We don't need destructing phones. We need to destroy the financial sector instead.
Yep... That'll take care of the phones too. As well as cars, transport, urban sprawl, light pollution, pollution, police abuses, police, and Electoral College. All the evil known personally to today's humans, in other words.
mi leaves us with some rather unpleasant imagery, writing: "Personally, I wish [the sentence] carried removal of 1 square millimeter of skin for each message instead."
Hey, what's so darn "unpleasant" about it? Yes, it would be cruel and unusual, if actually attempted — which it can not be, because such punishments are unconstitutional.
But the image of an asshole responsible for all but destroying e-mail as a viable tool of communication dying a horrible slow death would certainly be pleasant to watch...
Consider the amount of effort, money, electricity, and bandwidth spent by humanity on:
Delivering spam.
Trying to protect from spam.
Reading through the crap that got through despite the attempts at protection
Dealing with legitimate messages mistaken for spam by the protective mechanisms.
and your ordinary murderers begin to look relatable...
If you are simply refuting numbers, then sure... you're probably right.
Yes, thank you. The topic of this subthread is whether or not the amount of complaining has noticeably increased or not compared to the Obama era. I argue, that it has.
I suspect that your intention is to generally cast the protesters in a bad light
We are drifting even further from topic, but yes, I do think, that all of the anti-Trump protesters are irreparably tarnished by the riots — and not just by the violence of some of them, but by the approval (both tacit and explicit alike) of that violence by the rest.
Why aren't the TV talking-heads pestering Democrats to "renounce" the protesters the way they were demanding Trump denounce some White supremacist? Even when some pitiful Liberal voice objects to it, he is put into place by the Illiberal thugs projecting their own violent tendencies on the "evil" Trump-supporters.
My point was, AC's original claim about there being the same amount of protesting against Trump as there was against Obama, is not only unsubstantiated by citations, but probably outright wrong.
The amount of complaining on the internet hasn't changed.
I'll concede, that there was complaining and there still is — from another direction. But the quantitative estimate needs citations — what makes you think, the amount hasn't changed?
For example, over 8 years Obama racked up about a score of verified death-threats. It may be too early to tell for Trump, but if Bush is any indication, he'll have so many, Secret Service will stop investigating...
Indeed, I can not recall anyone beaten up, or anything set on fire or otherwise destroyed during an anti-Obama protest...
It's just moved venues.
It also stopped being racist — as I keep pointing out — without becoming sexist instead...
don't imagine that the Obama administration was free of public outrage.
It having existed does not mean, there was just as much of it.
Musk did not say or imply that unionization was morally outrageous
Had he been in favor of unions, Tesla factories (and Musk's other operations) would've been unionized long ago. Discussing, what exactly his opinion is on the subject is irrelevant — the opinion is negative.
Would the Left now fall out of love with Elon Musk and Tesla? Would they go back to burning oil in sympathy for that well-unionized industry? Or will they just downmod this post to make it hurt less?
Because they invented facts, which, according to your own post above qualifies. When Tablizer wrote, that NBC is biased too, you pointed out, that bias may be acceptable, but inventing facts is not.
You then further confirmed that Rolling Stone is "useless as a news source". And now you are asking, why they should not be used as a source? Split personality?
It depends on the article.
There may well be topics, where Daily Mail can be reliable too...
For a Wikipedia article about Tom Petty, Rolling Stone seems like a reasonable resource for factual information.
What if Tom Petty is accused of raping someone?..
If the topic is campus rape [...]
That's the topic, where they were caught red handed and could not spin their way out. How many times do you need a publication to invent facts (your own criteria!) before you declare them unsuitable as a news-source — without changing your opinion the next day? Is it just a question of quantity — with DM getting caught N times, while Rolling Stones — only K times?
Or could it be, just maybe, that the honorable guardians of humanity's knowledge (and Wikipeditors think of themselves as such), are themselves biased — applying different standards to different facts-inventing publications depending on the kinds of facts invented and the tilt thus displayed?
