truck into some people were not physically beaten until they agreed to do it, for example.
So just as society has an interest in preventing physical harm through beatings, and an interest in preventing illness through poisoning, it has an interest in preventing damage through speech.
You might argue that it's unfair because some people are over-sensitive and harmed by the slightest thing. The law has your back here, it recognizes the concept of a "reasonable person". Just like it accepts that while some people might be injured by peanuts, as long as you don't deliberately feed them peanuts just to hurt them it's their problem.
The fingerprint is only used to control access to a token that gets sent to the site. If the token gets compromised just generate a new one. If your fingerprint gets compromised they still need your laptop to get the token. If both get compromised you are screwed anyway.
PROTIP: When something coming from people with a good track record on security seems stupid, it's probably because you didn't understand it. Best to try to figure it out, rather than going for the easy +5 first outraged-at-the-stupidity post on Slashdot because your mistake will get very publicly pointed out.
Why do you think this involves giving your biometric data away?
Your computer/phone scans your fingerprint and then tells the web site that you authenticated, with a token to prevent impersonation. The biometric data never leaves your local control.
For most people it's a massive win. No more crappy passwords. For experts we can more easily use security tokens.
"Western values" have always included limits on speech, even in the US. For example:
- State secrets - Certain personal details like medical information - Credible threats - Speech that directly causes injury/death ("fire!") - Contempt of court - Lying under oath - Grooming children for sexual exploitation - Encouraging suicide - Planning crimes
Beyond that there is a lot of speech that while not illegal can still have severe consequences for saying, and free speech protections don't extend to private venues.
There are many grey areas. What constitutes illegal harassment, or a credible threat, for example. But it's impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion of free speech and hate speech unless you first acknowledge that you never had, and never will have the absolute right to say anything you like at any time.
In fact, if you want to defend free speech, like I do, you need to understand this because an extreme "everything must be 4chan" position is not an effective argument.
Even if they don't personally feel bad about it, being involved in this scandal will look bad on their CVs. If they move to another department they can at least claim (through a lie of omission) to be involved when looking for a new job.
Thinking about it, those departments are probably about to lose some staff anyway, given their new-found devotion to less profitable but ethical behaviour.
Even Educated women prefer men of means. Why would they want to carry a guy who earns less than they do?
Because they like him? Because they think he would be a good father? Because they aren't obsessed with money and/or realize that it's more fun to spend with someone than alone?
When any argument ultimately ends up with the woman threatening to divorce (because she can financially, and the legal system will generally assure that she comes out on top)
The legal situation isn't like that around here, and even in the US it seems like being a single mother has many down sides, not least that it can be very difficult to get the father to actually contribute.
But more importantly none of this explains why women marry guys who don't earn much and never will, or why they stay in abusive relationships if divorce is such a great option.
Thinking women are that way seems like a sure-fire way to end up lonely, resentful and angry, when you could be enjoying their company.
That only works if the guy wants a trophy wife and kids though. If they want a genuine relationship, companionship, support etc and/or are not so bothered about kids then the whole thing falls apart.
And of course many women don't want to be totally dependent and only valued for their looks/womb too. Why else would they go to university/college in greater numbers than men if their main goal in life was to be a kept woman and a mother? Surely vast student debts would be a financial disincentive to marry them, and most of these guys looking to rent a womb seem to prefer them dumb anyway.
There seem to be some flaws in the MGTOW theory of modern relationships.
The other big issue with V2G is that it needs to use much more complex charging hardware. The current offerings in Norway only work on CHAdeMO, for example.
I think it's more likely that people will use recycled car batteries in a PowerWall type product. There won't be a shortage of them from cars written off for other issues, and most of those packs will have a huge amount of life left in them.
Teslas have actually a very limited lifetime of about 500 cycles
Incorrect, Tesla use Panasonic cells rated for 3000 cycles.
500 cycles at 250 miles per charge would only be 125,000 miles, which happens to also be the warranty on the packs. Lifetime being a bell curve approximately 50% of packs would qualify for warranty replacement if that was the case. But more over, lots of Tesla cars are up to 200k+, and Tesla tested up to 750k.
Even the original Nissan Leaf has proven to be more durable than that, with taxi firms putting over 200k miles on the original pack without any problems. The newer 30 and 40kWh models might not last so long though.
AppleCare might actually be worse than the minimum legal requirement in some cases.
