Says the leftist troll that he himself started out with a statement stranding on the still warm bodes of the victims.
Troll? No, friend. I honestly believe that increased gun regulation is sane. I'm not saying that to trigger you or anyone else. Further, I'm not standing on any bodies, warm or otherwise. I'm disregarding the regretful - but irrelevant bodies you're referencing. The only way they matter is that they should make you feel that something is wrong, and to seek ways to fix it.
You are a perfect example of why I show abso-fucking-lutely zero respect for your kind.
What precisely is "my" kind? Rational people? People who aren't inclined to support the status-quo that isn't working? Just curious.
What in your diseased mind makes you think you deserve a respect when you started off with a generalized attack on an entire class of people?
What class of people am I attacking? Pro-gun supporters? Look, I'll admit I do think that group are wrong, and fatally so. But I'm not attacking them. I'm encouraging them to get off their asses, and change their minds. To save lives. But in your narrative, I'm the bad guy. You know nobody's buying that, right?
The answer is is that you don't deserve it, and you will never receive it.
But more to a more cogent point: well the problem with your non-argument is that there is no real problem, not in the way assholes like you think there is. Mass shootings like this are so statistical rare as to be a non-issue. Yeah, they're terrible, but so are shark bites, Ebola, and Islamic attacks. If you lump every single death where a gun is involved you'll get about 30K a year, and if you just look at homicides you're only going to about 10K. All of these are terrible but they're a drop in the bucket compared to the 2.5 million people that will die every year from all causes. And even more to the point while 30K people might die with guns the best data we have from the federal government itself shows that roughly 300K people will use a gun in self defense every damn year.
If you think I need to 'fix my shit' maybe you should educate yourself and learn about the reality of guns in America before you start beakin' off, lest you look like a retard in a public form.
You know, aside from the abrasive, antisocial, combative, ignorant, rude, angry, dismissive, condescending things you wrote, there were also a few words. At great effort, I have located them and admit that deep in there you've got a point. It's a great point, much better than the One Handgun Per Child plan that seems be your vision for a safe country. That point seems to be: the American education system is broken.
Let's see. Three hundred thousand people - per year - use a gun to "defend" themselves each year. That's one in every thousand citizens. Given that some Americans are children (let's imagine the age distribution is even up to 100 years old, which it's not), we can disregard say... 15% of your citizens. Given that some Americans are either elderly or disabled, we can probably chalk up another 15% to ignore. Then, let's estimate that maybe half of the remaining adults have guns, we arrive at 35% of your country being able to be included in your federal statistic. What just happened there is that we used reason, to come to the recognition that supposedly, one in three hundred gun-owners needs to "defend" himself every year.
I ask you... what the actual fuck?
See, in those countries other than America, where we lack guns to protect ourselves, if one in three hundred of us needs to "defend" ourselves every year, we'd be dead by now. Or homeless because all our stuff was stolen. But it doesn't work that way. The threat isn't present for us. The need-to-defend isn't present.
So hey, I'd suggest you revisit your own arguments in the light that they're just... macho bullshit, and - again - go out and actually protect some people by advocating sanity, not pro-gun culture.
Oh what a surprise, another left piece of shit shows on/. to stand on the still warm bodies of the victims of a mass shooting.
Good point. It would be better to a respectful period of time - say until the pain of loss has faded - to realize you therefore no longer have emotional motivation to fix the problem.
The people pointing out issues with pro-gun-culture aren't the problem here. By definition, the people causing these problems are people with guns. What you're doing - as a nation - doesn't work. America tried it the NRA-way, and it's only getting worse. So I'd like to respectfully suggest that you take the moral outrage and bereavement and use it not to call random Internet strangers names, but instead to drive you to... fix your shit.
We don't need 48 MP taking up space on our phones and hard drives.
And that's exactly why this is happening.
What Joe Consumer knows is that his 64 hippobyte iPhone filled up real quick, and he needs to buy a 128 rhinobyte one as soon as his contract is up. Or sooner.
This is all about up-selling devices and cloud storage.
What will be and what should be are not necessarily the same thing.
I would refer to things like Facebook as "offloaded identity". Data that is stored in storage such as DropBox is one thing, but social networking tools are technological extensions to a person's identity. My point is that social media is personal, and the person shares what they want with who they want while they are alive.
