90 million americans were looking for a candidate worth electing, and didn't find one. they voted for nothing because there was no good vote.
that campaign of yours was so far out-of-line with what any politician or leader needs to present. you presented criminals on both sides. social criminals, financial criminals, business criminals, government criminals. you had each side accusing the other for years. each side swore to undo everything the other was fighting for. and the lies were just plain insane. it was embarrassing to watch, even as an outsider.
there's nothing wrong with a gop president, or a dem president, or an independent president. the truth is that they really don't have as much power as you think they do. the actual changes that wind up coming down the pipe, and that get to stay for more than four years, are minimally effective at best. the problem is that you have promises of power, promises of pleasure, and promises of pain to confuse you every day.
maybe, the next time you elect a leader, you should ask foreign leaders alongside which candidate they would work best -- you know, since that's probably the primary job of your top leader -- interfacing with other top leaders on a global stage.
you put up a whopping two candidates. I threw a birthday party yesterday. I made 6 different kinds of party sandwiches. maybe you should think about giving people a few more options. maybe your candidates would spend less time flinging shit at each other if there were more "eachothers" and less "shit".
Just out of curiosity, what do slashdotters think about men being forced to work with women?
It would seem, judging by things like history books, and the biggest news stories of 2017, that a lot of men don't like working with women. So why are we forcing them to? Is there something wrong with a group, even a large group of men wanting a life where they don't work with women?
Maybe they simply aren't comfortable around girls? Maybe they want to go home to their wives having not spent all day with other women? Maybe they feel overpowered by women in the work place, or maybe they feel like every comment they make to or around women to be a liability in a way very different than comments with male colleagues?
The point is that it doesn't matter what the reason. Why are we forcing men to work with women? What's wrong with the very simple: this is a men-only workplace?
I understand that twenty years ago, that would have meant women couldn't be hired. But these days, there are plenty of female-run companies, and plenty of what-would-have-been-called-progressive companies who enjoy women in the workplace.
So is it time to drop the affirmative action of requiring men to accept women in the workplace?
Today, going forward, what would happen if we were to start allowing companies to limit their workforce to men-only, purely because their workforce desires such?
The concept that everyone has a vote, and that every vote is equal falls apart when a) those voters are misinformed and when b) those votes are manipulated psychologically.
Of course, being misinformed and psychologically manipulated is the very definition of competitive marketing.
As such, combining marketing tactics with political campaigning tactics basically destroys democracy.
Sure, the voters voted for it. And I guess by that definition it's democracy, but no more than a child who votes the way his father tells him to vote, or an employee the way his boss tells him to vote, or an american the way his russian facebook friends convinces him to vote.
It's simply too easy to convince large swaths of voters of important misinformation.
But my country has vast spaces of unpopulated area. All are fully accessible via portable fuel. They'd be totally inaccessible by electric car without trillions of dollars of electrical infrastructure.
And funny thing "majority". I would argue that the few huge countries are the majority -- of the landscape. We're talking about infrastructure on a global scale. The most geography would be the majority. Not the number of pipsqueak nations, and not the number of humans. We're talking about roads. So the geography that would have/need/build the majority of the roads, would represent the majority.
Therefore, my huge country is indeed the majority. And I do believe that my country is the largest country in this world. As such, you're talking about an unfathomable expense to solve a problem that we certainly do not have. Our population of cars is dwarfed to irrelevance next to our population of trees. We aren't polluting. But we do need a way to cross this country. Shockingly, we actually have very few roads by density -- mostly because they are just that crazy expensive for such few humans.
Umm, that's very very very small by my country's standard. And it has EVERYTHING to do with the infrastructure required to support electric cars driving across it.
A crack in a road requires maintenance eventually. A downed power line requires maintenance immediately. A cracked road creates problems in that part of the road. A broken powerline causes problems for 5'000 miles. Like I said, they aren't congruent.
And we won't enjoy other benefits of electricity in the middle of nowhere where no people have ever lived.
There are no road-systems without gas along them. It's actually necessary in order to build and service the roads themselves.