For example, in the UK if the phone dies after say 3 years due to a manufacturing defect you can either have Apple fix it or give you a 50% refund. If you have AppleCare, they might give you a used one. What is worth more to you, a used 3 year old phone or 50% of the purchase price?
With Apple prices that 50% would more than cover a brand new, better spec Android replacement.
If it needs software to fix it, you must provide that software. It will create some extra burden on the manufacturer, just like all the other consumer protection stuff like the warranty, safety approvals, standard charger (in the EU) etc.
The software doesn't have to be open source of anything, they just have to provide it. The same way that car manufacturers do if special software is needed to repair their vehicles.
Check out Lazy Game Reviews (LGR) on YouTube. The guy loves 90s era PCs and his enthusiasm is infectious.
The other day he bought a top of the range Windows 95 laptop in mint condition. At the time it cost about $5000, which is over $8000 today. He powered it up for the first time, the classic Windows 95 start-up tune kicked in and the speakers ratted and distorted like the cheap 90s era 9000W PMPO crap they are, and it was glorious.
The old X10 system for DOS was pretty good too. Back then it was pretty awesome to be able to call your computer on the phone, tell it to "turn on lamp" 27 times and see your front room light up from the phone booth down the road.
It's all a joke now, but was cutting edge tech that many of us lusted after when we saw it in magazines.
Actually Microsoft mostly fixed kernel latency with Vista, when they introduced WASAPI. The system was further improved with every iteration, and Windows 10 is actually pretty good.
His argument in TFA is actually a bit more nuanced than the summary. His issue seems not to be so much the use of personal data, but the fact that the user doesn't get to share in the profit. Apparently the service that Facebook provides isn't valuable enough to justify it.
Interesting capitalist take on the whole debacle. Personal data as a commodity like any other, and the problem is Facebook undervaluing it rather than the dire consequences to individuals and democratic societies.
"We don't subscribe to the view that you have to let everybody in that wants to, or if you don't, you don't believe in free speech," said Cook. "We don't believe that."
What a dilemma for Slashdot. On the one hand, he defends privacy. On the other, he doesn't want the whole internet to be a free speech paradise.
To be fair, Autopilot might be on average safer than a human... Problem is, it looks very much like they rolled out a software update that introduced "barrier lust". It already has "truck lust", where it moves towards trucks as it passes them for some reason, and this latest firmware seems to have done something to the way it follows road markings that makes it steer into road dividing barriers.
As Tesla stated, the guy had driven that bit of road many times before, along with many other Tesla drivers. Then one day the car's behaviour suddenly changes. I'm sure the release notes, which I'm sure everyone definitely reads carefully, mentioned that the car may now drive straight into dividers at speed where it had previously been fine.
I've love to know if sleeping with Trump has increased or decreased her business. On the one hand, celebrity sells. On the other, hotels with "Trump" in the name have been renaming themselves because of the negative connotations.
In any case the book deal should be pretty lucrative.
I have little time for religious nonsense, but isn't recognizing your faults and deciding to make a major lifestyle change to correct them something people should be praised for?
Trump uses prostitutes. I expect many other politicians do too, but he is the only one we have proof for at the moment.
Nothing wrong with that per-se of course. But it's hypocritical. He doesn't have to use backpage.com because he is rich, and can afford to avoid the risky world of low-end prostitution. Rather than extend that opportunity to the people who voted for him on a platform of de-regulation and restored freedoms, he criminalizes them and makes their lives less safe.
Clinton, FWIW, was supported by prostitutes and seemed to favour support and decriminalization to some extent. Of course, it is impossible to say if she would have supported this bill had she been elected.
To be fair, I did just google "open source video editing" and those were the first two results. I don't want to sound condescending but it sounds like working on google skillz might be worth investing some time in. In this case "open source" is probably better than "free", as you discovered.
Car manufacturers are required to offer parts and the information necessary to make repairs to third parties. Apple only gives repair shops that if they agree to severe restrictions and high prices.
If it was just once or twice I could accept that it was just due to a lack of testing, but it's not. This is a regular problem with Apple, which they seem to have no interest in addressing.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to those literally Fascist SJW Nazis who believe brain-dead bullshit like "speech is violence"?
Medical science too.
If words had no effect on people then they wouldn't be able to cause stress, depression and other mental illnesses. These illnesses have physical manifestations. Words literally have a physical affect on a human's body.
Those people who decide to shoot up schools or YouTube or drive a truck into some people were not physically beaten until they agreed to do it, for example.