I loathe social media, but I'd defend the right for people who don't to use it without the worry that when they die, people who they didn't share details with will have them.
And now its name is mud, the CD an object of widespread scorn. How did it come to this? Why did this brilliant thing fall so far out of fashion?
Simple: they're physically inconvenient.
That's relative to current formats and delivery methods, of course, but all things are relative. Fact is that MP3 is good enough for most listeners most of the time, and allows tiny players that never skip while you jog, or storage on devices people are already carrying. The fall of CD isn't about its audio quality in any way. It's about a 4" platter that holds 12-14 songs and requires a laser read-head that isn't tolerant of mishandling.
Pretty much. I've got nothing to hide, but the ever-increasing security theater intensity makes me fearful. The odds of being incorrectly flagged as a person-of-interest are incredibly low, but the consequence of such an event is massive. The more hoops I have to jump through, the more the odds and the consequence increase.
I live in a (Canadian) border town, but I basically don't cross anymore unless I'm going to the nearby US international airport to go somewhere else.
Shopping in Detroit? Nope. Visiting heritage places in Michigan? Nope. Attending concerts at American venues? Nope. Conferences? Art shows? Air shows? Woodward Dream Cruise? Nope, nope, nope, nope.
To my American friends... I live in a free nation. Coming to visit you is fucking frightening, what with the razor wire and bulletproof-vest-wearing-German-Shepherds, and the angry muscle agents with guns, and the cameras, and the cameras, and the what-the-fuck-is-that-thing scanners pointed at my car, and the simple fact that if I am misheard or misunderstood, my border-crossing "rights", along with my anus and my freedom are moment from being dramatically altered. You're nice people as people. But as a nation, your paranoia makes you scary to visit.
You are a fucking moron if you think it lays at the feet of anyone except Democrats, who have been in complete control for 15 years, and 89% of the last century.
I know you're a troll, and I'm not American but I'd just like to point out that all you're illustrating is that the damage a Republican does in one year of power takes in excess of ten years of Democrat rule to repair.
How about we just stop accepting visa applicants entirely?
Well, that's one way to increase unemployment. For instance, the professors who offer classes to foreign students won't have them anymore. And of course the follow-on jobs. Even if you discard the student visas, there are still American citizens employed supporting foreign workers. From people pouring them coffee to people selling them clothes to people renting them apartments... gone.
Unless unemployment is 0% , there are Americans willing to do the jobs.
Wait, what? It works the other way around. As long as unemployment isn't 0%, there are clearly Americans unwilling to do the jobs.
I raised this very question (Star Trek, transporter experiment) to my daughter when she was a teenager. Her response was, what's the difference? Our atoms have already largely completely changed over many times by now anyway. I recall reading years ago, I think it was a Time Life book or perhaps an educational movie, that we're all breathing, and thus by implication incorporating, some fraction of the actual atoms that Leonardo da Vinci breathed; a matter of statistics. Of course, that still leaves the question of whether your consciousness this very instant is already a different "thing" that it was a second ago, and only your current state of your memory leads you to believe that it is the same.
"Punch Escrow" by Tal M. Klein is a recent (2017) book I just finished reading last week that is pretty topical. It's a near-future novel where people-transporters have recently been invented and explores some of the ramifications of the tech. It was a pretty fun read. Interesting characters and quite a surprising amount of tension/action considering the protagonist is Joe Average. Also, witty banter, so the dialogue is enjoyable. I'm being deliberately spoiler-free here. Look it up on Goodreads or something for reviews.
Disclosure: I have no connection to the author, publisher, etc... I just liked this book.
Last thing I'd want while talking to a 911 dispatcher is for them to be allowed to have doubt in my story.
Last thing I'd want is a bunch of people wrongfully shot dead because doubt is too scary for some other people who might have a story that "requires" a paramilitary strike.
But tell me I have to lock up my phone in a "pouch" and you can shove your concert where the sun doesn't shine.
So, you like going to a concert and looking over a sea of glowing cellphone screens when you look at the stage?
I find it unfortunate that this is necessary. But I do see the value.
