How do you know that? I, for example, have always been skeptical about him — certainly others have been too. Do you have examples of the same people and/or organizations changing their mind about Musk before he indicated his lack of pure hate for Trump?
For a few years I was annoyed about the uniform adoration Mr. Musk was getting on Slashdot and in other circles. Then hit-pieces like this one started appearing...
Would the insufferable conditions described in TFA have been described at all — or described using the same terms — if he were still the Progressives' darling for championing "green" causes?
Or has the tone switched, because Musk is a Trump-administration supporter (sort of) — and there is a well-organized smear and boycott campaign against him as a result?
There is a lively discussion on whether or not Musk is a "Trump enabler" — but people, who've already concluded, that he is, will stop at, literally, nothing. Even poisoning the "haters" is becoming a thing — online smears are child's play...
Is it not amazing, what the sheer power of KKKorporate greed can do to improve service-offerings and lower prices? For everyone — including the poor, the women, and the children?
That just wouldn't do — we must demand some reasonable regulation to put an end to these developments!
Fewer people find his site funny — because they've heard (some of) the jokes before — and have not visited it as often as they would have otherwise. Accordingly, he lose some of the advertising revenue.
Add to that the "moral anguish" and similar catch-all terms — both from being ripped off and from being suspected by at least some people, of being the plagiarist himself...
Writer Alex Kaseburg has filed a lawsuit against TBS and Time Warner alleging that jokes recited on the Conan O'Brien show were stolen from his blog shortly after they were published.
If the blog was, indeed, the source of some of the jokes aired by the show, Mr. Kaseburg was wronged and is entitled to damages.
Will tyrannical politicians copyright critical jokes to oppress freedom of speech?
This is bullshit. First of all, a "tyrannical politician" can usually oppress you directly — no need to have the critical joke played and replayed during the civil court proceedings and entered into public records.
Second, parody and satire (especially against politician) are exempt from copyright laws to begin with...
and that intelligence agencies are seriously worried about him
Which intelligence agencies are you talking about with such grave respect? The same ones betrayed by your heroes Snowden and Manning — who, according to you and yours, deserve a medal for their betrayals — or some other, noble and glorious ones?
they don't give him access to any valuable secrets in practice.
That would've been dereliction of duty at least and possibly treason as well. Trump was duly elected as President — intelligence agencies ought to work for him, not sabotage him.
Though no one can say for certain, it is very likely, she would've either done it deliberately (for the same perfectly sane reasons Trump did), or left the information (and lots more of it) available for the Russians to avail themselves of on her outside server(s). Which she would have kept using "for yoga schedules" to avoid various things from becoming subject to Open Record laws...
Only you would've defended her tooth and nail, while dismissing all dissenters as sexist.
False. Manning's motivation was not political — as already cited above, he was trying to impress his gay friend(s).
Trump: Just bragging to stoke his own ego.
You are welcome to question Trump's judgment, but his actions are completely legal — what to communicate to other nations is entirely in the President's discretion. Manning and Snowden broke national laws — just laws, I might add, whose validity no one is questioning.
I really wonder what kind of mentality someone has to have in order to not to be able to see the difference.
To parse Private Bradley Manning’s motivation for sharing classified documents with WikiLeaks, the New York Times talks to Manning’s circle of friends, including a group of “politically motivated computer hackers” that he met through his boyfriend, a drag queen. Those friends suspect that Manning was compelled by “desperation for acceptance — or delusions of grandeur.”
Ah, only a few yars years ago leaking national secrets was cool. How do Snowden, Manning, and Obama remain heroes of the same people, who wish to impeach Trump for allegedly doing it?
First of all, post with your real name to undo the downmod you've just done to my post. You can either participate in a discussion or moderate it — doing both is dishonest.
The NSA has violated the Constitution.