So just as society has an interest in preventing physical harm through beatings, and an interest in preventing illness through poisoning, it has an interest in preventing damage through speech.
You might argue that it's unfair because some people are over-sensitive and harmed by the slightest thing. The law has your back here, it recognizes the concept of a "reasonable person". Just like it accepts that while some people might be injured by peanuts, as long as you don't deliberately feed them peanuts just to hurt them it's their problem.
I guess that makes science an SJW Nazi.
The fingerprint is only used to control access to a token that gets sent to the site. If the token gets compromised just generate a new one. If your fingerprint gets compromised they still need your laptop to get the token. If both get compromised you are screwed anyway.
Can people be this idiotic?
PROTIP: When something coming from people with a good track record on security seems stupid, it's probably because you didn't understand it. Best to try to figure it out, rather than going for the easy +5 first outraged-at-the-stupidity post on Slashdot because your mistake will get very publicly pointed out.
Why do you think this involves giving your biometric data away?
Your computer/phone scans your fingerprint and then tells the web site that you authenticated, with a token to prevent impersonation. The biometric data never leaves your local control.
For most people it's a massive win. No more crappy passwords. For experts we can more easily use security tokens.
"Western values" have always included limits on speech, even in the US. For example:
- State secrets
- Certain personal details like medical information
- Credible threats
- Speech that directly causes injury/death ("fire!")
- Contempt of court
- Lying under oath
- Grooming children for sexual exploitation
- Encouraging suicide
- Planning crimes
Beyond that there is a lot of speech that while not illegal can still have severe consequences for saying, and free speech protections don't extend to private venues.
There are many grey areas. What constitutes illegal harassment, or a credible threat, for example. But it's impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion of free speech and hate speech unless you first acknowledge that you never had, and never will have the absolute right to say anything you like at any time.
In fact, if you want to defend free speech, like I do, you need to understand this because an extreme "everything must be 4chan" position is not an effective argument.
Even if they don't personally feel bad about it, being involved in this scandal will look bad on their CVs. If they move to another department they can at least claim (through a lie of omission) to be involved when looking for a new job.
Thinking about it, those departments are probably about to lose some staff anyway, given their new-found devotion to less profitable but ethical behaviour.
Even Educated women prefer men of means. Why would they want to carry a guy who earns less than they do?
Because they like him? Because they think he would be a good father? Because they aren't obsessed with money and/or realize that it's more fun to spend with someone than alone?
When any argument ultimately ends up with the woman threatening to divorce (because she can financially, and the legal system will generally assure that she comes out on top)
The legal situation isn't like that around here, and even in the US it seems like being a single mother has many down sides, not least that it can be very difficult to get the father to actually contribute.
But more importantly none of this explains why women marry guys who don't earn much and never will, or why they stay in abusive relationships if divorce is such a great option.
Thinking women are that way seems like a sure-fire way to end up lonely, resentful and angry, when you could be enjoying their company.
That only works if the guy wants a trophy wife and kids though. If they want a genuine relationship, companionship, support etc and/or are not so bothered about kids then the whole thing falls apart.
And of course many women don't want to be totally dependent and only valued for their looks/womb too. Why else would they go to university/college in greater numbers than men if their main goal in life was to be a kept woman and a mother? Surely vast student debts would be a financial disincentive to marry them, and most of these guys looking to rent a womb seem to prefer them dumb anyway.
There seem to be some flaws in the MGTOW theory of modern relationships.
The other big issue with V2G is that it needs to use much more complex charging hardware. The current offerings in Norway only work on CHAdeMO, for example.
I think it's more likely that people will use recycled car batteries in a PowerWall type product. There won't be a shortage of them from cars written off for other issues, and most of those packs will have a huge amount of life left in them.
Teslas have actually a very limited lifetime of about 500 cycles
Incorrect, Tesla use Panasonic cells rated for 3000 cycles.
500 cycles at 250 miles per charge would only be 125,000 miles, which happens to also be the warranty on the packs. Lifetime being a bell curve approximately 50% of packs would qualify for warranty replacement if that was the case. But more over, lots of Tesla cars are up to 200k+, and Tesla tested up to 750k.
Even the original Nissan Leaf has proven to be more durable than that, with taxi firms putting over 200k miles on the original pack without any problems. The newer 30 and 40kWh models might not last so long though.
AppleCare might actually be worse than the minimum legal requirement in some cases.