You know, my most recent concert experience (Evanescence, December 2017) there was plenty of cell phone use, but it wasn't even on the same order of magnitude for annoyance as the yelling and screaming. "You're beautiful." "I love you." "Will you marry me?" Seriously, shut up and let the lady sing, you drunk assholes. Cell phones? Meh. Not an issue. But we all have our pet peeves. Mine is evidently jerks ruining quiet/sensitive moments in live music.
*Knock knock* "Yes hello, is there a hostage situation at this house? I drew the short straw so have to come here to your door to take your word for if there is any problem here that requires our assistance."
Is that what you are seeking?
Yes.
In civilized countries that's how it works. Know what? It actually works, too. See, one thing you don't want to do - ever- is inject more "energy" into a situation. If there's nothing wrong going on, a simple query keeps things civil. A few questions and the homeowner is fairly likely to invite one or more officers in to confirm there's no hostage situation. No yelling, no screaming, no sudden gestures, no escalation. On the other hand, if something wrong is going on, there's some risk - yes - but there's a much better chance of talking it down.
Going apeshit is for military actions, not police actions.
We have Socialized medicine in the United States, We buy insurance. where we pay for everyone on that companies healthcare.
You don't, really.
See, with socialized health care, there isn't a company involved. There's a government-run health organization which exists to serve people, not to make a profit. How you pay for it isn't key. How the services are delivered is.
I know there's a hypothetical where it's asked, "well, what if I want to pay more for service which is even better" and it's not a horrible question, but it presupposes that the baseline health-care is sub-par, which is - in most cases - not the case. Yes, here in Canada we've had periods where emergency-room wait times have been excessive, but with triage, true emergencies are handled immediately while "I've got a cough" is back-burnered. As it should be. And yes, there are occasions where some specific procedures are back-logged, and patients are even sometimes shuttled to our nearby American neighbors because they needed to be. But by and large, the vast, vast, majority of us are cared-for properly, promptly, efficiently, and... with disregard for the depth of our pockets.
WinAmp's (default) UI was appropriate. Each button or knob or text field was exceptionally useful and well-placed.
PlexAmp looks like yet another mobile device interfaceless-interface where almost everything is buried in a burger menu or controlled by unintuitive gestures. But at least it has gradient fills everywhere there aren't transparent controls on full-colour bitmaps.
I thought the point of having a game was to play it. Now you're bitching because you have to play it more than you thought. There's no pleasing anyone these days...
The problem is when there's more game to be had, but it's "too hard" to get it.
With loot-boxes, you can have played most of a game, used most of the characters/classes/weapons, and be mostly bored of it. Still, there's one or two guns or guys or maps or mods that you would like to try out, but you can't because they're still locked behind a random number generator grind. It's quite reasonable to complain about how grindy that is.
Engaging an anonymous coward because it's a slow Sunday.
The FCC wants to roll back imperial fiat which should have been legislated properly.
What's an "imperial fiat"? Is that some sort of Italian car driven by an Emperor? Or are those just words that don't convey meaning, but you think they sound educated? Like "paradigm shift". Also, the FCC was empowered to pass the rules it did, just as the current regime is empowered to declare those older ones void. None of this is a matter of overreach, no matter what the current board's leadership claims.
The FCC also doesn't want to have to regulate ISPs as common carriers, because that's an incredibly expensive piece of work.
Odd. Regulation is remarkably easy and inexpensive given a} the regulations are already published, and b} this kind of regulation doesn't require any actual effort on the FCC's part until one of the mega-ISPs decides to try to weasel those regulations for "value-added-services", a.k.a. more profit. And even then, it's a fairly simple matter of passing a decision.
This isn't like regulating the alcohol industry, where you actually need people to go out and try to get bartenders to serve under-agers and the like.
Your internet is no different with the rollback of this fake "network neutrality" then it was for the 8 years Obama was in office and it was okay. And, for the record, nothing about this "network neutrality" prevented anything you feared happening to the internet.
What alternate-history universe are you from? In ours, several ISPs were on the brink of, and beyond the brink of anti-consumer actions. The most obvious example was double-dipping, demanding additional payments from Netflix. "It would be a terrible shame if something happened to your pretty packets as they traverse our network." Consumers were already paying for their bandwidth... for the ISP to obtain, transport, and deliver the packets that were requested. If consumers contract for #Mbps and a monthly cap of #Gb of data, they've paid for those bytes' transit, and that they come from a source with deep pockets shouldn't matter.
