I agree completely. It is wrong to make such a comment about Montana, or any other state in that part of the country IMO.
Instead, the "brogrammer-shitheads" should be sent to Mississippi. They'd fit in just great there. Alabama is probably also a great destination for them.
It has nothing to do with the DOJ caring about anything. The only thing that's important is the letter of the law. The law says publicly-available material must be handicap-accessible. This material is not. Therefore, the university has to fix this situation, to get into compliance with the law. They could spend a bunch of money and transcribe it all, but that's expensive. So they chose the cheaper option: remove it all from public availability. So, if there's no material that's publicly-available, then they're not running afoul of the law that says all publicly-available material must be accessible, and they're OK.
What the DOJ cares about is irrelevant. Even if the DOJ doesn't like this, it's too bad: the law is the law. The law doesn't say "publicly-available material must be handicap-accessible, and if someone complains, you have to make it more accessible, rather than just removing it".
The DOJ isn't really to blame here; they're just enforcing the law as written. If you don't like it, then you need to get Congress to amend the law and pass a better one. There's two parties at fault here: 1) Congress, for writing a crappy law (it should have exempted stuff that's freely available, as in beer: no one's under obligation to provide stuff for free, and beggars can't be choosers), and 2) the self-serving moron who complained about this and made it into a big legal issue.
Doesn't matter. He signed it, so it's his baby. He could have vetoed it.
It's just like Clinton signing the law overturning the Glas-Steagal Act, and causing the 2008 mortgage meltdown. Clinton apologists keep trying to put all the blame on Congress, but Billy signed it, so it's really his fault.
You're a fucking moron. I didn't make up any silly rumors, I just expressed an opinion about what I wished they'd do. I have little expectation they'd actually do it, it was just an offhand comment. Go hang out with your fellow Apple cultists and worship pictures of Jobs, you stupid prick.
Simple: as taxpayers, we have every right to criticize how the University works internally, and to balk if they're wasting money or spending it in ways we don't like. (This really only applies to CA taxpayers BTW, so let's assume we're CA residents.) If a state taxpayer-funded university has done a terrible job running a department, and is now laying off employees and outsourcing the work to India, then I think taxpayers have every right to demand their money back, and for this school to stop receiving funding.
Otherwise, you could have people arguing that it'd be more cost-effective to outsource other government services offshore, such as incarceration. Should we send CA prisoners to China for incarceration, because it saves money?
This is a public-funded university, so there's more at stake than doing "a reasonably cost-effective job". Any government funded institution has to answer to taxpayers, and they frequently have other interests than just being as cheap as possible. Employing locals is a big factor. And if the locals are doing a terrible job, despite *higher* pay, then that's a blatant mismanagement problem, and taxpayers have every right to demand it be fixed, or else the university lose its funding. In short, when you accept money from people in a way that's not a simple business transaction, they have every right to tell you what to do with that money. Investors have every right to tell a company (like a start-up) how to run their business, and taxpayers have every right to tell a government-funded institution how to run its affairs. Don't like it? Don't accept the money.
It's not that. It's Slashdot's utterly broken moderation system.
For example, if I were granted mod points today, I could not mod quantaman's comment up, because I'm making this comment here and stupid Slashdot won't allow me to mod and post in the same article. I've been complaining about this for many years now, but it never changes, and probably never will because the site maintainers are stubborn and stupid, and always have been (even when they change).
Because of this stupid rule, I simply never mod anything, because inevitably I'll want to make a comment somewhere, and that undoes my prior moderations. So why bother?
So the only people making moderations are idiots who have nothing intelligent to say, or people who do have something intelligent to say but then don't because they want to "do their part", so we lose out on their useful commentary. It's a horribly stupid system.
You don't generally go to a public bath with the purpose of staring at other dudes' junk
No, but if you're surrounded by them you can't not see it.
And even if you do, those same guys might be on the beach tomorrow and other than a small part in the middle of their body you get to see the exact same scenery
I don't know about you, but I don't go to highly crowded beaches. When I do go to a beach, I find a spot that's not too close to other people. A public bath is far, far more crowded than just about any beach I've ever seen. Beaches are outdoors; public baths are not, so naturally there isn't going to be as much room in them.
Or anywhere else that its common to see guys in little or no clothing.
Like where? I do my best to avoid crowded locker rooms. I'd honestly be perfectly happy if I could just have my own indoor pool and exercise room and never set foot in a men's locker room again. I find them completely disgusting.
I mean I don't see the point of going to a public bath when I have a perfectly good shower at home
Yeah, I agree about this, I was just commenting on the OP's comment about Japanese public baths. I have honestly no idea why people would go to such a thing. But it's not just them; European or European-style saunas are the same way. Yuk.
they wouldn't exactly announce themselves given the negative perception of well.. a bunch of naked dudes hanging out together.