Following the same logic, NSA should be left alone until much larger offenders — like city and state governments — are prosecuted for violating the Second Amendment and the damage done by the violations is undone. Forget "assault rifles" — one can't carry a freaking knife or a slingshot in some locales.
Also, NSA has not obviously violated the Constitution — only someone's understanding of it. For example, there is a seriously put forth line of reasoning, that the above-mentioned Second Amendment only covers arms contemporary to its approval: muskets, single-shot pistols, swords (never mind that many places ban even those). Under that logic, electronic communications are not protected by the Fourth Amendment at all. Perhaps even more importantly, even if we stipulate NSA is breaking it, the Constitution prescribes no punishment for violations. There is no law, under which a "reasonable prosecutor" (wink-wink) can prosecute them.
For all intents and purposes, NSA are allowed to do, what they are doing. It may have been Reagan's executive order, that started it, but neither Carter nor Obama (much less Clinton) has repealed it since.
USMC and other military branches are similarly allowed to kill people — no judge, no jury. Hence my analogy...
That's like saying, US Marine Corps killed more people than any murderer and so no murders should be prosecuted until US military is dismantled — and imprisoned.
To "restrict" something you don't like for others is a typical Illiberal response. No, we should not have banned or restricted their rhetoric. We (more of us) should've foreseen, what it would lead to — and started ridiculing it — earlier.
It does mean exactly that. A particular voter — and even their entire circle of friends and acquaintances — may be against it, but the voters overall are fine. But that's irrelevant, because I was not talking about Britain's entire electorate.
Were Njorthbiatr and the anonymous coward above me in this thread among dissenters? Most unlikely...
Horizontal scaling - does that mean it uses shards?
No, not according to the the FAQ, which says (emphasis mine):
Does CockroachDB support distributed transactions?
Yes. CockroachDB distributes transactions across your cluster, whether it’s a few servers in a single location or many servers across multiple datacenters. Unlike with sharded setups, you don’t need to know the precise location of data; you just talk to any node in your cluster and CockroachDB gets your transaction to the right place seamlessly. Distributed transactions proceed without downtime or additional latency while rebalancing is underway. You can even move tables – or entire databases – between data centers or cloud infrastructure providers while the cluster is under load.
Can a MySQL or PostgreSQL application be migrated to CockroachDB?
The current version of CockroachDB is intended for use with new applications. The initial subset of SQL we support is small relative to the extensive standard, and every popular database implements its own set of extensions and exhibits a unique set of idiosyncrasies. This makes porting an existing application non-trivial unless it is only a very lightweight consumer of SQL functionality.
It may be a really cool software package, but, I gather, if you allowed for only a "small subset" of SQL to be supported, you could have MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, and Sybase as "fault tolerant" and with "strong consistency".
By paying their ISPs, that pay for the difference in data usage at the peering points according to established contracts.
Contracts expire and are renegotiated. Some ISPs are simply peers, but others are decidedly "downstream" from others and receive a lot more traffic from others, than they push out. As a consumer, I've always wondered, why am I paying the same per month as the folks who Netflix and similar video-sources — in addition to hosting torrents. And why is it, that broadcast TV is paid for by the source, but cable TV — by the consumer.
Unless, of course, Edward Whitacre was talking about some other "mechanism"
His argument did sound very reasonable, actually. Having read the whole interview, I see his point. Maybe, you should read it too?
If you threaten to do something and your threat creates a massive public backlash
Ok, you convinced me, some in the cable industry were thinking about it. But now I struggle to understand, why it was perfectly fine with the likes of you, that some TV-channels are free, some cable-channels are "free" (bundled with subscription) and yet others charge extra? If, as history shows, that was Ok, perhaps the "threat" of taking Internet content-distribution closer to that model is, while not totally imaginary, is not really a threat?
Personally, I dislike it — because I'm an Internet-guy, not a cable-TV guy. Content on the Internet flows in multiple directions — among peers. But I do agree, that some servers output a lot more traffic than others, and it is not unreasonable to look for ways to make them pay for it. Because they aren't truly peers.