It would only have changed the words that ISPs use to throttle traffic. Instead of "throttling Netflix" they would just "throttle encrpted video playback" but still could have given preference to their data which is a live stream.
How about they don't throttle anything because they've been paid to deliver the packets already? Just a thought. Also, the main purpose behind network neutrality.
You got suckered.
Well, there's an assumption. Turns out I don't live in the country getting suckered. I just know that crap flows downhill.
But here's the biggest sign that you're off your rocker: if the network neutrality regulations were ineffective, why would the FCC under Ajit Pai be so incredibly zealous about repealing them? It should be easy to earn voter happiness by bowing to the public pressure and saying "fine, let them keep their placebo regulation." Right. Because it's not a placebo. It's very much protecting the public from more predatory practices than the massively-profitable ISPs are already undertaking.
Running away from walled gardens to another walled garden is not a solution to the net neutrality problem and certainly doesn't "take the profit out" of it. It just moves that profit to another company./vertisement.
Yeah, I'm kind of not seeing how this is a solution. The FCC wants to make a multi-tiered Internet, where you pay more to get the data you want. With this... you pay more to get what you want.
That's even assuming it doesn't just get throttled into oblivion. Or worse, bought by Comcast or AT&T.
Release notes may not always indicate what bug fixes have actually been included. If you have an installed base you may not wish to signal an unpatched vulnerability in the field to the unscrupulous. You may also be somewhat vague about a fix that enables the product to achieve the specification which marketing claims the product already achieves. This is why product management generally has a say in what the developers may have listed in their release notes.
Fair enough. So how about we treat security flaws separate from logic flaws where possible?
Imaginary Software 2.7.3.21a
SECURITY: Fixed critical issue allowing remote code execution and remote data access and alteration... upgrade NOW
SECURITY: Fixed critical issue allowing malicious input files to cause software to upload all your data to an attacker's server
BUGFIX: Fixed bug that prevented drag & drop of widgets on screen #3 on Tuesdays when using Brazillian codepages
BUGFIX: Fixed bug that caused a crash if the lyrics for The Police's Roxanne were typed
My point is, things that you don't need to know the WHY of can be obscured, but bugs that are interesting because "oh, great... I've been changing codepage from Brazillian any time I needed to drag & drop widgets on Tuesdays... now I don't need to" are documented. Just a thought.
Unfortunately, that is par for the course for the mainstream press, which lives on hyperbole, distortion and exaggeration. In fact, it is not too far-fetched to assert that the mainstream has been, for a long time now, moving from the news report business to the entertainment business.
To be fair, as topics get more complicated, the issue of understanding becomes more a factor. Expecting reporters to be able to process, summarize, and relate a study/finding/report on banana blight or the consequences of a bad batch of sunscreen is reasonable. Expecting them to be able to make advanced biology, physics, math, economics or other hard sciences understandable in 5-minute stories... unreasonable.
Too many topics require so much background to dimly understand them that it's almost impractical to try to report on them to the general populace.
Remember, most of us Slashdot readers are highly technical people who tend as a generalization to expose ourselves to a breadth of technical topics, so we understand at least what areas out of our expertise are about. Quantum mechanics is hard for "us", but we've got a chance to recognize what we don't know. The general populace is much more screwed.
I recall to mind a lengthy discussion with a relative, explaining the practical limitations of wireless signalling, specifically that there is only a limited spectrum that exists, and after all was said and done, his response was "they should make more". Not "they should reallocate spectrum more wisely", but literally "make more". No physics background.
Slashdot Mirror
Says the leftist troll that he himself started out with a statement stranding on the still warm bodes of the victims.
Troll? No, friend. I honestly believe that increased gun regulation is sane. I'm not saying that to trigger you or anyone else. Further, I'm not standing on any bodies, warm or otherwise. I'm disregarding the regretful - but irrelevant bodies you're referencing. The only way they matter is that they should make you feel that something is wrong, and to seek ways to fix it.
You are a perfect example of why I show abso-fucking-lutely zero respect for your kind.