For example, in the UK if the phone dies after say 3 years due to a manufacturing defect you can either have Apple fix it or give you a 50% refund. If you have AppleCare, they might give you a used one. What is worth more to you, a used 3 year old phone or 50% of the purchase price?
With Apple prices that 50% would more than cover a brand new, better spec Android replacement.
If it needs software to fix it, you must provide that software. It will create some extra burden on the manufacturer, just like all the other consumer protection stuff like the warranty, safety approvals, standard charger (in the EU) etc.
The software doesn't have to be open source of anything, they just have to provide it. The same way that car manufacturers do if special software is needed to repair their vehicles.
Check out Lazy Game Reviews (LGR) on YouTube. The guy loves 90s era PCs and his enthusiasm is infectious.
The other day he bought a top of the range Windows 95 laptop in mint condition. At the time it cost about $5000, which is over $8000 today. He powered it up for the first time, the classic Windows 95 start-up tune kicked in and the speakers ratted and distorted like the cheap 90s era 9000W PMPO crap they are, and it was glorious.
The old X10 system for DOS was pretty good too. Back then it was pretty awesome to be able to call your computer on the phone, tell it to "turn on lamp" 27 times and see your front room light up from the phone booth down the road.
It's all a joke now, but was cutting edge tech that many of us lusted after when we saw it in magazines.
Actually Microsoft mostly fixed kernel latency with Vista, when they introduced WASAPI. The system was further improved with every iteration, and Windows 10 is actually pretty good.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-...
0ms latency for all applications, even using the mixer.
His argument in TFA is actually a bit more nuanced than the summary. His issue seems not to be so much the use of personal data, but the fact that the user doesn't get to share in the profit. Apparently the service that Facebook provides isn't valuable enough to justify it.
Interesting capitalist take on the whole debacle. Personal data as a commodity like any other, and the problem is Facebook undervaluing it rather than the dire consequences to individuals and democratic societies.
Interesting quote in TFA from the real Tim Cook:
"We don't subscribe to the view that you have to let everybody in that wants to, or if you don't, you don't believe in free speech," said Cook. "We don't believe that."
What a dilemma for Slashdot. On the one hand, he defends privacy. On the other, he doesn't want the whole internet to be a free speech paradise.
To be fair, Autopilot might be on average safer than a human... Problem is, it looks very much like they rolled out a software update that introduced "barrier lust". It already has "truck lust", where it moves towards trucks as it passes them for some reason, and this latest firmware seems to have done something to the way it follows road markings that makes it steer into road dividing barriers.
As Tesla stated, the guy had driven that bit of road many times before, along with many other Tesla drivers. Then one day the car's behaviour suddenly changes. I'm sure the release notes, which I'm sure everyone definitely reads carefully, mentioned that the car may now drive straight into dividers at speed where it had previously been fine.
I've love to know if sleeping with Trump has increased or decreased her business. On the one hand, celebrity sells. On the other, hotels with "Trump" in the name have been renaming themselves because of the negative connotations.
In any case the book deal should be pretty lucrative.
I have little time for religious nonsense, but isn't recognizing your faults and deciding to make a major lifestyle change to correct them something people should be praised for?
Trump uses prostitutes. I expect many other politicians do too, but he is the only one we have proof for at the moment.
Nothing wrong with that per-se of course. But it's hypocritical. He doesn't have to use backpage.com because he is rich, and can afford to avoid the risky world of low-end prostitution. Rather than extend that opportunity to the people who voted for him on a platform of de-regulation and restored freedoms, he criminalizes them and makes their lives less safe.
Clinton, FWIW, was supported by prostitutes and seemed to favour support and decriminalization to some extent. Of course, it is impossible to say if she would have supported this bill had she been elected.
To be fair, I did just google "open source video editing" and those were the first two results. I don't want to sound condescending but it sounds like working on google skillz might be worth investing some time in. In this case "open source" is probably better than "free", as you discovered.
Here are the lists of the people who voted for it:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
https://www.senate.gov/legisla...
Car manufacturers are required to offer parts and the information necessary to make repairs to third parties. Apple only gives repair shops that if they agree to severe restrictions and high prices.
If it was just once or twice I could accept that it was just due to a lack of testing, but it's not. This is a regular problem with Apple, which they seem to have no interest in addressing.
Privacy for the rich isn't much of an achievement. It should be universal, not just for those who can afford to own and maintain an iPhone.
This started 20 years ago, and hasn't happened yet. Is it possible that we were imperialists and this is different?