And then recall, that the whole cable TV (and telephone) mess is due to the government messing "sensibly regulating" the industry — since the 1930ies, when the AT&T was allowed to become a monopoly. Are you sure, adding more regulation is the solution?
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know that? I, for example, have always been skeptical about him — certainly others have been too. Do you have examples of the same people and/or organizations changing their mind about Musk before he indicated his lack of pure hate for Trump?
For a few years I was annoyed about the uniform adoration Mr. Musk was getting on Slashdot and in other circles. Then hit-pieces like this one started appearing...
Would the insufferable conditions described in TFA have been described at all — or described using the same terms — if he were still the Progressives' darling for championing "green" causes?
Or has the tone switched, because Musk is a Trump-administration supporter (sort of) — and there is a well-organized smear and boycott campaign against him as a result?
There is a lively discussion on whether or not Musk is a "Trump enabler" — but people, who've already concluded, that he is, will stop at, literally, nothing. Even poisoning the "haters" is becoming a thing — online smears are child's play...
Life seriously sucked two years ago, and the Internet was nowhere near as free as it is today...
Is it not amazing, what the sheer power of KKKorporate greed can do to improve service-offerings and lower prices? For everyone — including the poor, the women, and the children?
That just wouldn't do — we must demand some reasonable regulation to put an end to these developments!
Here is a good representation of the reasoned and classy arguments, that the well-informed Progressives put forth to advocate their position.
You made that up.
did not...
Just like always. You gotta problem?
I don't, but this guy — and all of the adoring moderators of his — might:
That's what I tried to do today, and what did I get?..
Fewer people find his site funny — because they've heard (some of) the jokes before — and have not visited it as often as they would have otherwise. Accordingly, he lose some of the advertising revenue.
Add to that the "moral anguish" and similar catch-all terms — both from being ripped off and from being suspected by at least some people, of being the plagiarist himself...
How am I going to download all that open-source software, that I used to download with BitTorrent?
If the blog was, indeed, the source of some of the jokes aired by the show, Mr. Kaseburg was wronged and is entitled to damages.
This is bullshit. First of all, a "tyrannical politician" can usually oppress you directly — no need to have the critical joke played and replayed during the civil court proceedings and entered into public records.
Second, parody and satire (especially against politician) are exempt from copyright laws to begin with...
Wrong. An actual crime is subject to impeachment. Point was, intelligence-sharing is up to the President in the first place.
The "people" you are talking about simply hate Trump. Period. The article about Obama sharing intelligence with Putin in 2016, which I linked to earlier, was written by the same Karen de Young, who is now mocking and denouncing Trump for similar cooperation.
Which intelligence agencies are you talking about with such grave respect? The same ones betrayed by your heroes Snowden and Manning — who, according to you and yours, deserve a medal for their betrayals — or some other, noble and glorious ones?
That would've been dereliction of duty at least and possibly treason as well. Trump was duly elected as President — intelligence agencies ought to work for him, not sabotage him.
Though no one can say for certain, it is very likely, she would've either done it deliberately (for the same perfectly sane reasons Trump did), or left the information (and lots more of it) available for the Russians to avail themselves of on her outside server(s). Which she would have kept using "for yoga schedules" to avoid various things from becoming subject to Open Record laws...
Only you would've defended her tooth and nail, while dismissing all dissenters as sexist.
False. Manning's motivation was not political — as already cited above, he was trying to impress his gay friend(s).
You are welcome to question Trump's judgment, but his actions are completely legal — what to communicate to other nations is entirely in the President's discretion. Manning and Snowden broke national laws — just laws, I might add, whose validity no one is questioning.
I really wonder what kind of mentality someone has to have in order to not to be able to see the difference.
That awkward moment, when you wanted to contradict, but ended up agreeing with the person you replied to...