What precisely is "my" kind? Rational people? People who aren't inclined to support the status-quo that isn't working? Just curious.
What in your diseased mind makes you think you deserve a respect when you started off with a generalized attack on an entire class of people?
What class of people am I attacking? Pro-gun supporters? Look, I'll admit I do think that group are wrong, and fatally so. But I'm not attacking them. I'm encouraging them to get off their asses, and change their minds. To save lives. But in your narrative, I'm the bad guy. You know nobody's buying that, right?
The answer is is that you don't deserve it, and you will never receive it.
But more to a more cogent point: well the problem with your non-argument is that there is no real problem, not in the way assholes like you think there is. Mass shootings like this are so statistical rare as to be a non-issue. Yeah, they're terrible, but so are shark bites, Ebola, and Islamic attacks. If you lump every single death where a gun is involved you'll get about 30K a year, and if you just look at homicides you're only going to about 10K. All of these are terrible but they're a drop in the bucket compared to the 2.5 million people that will die every year from all causes. And even more to the point while 30K people might die with guns the best data we have from the federal government itself shows that roughly 300K people will use a gun in self defense every damn year.
If you think I need to 'fix my shit' maybe you should educate yourself and learn about the reality of guns in America before you start beakin' off, lest you look like a retard in a public form.
You know, aside from the abrasive, antisocial, combative, ignorant, rude, angry, dismissive, condescending things you wrote, there were also a few words. At great effort, I have located them and admit that deep in there you've got a point. It's a great point, much better than the One Handgun Per Child plan that seems be your vision for a safe country. That point seems to be: the American education system is broken.
Let's see. Three hundred thousand people - per year - use a gun to "defend" themselves each year. That's one in every thousand citizens. Given that some Americans are children (let's imagine the age distribution is even up to 100 years old, which it's not), we can disregard say... 15% of your citizens. Given that some Americans are either elderly or disabled, we can probably chalk up another 15% to ignore. Then, let's estimate that maybe half of the remaining adults have guns, we arrive at 35% of your country being able to be included in your federal statistic. What just happened there is that we used reason, to come to the recognition that supposedly, one in three hundred gun-owners needs to "defend" himself every year.
I ask you... what the actual fuck?
See, in those countries other than America, where we lack guns to protect ourselves, if one in three hundred of us needs to "defend" ourselves every year, we'd be dead by now. Or homeless because all our stuff was stolen. But it doesn't work that way. The threat isn't present for us. The need-to-defend isn't present.
So hey, I'd suggest you revisit your own arguments in the light that they're just... macho bullshit, and - again - go out and actually protect some people by advocating sanity, not pro-gun culture.
Oh what a surprise, another left piece of shit shows on /. to stand on the still warm bodies of the victims of a mass shooting.
Good point. It would be better to a respectful period of time - say until the pain of loss has faded - to realize you therefore no longer have emotional motivation to fix the problem.
The people pointing out issues with pro-gun-culture aren't the problem here. By definition, the people causing these problems are people with guns. What you're doing - as a nation - doesn't work. America tried it the NRA-way, and it's only getting worse. So I'd like to respectfully suggest that you take the moral outrage and bereavement and use it not to call random Internet strangers names, but instead to drive you to... fix your shit.
We don't need 48 MP taking up space on our phones and hard drives.
And that's exactly why this is happening.
What Joe Consumer knows is that his 64 hippobyte iPhone filled up real quick, and he needs to buy a 128 rhinobyte one as soon as his contract is up. Or sooner.
This is all about up-selling devices and cloud storage.
SOMEBODY will be the heir.
What will be and what should be are not necessarily the same thing.
I would refer to things like Facebook as "offloaded identity". Data that is stored in storage such as DropBox is one thing, but social networking tools are technological extensions to a person's identity. My point is that social media is personal, and the person shares what they want with who they want while they are alive.
I loathe social media, but I'd defend the right for people who don't to use it without the worry that when they die, people who they didn't share details with will have them.
And now its name is mud, the CD an object of widespread scorn. How did it come to this? Why did this brilliant thing fall so far out of fashion?
Simple: they're physically inconvenient.