Ok, thanks for agreeing, that Rolling Stone is out. What about others pushing the fake news of "campus rape epidemic"? Like Vice? Note their wording: "Undeniably Massive Study Confirms Campus Rape Is an Undeniable, Massive Problem," — yep, the "undeniable" is repeated twice, almost as if article were about Global Warming...
Oh, was that [washingtonpost.com] what [thedailybeast.com] you wanted?
Yes, something like that, except targeting not a particular person (like Obama), but "all the vile evil non-believers and sinners who have either actively or passively decided to follow Satan".
Because wishing ill to a particular person — including President of the US — is really old shtick.
while deliberately failing to consider that the prayers in question were for the misery and suffering of others.
The distinction you are trying to make is without difference. They are still merely prayers. Words. Not actions. Not even calls for actions, which is what the Illiberalsaredoing.
Whish is worse — praying for suffering of political opponents (if indeed such praying takes place at all), or causing the suffering of political opponents?
You need to sit back
OMG, a wanna-be anonymous troll teaches me, how to troll properly?..
some of my friends who seem to have to post about every little boring detail of their life.
Stop right there. Whatever they voluntarily post anyway is already public and not subject to any privacy concerns. In short, if I don't need your password to see it, you can not object to my looking at it.
Like... omg, you committed a crime 45 years ago... Sorry, we don't want you in the country...
Well, this is completely unrelated to the topic — whether they find out about your old crime(s) from your Facebook posts or through any other means, if such is their stance, then so be it. Maybe, a country should adjust the requirements, but as long as they are what they are, how exactly they are enforced is besides the point.
My only objection is that they should make both the general criteria and the decision on each particular person known before I fly over — preferably, before I even buy a ticket.
In actual implementation, most likely, people will be asked to login themselves — jumping through whatever secondary authentication-hoops there may be — on the officer's computer or on their own one. They don't need your password — which you can change immediately afterwards anyway — they just want to see, who you are...
Israel has been doing it for years (including access to your emails), for example. I do not like it, but I don't like my luggage and person being searched either — this is not especially more outrageous.
What a duly privacy-minded service could offer is something like a duress password — if you login using that code instead of your usual one, certain mailboxes, messages, etc. are to be hidden... Can't hide everything — or even most things — because then the officer may get suspicious...
Ah, indeed, it is just one large CSV-file... The repo's README says:
Images not included
Images are not included and are not part of the dataset. Companion artworks listed in the dataset covered by the policy are identified in the Collection section of the Museum’s website with the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) icon.
There is also a public GitHub repository of the images.
The write-up had me nodding in approval until the last sentence. How about we all repeat 200 times — lest some of us forget: binaries should never be placed under a textual revision-control system.
You assume all those drives are the same, purchased at the same time and pace and will fail at the same time?
Not at all — that's a recipe for a correlated failure. My calculations expect the drives to be similar in characteristics — with the real MTTF of 100000 hours (which is about 1/10th of what the manufacturers claim) — but with failures randomly spread across that period. Drives from the same batch doing the same work in the same enclosure will, likely, start dying together.
1. BACKUPS and 2. Monitor your hardware.
Yes, these are perfectly sound principles. My point was only that using a hot spare is a waste — either you are paying too much for the same storage capacity, or you aren't getting as much capacity for the money. Whichever way you look at it, hot spare, while carrying a non-negligible cost, does not improve your data's chances of survival. Do not do it. Do not advise others to do it.
Not too long ago Apple defied an order to unlock a known terrorists' phone.
A disgusting stand...
Today, Facebook is rolling over on ordinary protesters.
False. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary protesters did not riot. A tiny minority did, of whom an even tinier minority got arrested and are being investigated — for the rioting. Again, they aren't being investigated for being protesters — ordinary or otherwise — they are accused (credibly) of rioting. So, you posted an untruth, which you knew to be untruth — that is, you lied. Why did you lie, boy?
yank the drive and run in case of a fire [emphasis mine], thus your data is still safe
Safe in case of a fire?!
And the hot-plug bays for such a thing are like ten bucks.
This 4-bay enclosure costs over $400, making each slot cost over $100. This 8-bay one is $750...