See, this is exactly my point. Why would a bunch of supposedly-straight dudes want to get naked and hang out together? It boggles my mind. I don't even care much for hanging out with other men when we're all fully clothed.
Yeah, it's not feasible - unless you, you know, removed all the ports on the device, allowing for a hermetically sealed product that *is* truly waterproof. Which is what the point of the thread is.
Wrong. Try taking your "hermetically sealed product that *is* truly waterproof" down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. The pressure will destroy it.
Nothing is really waterproof (save deep-sea diving equipment). Show me 1 product (electronic, not something like a solid piece of metal) that's actually waterproof. You won't find it. Everything is water-resistant, with some kind of rating about how ingress-resistant it is, or what depth it can withstand, etc.
Also, fwiw, an IP rating of IP67 or IP68 is, functionally, "waterproof"
Exactly. When people casually say "waterproof", within the context of consumer electronic devices, this is what they really mean. They don't mean that it can be used in deep-sea diving. No consumer product is like that. So these pedants that spring up with stupid comments like "it's not really waterproof, it's only water resistant!" are just an annoyance.
No, I'd rather sit in a bath by myself at home, or with my girlfriend.
Though if I absolutely must share a public bath with a bunch of naked people, a bunch of beautiful naked women (and no men) would be tolerable I suppose.
If you're referring to the people being attractive, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the pools being kid-free as being an attractive feature: much less urine in the pool, no floating turds, no noisy brats running around and screaming for no reason, etc. This isn't to say that kids are all bad, but since no one seems to be able to come up with a way of limiting places to only the well-behaved kids, not having any kids at all is the next best solution.
No consumer electronic device is "waterproof". It isn't feasible. That's why the "IP" ratings exist (IP67, IP68, IP69, etc.), to rate devices on how water-resistant (and dust-resistant) they are.
Sounds like the university needs to get rid of their deadweight and hire better employees. With generally higher wages, that shouldn't be that hard. If the university (which is publicly funded) can't do that, then maybe it should just shut down, or at least lose all its public funding and go private. An organization that broken with its hiring processes has no business staying in operation, AFAIC.
The problem is, when you have a situation where there seem to be mainly two "sides" to an issue, and the actual white supremacists and neo-Nazis are firmly and loudly on one of those sides, it's naturally going to make everyone else on that side look bad. It's up to the other people on that side to disavow those elements of their coalition and distance themselves from them. If you can't be bothered to do that, other people can't be bothered to distinguish between you and the Nazis.
Or, you can get a phone that's water-resistant even without a case, *and* has a headphone jack. My 3-year-old Samsung S5 is exactly like that. I can even remove the back cover with my fingernail and easily replace the battery, *and* it's still waterproof despite that feature.
You don't need to eliminate the headphone jack, or even have a cover on it, for your phone to be waterproof.
Because manufacturers can make more profit that way, selling you a phone for $700 that can't be easily or economically repaired, and then gets thrown away after 2 years. As long as people happily buy such products (along with plenty of marketing to convince them that this is better for them), it's a winning strategy.
My 3-year-old Samsung Galaxy S5 has a headphone jack, a USB3 jack, and a removable battery (with a back cover that's removable with your fingernail), and it's waterproof. It's not that hard to do.
Exactly. I have a couple of sets of Sennheiser noise-canceling headphones, and one of those sets is a very high-end set (PXC450). If I can't plug them into a phone, I'm not buying that phone. No, I'm not going to use Bluetooth headphones because BT audio sounds like shit. Of course, my headphones do use batteries, but they don't actually require them as they'll pass-through audio with the battery power off, you just don't get any noise-canceling. Try that with BT headphones.
The 3.5" floppy was a special case really. It wasn't kept around so ridiculously long because people actually wanted it, it was kept around because stupid Windows *required* it for device drivers, particularly during a Windows install (meaning the USB floppies probably wouldn't have worked either). If it weren't for that fact, PC makers would have dumped floppy drives many years earlier, because no one was using them for anything else.
So for the floppies, you can place the blame squarely on Microsoft and their idiocy.
For all the other ports, they kept those around because enough people wanted them that it made sense to keep them, and the incremental cost was low enough to justify it, even with lots of competition between PC and motherboard makers. Dsub ports are seriously cheap, and the driver circuitry for them is too.
Is that a real technical limitation, or a problem with poor implementation? What's stopping the USB keyboards from queuing up more than 6 keys, and sending them over the wire when they can?
And don't forget, after that water evaporates, and then falls back to the Earth as rain, and then is collected and purified and used in the public water system for you to drink, it still contains the essence of that person's urine....
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely. It is wrong to make such a comment about Montana, or any other state in that part of the country IMO.