That's relative to current formats and delivery methods, of course, but all things are relative. Fact is that MP3 is good enough for most listeners most of the time, and allows tiny players that never skip while you jog, or storage on devices people are already carrying. The fall of CD isn't about its audio quality in any way. It's about a 4" platter that holds 12-14 songs and requires a laser read-head that isn't tolerant of mishandling.
Yet another reason not to visit the USA.
Pretty much. I've got nothing to hide, but the ever-increasing security theater intensity makes me fearful. The odds of being incorrectly flagged as a person-of-interest are incredibly low, but the consequence of such an event is massive. The more hoops I have to jump through, the more the odds and the consequence increase.
I live in a (Canadian) border town, but I basically don't cross anymore unless I'm going to the nearby US international airport to go somewhere else.
Shopping in Detroit? Nope. Visiting heritage places in Michigan? Nope. Attending concerts at American venues? Nope. Conferences? Art shows? Air shows? Woodward Dream Cruise? Nope, nope, nope, nope.
To my American friends... I live in a free nation. Coming to visit you is fucking frightening, what with the razor wire and bulletproof-vest-wearing-German-Shepherds, and the angry muscle agents with guns, and the cameras, and the cameras, and the what-the-fuck-is-that-thing scanners pointed at my car, and the simple fact that if I am misheard or misunderstood, my border-crossing "rights", along with my anus and my freedom are moment from being dramatically altered. You're nice people as people. But as a nation, your paranoia makes you scary to visit.
I find the argument that loot boxes are implemented in a way that is 'not gambling' if you can't sell the results for real world money, specious.
More to the point...
"we don't provide or authorize any way to cash out or sell items in virtual currency for real-world money."
It's a form of gambling that the player can't win.
Yeah, that was a fun one, especially on a terminal server.
Did you really just blame that on Republicans?
You are a fucking moron if you think it lays at the feet of anyone except Democrats, who have been in complete control for 15 years, and 89% of the last century.
I know you're a troll, and I'm not American but I'd just like to point out that all you're illustrating is that the damage a Republican does in one year of power takes in excess of ten years of Democrat rule to repair.
"Don't think of the pink elephant. Don't think of the pink elephant."
Damn. Thought of the pink elephant. Now they know.
How about we just stop accepting visa applicants entirely?
Well, that's one way to increase unemployment. For instance, the professors who offer classes to foreign students won't have them anymore. And of course the follow-on jobs. Even if you discard the student visas, there are still American citizens employed supporting foreign workers. From people pouring them coffee to people selling them clothes to people renting them apartments... gone.
Unless unemployment is 0% , there are Americans willing to do the jobs.
Wait, what? It works the other way around. As long as unemployment isn't 0%, there are clearly Americans unwilling to do the jobs.
I raised this very question (Star Trek, transporter experiment) to my daughter when she was a teenager. Her response was, what's the difference? Our atoms have already largely completely changed over many times by now anyway. I recall reading years ago, I think it was a Time Life book or perhaps an educational movie, that we're all breathing, and thus by implication incorporating, some fraction of the actual atoms that Leonardo da Vinci breathed; a matter of statistics. Of course, that still leaves the question of whether your consciousness this very instant is already a different "thing" that it was a second ago, and only your current state of your memory leads you to believe that it is the same.
"Punch Escrow" by Tal M. Klein is a recent (2017) book I just finished reading last week that is pretty topical. It's a near-future novel where people-transporters have recently been invented and explores some of the ramifications of the tech. It was a pretty fun read. Interesting characters and quite a surprising amount of tension/action considering the protagonist is Joe Average. Also, witty banter, so the dialogue is enjoyable. I'm being deliberately spoiler-free here. Look it up on Goodreads or something for reviews.
Disclosure: I have no connection to the author, publisher, etc... I just liked this book.
Last thing I'd want while talking to a 911 dispatcher is for them to be allowed to have doubt in my story.
Last thing I'd want is a bunch of people wrongfully shot dead because doubt is too scary for some other people who might have a story that "requires" a paramilitary strike.
But tell me I have to lock up my phone in a "pouch" and you can shove your concert where the sun doesn't shine.
So, you like going to a concert and looking over a sea of glowing cellphone screens when you look at the stage?
I find it unfortunate that this is necessary. But I do see the value.