More importantly, you don't just buy it once — you maintain it. It takes up space. The spinning drive consumes electricity, wears out, produces noise. And none of it is justified — you do not add anything to your data's chances of survival.
.. to improve your data redundancy
You do not improve your data redundancy. That's the whole point.
Such is your disdain for people praying, coward, I begin to understand your kind's adoration for the religion that compels its followers to cut off heads and blow up buildings here in this world to drive their point...
But, don't you see, that merely setting a car on fire is nothing but a cheap imitation — and the true warriors have the same disdain for you?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep... That'll take care of the phones too. As well as cars, transport, urban sprawl, light pollution, pollution, police abuses, police, and Electoral College. All the evil known personally to today's humans, in other words.
Hey, what's so darn "unpleasant" about it? Yes, it would be cruel and unusual, if actually attempted — which it can not be, because such punishments are unconstitutional.
But the image of an asshole responsible for all but destroying e-mail as a viable tool of communication dying a horrible slow death would certainly be pleasant to watch...
Consider the amount of effort, money, electricity, and bandwidth spent by humanity on:
and your ordinary murderers begin to look relatable...
Yes, thank you. The topic of this subthread is whether or not the amount of complaining has noticeably increased or not compared to the Obama era. I argue, that it has.
We are drifting even further from topic, but yes, I do think, that all of the anti-Trump protesters are irreparably tarnished by the riots — and not just by the violence of some of them, but by the approval (both tacit and explicit alike) of that violence by the rest.
Why aren't the TV talking-heads pestering Democrats to "renounce" the protesters the way they were demanding Trump denounce some White supremacist? Even when some pitiful Liberal voice objects to it, he is put into place by the Illiberal thugs projecting their own violent tendencies on the "evil" Trump-supporters.
My point was, AC's original claim about there being the same amount of protesting against Trump as there was against Obama, is not only unsubstantiated by citations, but probably outright wrong.
Yep, you seem to concur.
I'll concede, that there was complaining and there still is — from another direction. But the quantitative estimate needs citations — what makes you think, the amount hasn't changed?
For example, over 8 years Obama racked up about a score of verified death-threats. It may be too early to tell for Trump, but if Bush is any indication, he'll have so many, Secret Service will stop investigating...
Indeed, I can not recall anyone beaten up, or anything set on fire or otherwise destroyed during an anti-Obama protest...
It also stopped being racist — as I keep pointing out — without becoming sexist instead...
It having existed does not mean, there was just as much of it.
Had he been in favor of unions, Tesla factories (and Musk's other operations) would've been unionized long ago. Discussing, what exactly his opinion is on the subject is irrelevant — the opinion is negative.
Would the Left now fall out of love with Elon Musk and Tesla? Would they go back to burning oil in sympathy for that well-unionized industry? Or will they just downmod this post to make it hurt less?
> Turns out that UPS was right
I see what you did there.
Let's eliminate left turns from government policy as well.
Because they invented facts, which, according to your own post above qualifies. When Tablizer wrote, that NBC is biased too, you pointed out, that bias may be acceptable, but inventing facts is not.
You then further confirmed that Rolling Stone is "useless as a news source". And now you are asking, why they should not be used as a source? Split personality?
There may well be topics, where Daily Mail can be reliable too...
What if Tom Petty is accused of raping someone?..
That's the topic, where they were caught red handed and could not spin their way out. How many times do you need a publication to invent facts (your own criteria!) before you declare them unsuitable as a news-source — without changing your opinion the next day? Is it just a question of quantity — with DM getting caught N times, while Rolling Stones — only K times?
Or could it be, just maybe, that the honorable guardians of humanity's knowledge (and Wikipeditors think of themselves as such), are themselves biased — applying different standards to different facts-inventing publications depending on the kinds of facts invented and the tilt thus displayed?
Nice spin on the fact, that Europe continues to build non-renewable power-generation as well.
Ok, thanks for agreeing, that Rolling Stone is out. What about others pushing the fake news of "campus rape epidemic"? Like Vice? Note their wording: "Undeniably Massive Study Confirms Campus Rape Is an Undeniable, Massive Problem," — yep, the "undeniable" is repeated twice, almost as if article were about Global Warming...