See, that's what you're forgetting. It's all a part of the same system. You can choose a "better" technique, but if it requires more than the pairing itself, then it isn't "better" until you can justify the added complexity.
5'000 miles of empty road doesn't support 5'000 miles of electricity transmission because the road needs very little maintenance, and can have a few cracks without any problems, whereas the electric cables need a lot of maintenance, and can't suffer even a tiny amount of wear. The two technologies simply aren't congruent. So unless you're going to enjoy other benefits from the electricity, it simply ain't gonna work.
Not to mention that transmitting electricity that far is about a 50% loss start to finish.
Electric cars simply don't work if you use your car to drive somewhere without electricity. It's that simple. Just like all electric objects, they work great within the electrical grid, and they die a horrible useless death when there's no electricity around.
Sure, I drive my car around the city. But that's not far, and that's not long, and that's not expensive.
I also drive my car to other cities, and through mountains, on vacations and car club trips. Electric cars are useless in such territories.
I frequently drive two hours between cities, or four hours of concrete slab at a time. That's the fun of roads. Once they are built, they cost nothing until maintenance day. That big highway in the middle of nowhere doesn't breakdown with any degree of frequency.
And you want to put live power lines along it? To supply electricity to charging stations? You want 5'000 miles of powerlines between cities? Not being used for anything but electricity transport? With repeaters and cables and poles and towers? Think of the crazy amount of maintenance. Oh, and winds and ice and animals and no security of any kind?
Any bets electric cars will charge off of gas-powered charging stations? Congrats.
I'll say it again. Electricity doesn't work outside of cities. Just like sewers, and any other kind of infrastructure.
Change the fuel to whatever you want, but the idea of portable fuel is lack-of-infrastructure. Cars are the definition of portable.
If someone breaks into my home, and steals my neighbour's trinket, I'm still the victim of a home invasion. So the company is also a victim.
Privacy screens and turning the monitor doesn't stop me, as a public customer, from suddenly walking behind the secretary, head-on, and taking a photograph as I walk by.
"Sir! You aren't allowed to be back here." "Okay. Bye."
Way too late.
Are you going to call the mirror on the other side of the room a zero-day bug? What about the wall of glass windows after dark?
Silly question, as it pertains to everything on earth. 3 is better than 1. You can take the majority, you can do something else entirely, you can fail outright, you can know that something's wrong, that's the exception not the rule.
sorry your family get-togethers never include young children. mine tend to. Sorry your old friends don't have children either. Maybe you should all get together to get a bulk-discount on some fertility treatments?
Also sorry you have no client-facing duties at work. I do, and there's no celebrity gossip when you're asking for someone's money professionally. I rarely do locker-room meetings.
Perhaps you aren't able to read. Life has sex all over the place. But there are plenty of places where it is most very absent. As I've said, I'll bet that six individual hours of every one of your days has "sex" as a very inappropriate and disallowed subject. That's already half of your waking hours.
So, with that as a given, if half of your time has negative consequences to such subjects, then auto-suggesting it 100% of the time is equally inappropriate -- and just plain incorrect, as a guess.
So, riddle me this. Doesn't this allow very amateur hackers to cause major industry upsets? I can walk into just about any office building, and grab some random private information by looking over a secretary's shoulder. I then tell the company (anonymously, sure) that I stole one customer's information. The company then needs to announce to the world that they've been breached.
So little old me, with a few minutes per day, can cause a big corporate to announce a breach of 1 customer every single day.
Interesting. So with two DNS systems, I can easily look up the DNS of a site in two independent sources, and actually corroborate it? That's fantastic! If both the USA and Russia agree, I can be way more sure.
Maybe we should have a third, like Australia, or Argentina, so we can have a 2 vs 1 determination? Hell, call it DNS-5 and store it parity-distributed like RAID-5 and be beautiful.
You might want to define "mainstream of human interaction". I think you'll find that 90% of the time that you spend interactive with humans, the word "sex" is either inappropriate or not tolerated. Think of every minute that you spend at work. Think of most family get-togethers. Think of interviews, shopping, and every contractor you've hired. Any time you're speaking with someone with whom you're exchanging money, you likely avoid any suggestion of "sex".