Manning did it to impress his boyfriend:
Ah, only a few yars years ago leaking national secrets was cool. How do Snowden, Manning, and Obama remain heroes of the same people, who wish to impeach Trump for allegedly doing it?
First of all, post with your real name to undo the downmod you've just done to my post. You can either participate in a discussion or moderate it — doing both is dishonest.
Following the same logic, NSA should be left alone until much larger offenders — like city and state governments — are prosecuted for violating the Second Amendment and the damage done by the violations is undone. Forget "assault rifles" — one can't carry a freaking knife or a slingshot in some locales.
Also, NSA has not obviously violated the Constitution — only someone's understanding of it. For example, there is a seriously put forth line of reasoning, that the above-mentioned Second Amendment only covers arms contemporary to its approval: muskets, single-shot pistols, swords (never mind that many places ban even those). Under that logic, electronic communications are not protected by the Fourth Amendment at all. Perhaps even more importantly, even if we stipulate NSA is breaking it, the Constitution prescribes no punishment for violations. There is no law, under which a "reasonable prosecutor" (wink-wink) can prosecute them.
For all intents and purposes, NSA are allowed to do, what they are doing. It may have been Reagan's executive order, that started it, but neither Carter nor Obama (much less Clinton) has repealed it since.
USMC and other military branches are similarly allowed to kill people — no judge, no jury. Hence my analogy...
That's like saying, US Marine Corps killed more people than any murderer and so no murders should be prosecuted until US military is dismantled — and imprisoned.
To "restrict" something you don't like for others is a typical Illiberal response. No, we should not have banned or restricted their rhetoric. We (more of us) should've foreseen, what it would lead to — and started ridiculing it — earlier.
It does mean exactly that. A particular voter — and even their entire circle of friends and acquaintances — may be against it, but the voters overall are fine. But that's irrelevant, because I was not talking about Britain's entire electorate.
Were Njorthbiatr and the anonymous coward above me in this thread among dissenters? Most unlikely...
UK already has hate speech laws, which must've been fine with you. And they are not "obsolete", but actively prosecuted.
Which was so cool with the "anti Tories", their Illiberal American brethren would love such laws to come to the land of the First Amendment — to the annoyance of the earlier generation of Illiberals, flabbergasted at what their rhetoric lead to.
No, not according to the the FAQ, which says (emphasis mine):
From their FAQ (emphasis mine):
It may be a really cool software package, but, I gather, if you allowed for only a "small subset" of SQL to be supported, you could have MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, and Sybase as "fault tolerant" and with "strong consistency".
Contracts expire and are renegotiated. Some ISPs are simply peers, but others are decidedly "downstream" from others and receive a lot more traffic from others, than they push out. As a consumer, I've always wondered, why am I paying the same per month as the folks who Netflix and similar video-sources — in addition to hosting torrents. And why is it, that broadcast TV is paid for by the source, but cable TV — by the consumer.
His argument did sound very reasonable, actually. Having read the whole interview, I see his point. Maybe, you should read it too?
Ok, you convinced me, some in the cable industry were thinking about it. But now I struggle to understand, why it was perfectly fine with the likes of you, that some TV-channels are free, some cable-channels are "free" (bundled with subscription) and yet others charge extra? If, as history shows, that was Ok, perhaps the "threat" of taking Internet content-distribution closer to that model is, while not totally imaginary, is not really a threat?
Personally, I dislike it — because I'm an Internet-guy, not a cable-TV guy. Content on the Internet flows in multiple directions — among peers. But I do agree, that some servers output a lot more traffic than others, and it is not unreasonable to look for ways to make them pay for it. Because they aren't truly peers.
And then recall, that the whole cable TV (and telephone) mess is due to the government messing "sensibly regulating" the industry — since the 1930ies, when the AT&T was allowed to become a monopoly. Are you sure, adding more regulation is the solution?
There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent... Racist, racist, racist!
WTF?