You know, my most recent concert experience (Evanescence, December 2017) there was plenty of cell phone use, but it wasn't even on the same order of magnitude for annoyance as the yelling and screaming. "You're beautiful." "I love you." "Will you marry me?" Seriously, shut up and let the lady sing, you drunk assholes. Cell phones? Meh. Not an issue. But we all have our pet peeves. Mine is evidently jerks ruining quiet/sensitive moments in live music.
So ... then ... if I steal a car in the UK it's mine because the owner can't prove otherwise?
I'm sure I'm missing something, but that sounds really fucking broken.
How the fuck do you establish ownership?
If someone steals your bag of bagels, how do you establish ownership?
I don't bother because a bag of bagels doesn't cost half a year's wages... unlike a car.
*Knock knock* "Yes hello, is there a hostage situation at this house? I drew the short straw so have to come here to your door to take your word for if there is any problem here that requires our assistance."
Is that what you are seeking?
Yes.
In civilized countries that's how it works. Know what? It actually works, too. See, one thing you don't want to do - ever- is inject more "energy" into a situation. If there's nothing wrong going on, a simple query keeps things civil. A few questions and the homeowner is fairly likely to invite one or more officers in to confirm there's no hostage situation. No yelling, no screaming, no sudden gestures, no escalation. On the other hand, if something wrong is going on, there's some risk - yes - but there's a much better chance of talking it down.
Going apeshit is for military actions, not police actions.
We have Socialized medicine in the United States, We buy insurance. where we pay for everyone on that companies healthcare.
You don't, really.
See, with socialized health care, there isn't a company involved. There's a government-run health organization which exists to serve people, not to make a profit. How you pay for it isn't key. How the services are delivered is.
I know there's a hypothetical where it's asked, "well, what if I want to pay more for service which is even better" and it's not a horrible question, but it presupposes that the baseline health-care is sub-par, which is - in most cases - not the case. Yes, here in Canada we've had periods where emergency-room wait times have been excessive, but with triage, true emergencies are handled immediately while "I've got a cough" is back-burnered. As it should be. And yes, there are occasions where some specific procedures are back-logged, and patients are even sometimes shuttled to our nearby American neighbors because they needed to be. But by and large, the vast, vast, majority of us are cared-for properly, promptly, efficiently, and... with disregard for the depth of our pockets.
I didn't have enough attention span to read the summary. Could someone please summarise it?
"Here's a couple books we'd like you to buy."
WinAmp's (default) UI was appropriate. Each button or knob or text field was exceptionally useful and well-placed.
PlexAmp looks like yet another mobile device interfaceless-interface where almost everything is buried in a burger menu or controlled by unintuitive gestures. But at least it has gradient fills everywhere there aren't transparent controls on full-colour bitmaps.
Do not want. Also, get off my goddamned lawn.
I thought the point of having a game was to play it. Now you're bitching because you have to play it more than you thought. There's no pleasing anyone these days...
The problem is when there's more game to be had, but it's "too hard" to get it.
With loot-boxes, you can have played most of a game, used most of the characters/classes/weapons, and be mostly bored of it. Still, there's one or two guns or guys or maps or mods that you would like to try out, but you can't because they're still locked behind a random number generator grind. It's quite reasonable to complain about how grindy that is.
The FCC wants to roll back imperial fiat which should have been legislated properly.
What's an "imperial fiat"? Is that some sort of Italian car driven by an Emperor? Or are those just words that don't convey meaning, but you think they sound educated? Like "paradigm shift". Also, the FCC was empowered to pass the rules it did, just as the current regime is empowered to declare those older ones void. None of this is a matter of overreach, no matter what the current board's leadership claims.
The FCC also doesn't want to have to regulate ISPs as common carriers, because that's an incredibly expensive piece of work.
Odd. Regulation is remarkably easy and inexpensive given a} the regulations are already published, and b} this kind of regulation doesn't require any actual effort on the FCC's part until one of the mega-ISPs decides to try to weasel those regulations for "value-added-services", a.k.a. more profit. And even then, it's a fairly simple matter of passing a decision.
This isn't like regulating the alcohol industry, where you actually need people to go out and try to get bartenders to serve under-agers and the like.
Your internet is no different with the rollback of this fake "network neutrality" then it was for the 8 years Obama was in office and it was okay. And, for the record, nothing about this "network neutrality" prevented anything you feared happening to the internet.