Yes, something like that, except targeting not a particular person (like Obama), but "all the vile evil non-believers and sinners who have either actively or passively decided to follow Satan".
Because wishing ill to a particular person — including President of the US — is really old shtick.
The distinction you are trying to make is without difference. They are still merely prayers. Words. Not actions. Not even calls for actions, which is what the Illiberals are doing.
Whish is worse — praying for suffering of political opponents (if indeed such praying takes place at all), or causing the suffering of political opponents?
OMG, a wanna-be anonymous troll teaches me, how to troll properly?..
Interestingly enough, in Russian there is no distinction — both "ape" and "monkey" translate into the same word "obezyana".
So "Rolling Stones" is out? As is everybody inventing the "campus rape epidemic" lie?
Stop right there. Whatever they voluntarily post anyway is already public and not subject to any privacy concerns. In short, if I don't need your password to see it, you can not object to my looking at it.
Well, this is completely unrelated to the topic — whether they find out about your old crime(s) from your Facebook posts or through any other means, if such is their stance, then so be it. Maybe, a country should adjust the requirements, but as long as they are what they are, how exactly they are enforced is besides the point.
My only objection is that they should make both the general criteria and the decision on each particular person known before I fly over — preferably, before I even buy a ticket.
In actual implementation, most likely, people will be asked to login themselves — jumping through whatever secondary authentication-hoops there may be — on the officer's computer or on their own one. They don't need your password — which you can change immediately afterwards anyway — they just want to see, who you are...
Israel has been doing it for years (including access to your emails), for example. I do not like it, but I don't like my luggage and person being searched either — this is not especially more outrageous.
What a duly privacy-minded service could offer is something like a duress password — if you login using that code instead of your usual one, certain mailboxes, messages, etc. are to be hidden... Can't hide everything — or even most things — because then the officer may get suspicious...
Wish, the write-up was more accurate... Thanks!
The write-up had me nodding in approval until the last sentence. How about we all repeat 200 times — lest some of us forget: binaries should never be placed under a textual revision-control system.
The whole point is, it does not buy you anything. You may as well pray for your data — "just in case".
Not at all — that's a recipe for a correlated failure. My calculations expect the drives to be similar in characteristics — with the real MTTF of 100000 hours (which is about 1/10th of what the manufacturers claim) — but with failures randomly spread across that period. Drives from the same batch doing the same work in the same enclosure will, likely, start dying together.
Yes, these are perfectly sound principles. My point was only that using a hot spare is a waste — either you are paying too much for the same storage capacity, or you aren't getting as much capacity for the money. Whichever way you look at it, hot spare, while carrying a non-negligible cost, does not improve your data's chances of survival. Do not do it. Do not advise others to do it.
Yes, there is such an opinion too. But that just confirms, what I said: hot spare is a waste — of money and space.
Do you have any numbers — how much more reliable is Z3 compared to Z2? But, in any case, you seem to agree, that hot spare is a waste...
No evidence of such prayers being made was offered. But, even if they were — they are just that, prayers. Words.
Most people would have noticed that key point.
They'll still be winning battles, even while losing the popular vote. Like Patriots.
A disgusting stand...
False. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary protesters did not riot. A tiny minority did, of whom an even tinier minority got arrested and are being investigated — for the rioting. Again, they aren't being investigated for being protesters — ordinary or otherwise — they are accused (credibly) of rioting. So, you posted an untruth, which you knew to be untruth — that is, you lied. Why did you lie, boy?
For the better!
Safe in case of a fire?!
This 4-bay enclosure costs over $400, making each slot cost over $100. This 8-bay one is $750...
More importantly, you don't just buy it once — you maintain it. It takes up space. The spinning drive consumes electricity, wears out, produces noise. And none of it is justified — you do not add anything to your data's chances of survival.
You do not improve your data redundancy. That's the whole point.
Such is your disdain for people praying, coward, I begin to understand your kind's adoration for the religion that compels its followers to cut off heads and blow up buildings here in this world to drive their point...
But, don't you see, that merely setting a car on fire is nothing but a cheap imitation — and the true warriors have the same disdain for you?