Instead, the "brogrammer-shitheads" should be sent to Mississippi. They'd fit in just great there. Alabama is probably also a great destination for them.
fallacy: No True Scotsman
It has nothing to do with the DOJ caring about anything. The only thing that's important is the letter of the law. The law says publicly-available material must be handicap-accessible. This material is not. Therefore, the university has to fix this situation, to get into compliance with the law. They could spend a bunch of money and transcribe it all, but that's expensive. So they chose the cheaper option: remove it all from public availability. So, if there's no material that's publicly-available, then they're not running afoul of the law that says all publicly-available material must be accessible, and they're OK.
What the DOJ cares about is irrelevant. Even if the DOJ doesn't like this, it's too bad: the law is the law. The law doesn't say "publicly-available material must be handicap-accessible, and if someone complains, you have to make it more accessible, rather than just removing it".
The DOJ isn't really to blame here; they're just enforcing the law as written. If you don't like it, then you need to get Congress to amend the law and pass a better one. There's two parties at fault here: 1) Congress, for writing a crappy law (it should have exempted stuff that's freely available, as in beer: no one's under obligation to provide stuff for free, and beggars can't be choosers), and 2) the self-serving moron who complained about this and made it into a big legal issue.
Doesn't matter. He signed it, so it's his baby. He could have vetoed it.
It's just like Clinton signing the law overturning the Glas-Steagal Act, and causing the 2008 mortgage meltdown. Clinton apologists keep trying to put all the blame on Congress, but Billy signed it, so it's really his fault.
That would be trivial to fix in an emulator by simply adding a time delay.
You're a fucking moron. I didn't make up any silly rumors, I just expressed an opinion about what I wished they'd do. I have little expectation they'd actually do it, it was just an offhand comment. Go hang out with your fellow Apple cultists and worship pictures of Jobs, you stupid prick.
Taking a phone to the bottom of a pool for 30 minutes is stupid. You want to keep your phone underwater for 30 minutes? That's a stupid comment.
Simple: as taxpayers, we have every right to criticize how the University works internally, and to balk if they're wasting money or spending it in ways we don't like. (This really only applies to CA taxpayers BTW, so let's assume we're CA residents.) If a state taxpayer-funded university has done a terrible job running a department, and is now laying off employees and outsourcing the work to India, then I think taxpayers have every right to demand their money back, and for this school to stop receiving funding.
Otherwise, you could have people arguing that it'd be more cost-effective to outsource other government services offshore, such as incarceration. Should we send CA prisoners to China for incarceration, because it saves money?
This is a public-funded university, so there's more at stake than doing "a reasonably cost-effective job". Any government funded institution has to answer to taxpayers, and they frequently have other interests than just being as cheap as possible. Employing locals is a big factor. And if the locals are doing a terrible job, despite *higher* pay, then that's a blatant mismanagement problem, and taxpayers have every right to demand it be fixed, or else the university lose its funding. In short, when you accept money from people in a way that's not a simple business transaction, they have every right to tell you what to do with that money. Investors have every right to tell a company (like a start-up) how to run their business, and taxpayers have every right to tell a government-funded institution how to run its affairs. Don't like it? Don't accept the money.
It's not that. It's Slashdot's utterly broken moderation system.
For example, if I were granted mod points today, I could not mod quantaman's comment up, because I'm making this comment here and stupid Slashdot won't allow me to mod and post in the same article. I've been complaining about this for many years now, but it never changes, and probably never will because the site maintainers are stubborn and stupid, and always have been (even when they change).
Because of this stupid rule, I simply never mod anything, because inevitably I'll want to make a comment somewhere, and that undoes my prior moderations. So why bother?
So the only people making moderations are idiots who have nothing intelligent to say, or people who do have something intelligent to say but then don't because they want to "do their part", so we lose out on their useful commentary. It's a horribly stupid system.
You don't generally go to a public bath with the purpose of staring at other dudes' junk
No, but if you're surrounded by them you can't not see it.
And even if you do, those same guys might be on the beach tomorrow and other than a small part in the middle of their body you get to see the exact same scenery
I don't know about you, but I don't go to highly crowded beaches. When I do go to a beach, I find a spot that's not too close to other people. A public bath is far, far more crowded than just about any beach I've ever seen. Beaches are outdoors; public baths are not, so naturally there isn't going to be as much room in them.
Or anywhere else that its common to see guys in little or no clothing.
Like where? I do my best to avoid crowded locker rooms. I'd honestly be perfectly happy if I could just have my own indoor pool and exercise room and never set foot in a men's locker room again. I find them completely disgusting.
I mean I don't see the point of going to a public bath when I have a perfectly good shower at home
Yeah, I agree about this, I was just commenting on the OP's comment about Japanese public baths. I have honestly no idea why people would go to such a thing. But it's not just them; European or European-style saunas are the same way. Yuk.
they wouldn't exactly announce themselves given the negative perception of well.. a bunch of naked dudes hanging out together.