What alternate-history universe are you from? In ours, several ISPs were on the brink of, and beyond the brink of anti-consumer actions. The most obvious example was double-dipping, demanding additional payments from Netflix. "It would be a terrible shame if something happened to your pretty packets as they traverse our network." Consumers were already paying for their bandwidth... for the ISP to obtain, transport, and deliver the packets that were requested. If consumers contract for #Mbps and a monthly cap of #Gb of data, they've paid for those bytes' transit, and that they come from a source with deep pockets shouldn't matter.
It would only have changed the words that ISPs use to throttle traffic. Instead of "throttling Netflix" they would just "throttle encrpted video playback" but still could have given preference to their data which is a live stream.
How about they don't throttle anything because they've been paid to deliver the packets already? Just a thought. Also, the main purpose behind network neutrality.
You got suckered.
Well, there's an assumption. Turns out I don't live in the country getting suckered. I just know that crap flows downhill.
But here's the biggest sign that you're off your rocker: if the network neutrality regulations were ineffective, why would the FCC under Ajit Pai be so incredibly zealous about repealing them? It should be easy to earn voter happiness by bowing to the public pressure and saying "fine, let them keep their placebo regulation." Right. Because it's not a placebo. It's very much protecting the public from more predatory practices than the massively-profitable ISPs are already undertaking.
Running away from walled gardens to another walled garden is not a solution to the net neutrality problem and certainly doesn't "take the profit out" of it. It just moves that profit to another company. /vertisement.
Yeah, I'm kind of not seeing how this is a solution. The FCC wants to make a multi-tiered Internet, where you pay more to get the data you want. With this... you pay more to get what you want.
That's even assuming it doesn't just get throttled into oblivion. Or worse, bought by Comcast or AT&T.
Release notes may not always indicate what bug fixes have actually been included. If you have an installed base you may not wish to signal an unpatched vulnerability in the field to the unscrupulous. You may also be somewhat vague about a fix that enables the product to achieve the specification which marketing claims the product already achieves. This is why product management generally has a say in what the developers may have listed in their release notes.
Fair enough. So how about we treat security flaws separate from logic flaws where possible?
Imaginary Software 2.7.3.21a
SECURITY: Fixed critical issue allowing remote code execution and remote data access and alteration... upgrade NOW
SECURITY: Fixed critical issue allowing malicious input files to cause software to upload all your data to an attacker's server
BUGFIX: Fixed bug that prevented drag & drop of widgets on screen #3 on Tuesdays when using Brazillian codepages
BUGFIX: Fixed bug that caused a crash if the lyrics for The Police's Roxanne were typed
My point is, things that you don't need to know the WHY of can be obscured, but bugs that are interesting because "oh, great... I've been changing codepage from Brazillian any time I needed to drag & drop widgets on Tuesdays... now I don't need to" are documented. Just a thought.
Unfortunately, that is par for the course for the mainstream press, which lives on hyperbole, distortion and exaggeration. In fact, it is not too far-fetched to assert that the mainstream has been, for a long time now, moving from the news report business to the entertainment business.
To be fair, as topics get more complicated, the issue of understanding becomes more a factor. Expecting reporters to be able to process, summarize, and relate a study/finding/report on banana blight or the consequences of a bad batch of sunscreen is reasonable. Expecting them to be able to make advanced biology, physics, math, economics or other hard sciences understandable in 5-minute stories... unreasonable.
Too many topics require so much background to dimly understand them that it's almost impractical to try to report on them to the general populace.
Remember, most of us Slashdot readers are highly technical people who tend as a generalization to expose ourselves to a breadth of technical topics, so we understand at least what areas out of our expertise are about. Quantum mechanics is hard for "us", but we've got a chance to recognize what we don't know. The general populace is much more screwed.
I recall to mind a lengthy discussion with a relative, explaining the practical limitations of wireless signalling, specifically that there is only a limited spectrum that exists, and after all was said and done, his response was "they should make more". Not "they should reallocate spectrum more wisely", but literally "make more". No physics background.
As a Canadian, I'd just like to apologize for this.
Wait. We didn't do anything wrong?
I'd still like to apologize.