See, this is exactly my point. Why would a bunch of supposedly-straight dudes want to get naked and hang out together? It boggles my mind. I don't even care much for hanging out with other men when we're all fully clothed.
Yeah, it's not feasible - unless you, you know, removed all the ports on the device, allowing for a hermetically sealed product that *is* truly waterproof. Which is what the point of the thread is.
Wrong. Try taking your "hermetically sealed product that *is* truly waterproof" down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. The pressure will destroy it.
Nothing is really waterproof (save deep-sea diving equipment). Show me 1 product (electronic, not something like a solid piece of metal) that's actually waterproof. You won't find it. Everything is water-resistant, with some kind of rating about how ingress-resistant it is, or what depth it can withstand, etc.
Also, fwiw, an IP rating of IP67 or IP68 is, functionally, "waterproof"
Exactly. When people casually say "waterproof", within the context of consumer electronic devices, this is what they really mean. They don't mean that it can be used in deep-sea diving. No consumer product is like that. So these pedants that spring up with stupid comments like "it's not really waterproof, it's only water resistant!" are just an annoyance.
No, I'd rather sit in a bath by myself at home, or with my girlfriend.
Though if I absolutely must share a public bath with a bunch of naked people, a bunch of beautiful naked women (and no men) would be tolerable I suppose.
If you're referring to the people being attractive, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the pools being kid-free as being an attractive feature: much less urine in the pool, no floating turds, no noisy brats running around and screaming for no reason, etc. This isn't to say that kids are all bad, but since no one seems to be able to come up with a way of limiting places to only the well-behaved kids, not having any kids at all is the next best solution.
No consumer electronic device is "waterproof". It isn't feasible. That's why the "IP" ratings exist (IP67, IP68, IP69, etc.), to rate devices on how water-resistant (and dust-resistant) they are.
Sounds like you need to find some new friends, and stop wasting time hanging around your shitty family members.
Sounds like the university needs to get rid of their deadweight and hire better employees. With generally higher wages, that shouldn't be that hard. If the university (which is publicly funded) can't do that, then maybe it should just shut down, or at least lose all its public funding and go private. An organization that broken with its hiring processes has no business staying in operation, AFAIC.
The problem is, when you have a situation where there seem to be mainly two "sides" to an issue, and the actual white supremacists and neo-Nazis are firmly and loudly on one of those sides, it's naturally going to make everyone else on that side look bad. It's up to the other people on that side to disavow those elements of their coalition and distance themselves from them. If you can't be bothered to do that, other people can't be bothered to distinguish between you and the Nazis.
Or, you can get a phone that's water-resistant even without a case, *and* has a headphone jack. My 3-year-old Samsung S5 is exactly like that. I can even remove the back cover with my fingernail and easily replace the battery, *and* it's still waterproof despite that feature.
You don't need to eliminate the headphone jack, or even have a cover on it, for your phone to be waterproof.
Why do these phones have to be disposable?
Because manufacturers can make more profit that way, selling you a phone for $700 that can't be easily or economically repaired, and then gets thrown away after 2 years. As long as people happily buy such products (along with plenty of marketing to convince them that this is better for them), it's a winning strategy.
You're obviously not in Apple's target demographic, which is basically hipster morons, rather than people who want practical devices.
My 3-year-old Samsung Galaxy S5 has a headphone jack, a USB3 jack, and a removable battery (with a back cover that's removable with your fingernail), and it's waterproof. It's not that hard to do.
Exactly. I have a couple of sets of Sennheiser noise-canceling headphones, and one of those sets is a very high-end set (PXC450). If I can't plug them into a phone, I'm not buying that phone. No, I'm not going to use Bluetooth headphones because BT audio sounds like shit. Of course, my headphones do use batteries, but they don't actually require them as they'll pass-through audio with the battery power off, you just don't get any noise-canceling. Try that with BT headphones.
The 3.5" floppy was a special case really. It wasn't kept around so ridiculously long because people actually wanted it, it was kept around because stupid Windows *required* it for device drivers, particularly during a Windows install (meaning the USB floppies probably wouldn't have worked either). If it weren't for that fact, PC makers would have dumped floppy drives many years earlier, because no one was using them for anything else.
So for the floppies, you can place the blame squarely on Microsoft and their idiocy.
For all the other ports, they kept those around because enough people wanted them that it made sense to keep them, and the incremental cost was low enough to justify it, even with lots of competition between PC and motherboard makers. Dsub ports are seriously cheap, and the driver circuitry for them is too.
Is that a real technical limitation, or a problem with poor implementation? What's stopping the USB keyboards from queuing up more than 6 keys, and sending them over the wire when they can?
And don't forget, after that water evaporates, and then falls back to the Earth as rain, and then is collected and purified and used in the public water system for you to drink, it still contains the essence of that person's urine....