Think about the number of people that you speak with every day, with whom you've never uttered the word even once.
a "popular" topic in some locations, not in others. I'd argue not in most. NSFW. I'd argue that most of your day is incompatible with each of those searches that you mention.
Why are you so against typing your search in the first place? Why do you need suggestions at all? One day you'll be old enough to spell "sex" without help. And maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to type too fast for suggestions to show up in-time anyway.
Mod up please. This is how I felt reading the article. I need to pay lawyers and notaries before someone will listen to me?
What if it doesn't reflect my current decisions? Same can be said of my lawyer's notarized copy too.
How do I change my legal DNR? I need to call lawyers and such.
How do I change my tattoo DNR? I use the sharpie in my junk drawer.
I'm fine with confusion when a permanent tattoo DNR has a ballpoint pen line running through it. That's confusion. But it really doesn't get any more clear than this case. If someone else was dumb enough to have a tattoo and change their mind and still keep the tattoo...well then they would have been dumb enough to keep the legal document unchanged too.
I would argue that "A- Blood type" is an instruction. It's actually even worse than DNR. DNR leaves it up to the medical staff to actually do it. "A- Blood type" translates into "don't waste time with a blood test, and instead just pump A- directly into my veins".
Well, "don't do a blood test" is an instruction. But more than that, what if I know that my blood type is "B+"? Respecting my tattoo would be killing me.
Information is just information. Acting on information makes that information a directive.
Another problem that 1% had, and that no one wanted solved, especially by a solution with a huge cost: no one will be looking over my shoulder when my battery is dead.
It's really this simple. If you were at a gala dinner, at your local theatre, spending $2'500 dollars per ticket, enjoying wine, a silent auction, city council discussions, and a celebrity performance, and you're talking to the mayor of the city, and he turns to you and says "I want to have...", don't finish his sentence with "sex?".
Some subjects simply aren't appropriate in some situations. And since google doesn't know what your situation is -- locker-room or ballroom -- then err on the side of polite, always.
Doesn't stop you from typing whatever you want.
The difference is that if you're the mayor's aid, and you finish his sentence that way in front of the theatre staff, then you get fired, and appropriately so. If you're professional, then you may offer suggestions of all sorts, just not the ones that might be considered out-of-place at the gala.
...from auto-guess? Yeah. Don't auto-guess things that are ever taboo.
It's really this simple. If you were at a gala dinner, at your local theatre, spending $500 dollars per ticket, enjoying wine, a silent auction, city council discussions, and a celebrity performance, and you're talking to the mayor of the city, and he turns to you and says "I want to have...", don't finish his sentence with "sex?".
Some subjects simply aren't appropriate in some situations. And since google doesn't know what your situation is -- locker-room or ballroom -- then err on the side of polite, always.
Doesn't stop you from typing whatever you want.
The difference is that if you're the mayor's aid, and you finish his sentence that way in front of the theatre staff, then you get fired, and appropriately so. If you're professional, then you may offer suggestions of all sorts, just not the ones that might be considered out-of-place at the gala.
Slashdot Mirror
90 million americans were looking for a candidate worth electing, and didn't find one. they voted for nothing because there was no good vote.
that campaign of yours was so far out-of-line with what any politician or leader needs to present. you presented criminals on both sides. social criminals, financial criminals, business criminals, government criminals. you had each side accusing the other for years. each side swore to undo everything the other was fighting for. and the lies were just plain insane. it was embarrassing to watch, even as an outsider.
there's nothing wrong with a gop president, or a dem president, or an independent president. the truth is that they really don't have as much power as you think they do. the actual changes that wind up coming down the pipe, and that get to stay for more than four years, are minimally effective at best. the problem is that you have promises of power, promises of pleasure, and promises of pain to confuse you every day.
maybe, the next time you elect a leader, you should ask foreign leaders alongside which candidate they would work best -- you know, since that's probably the primary job of your top leader -- interfacing with other top leaders on a global stage.
you put up a whopping two candidates. I threw a birthday party yesterday. I made 6 different kinds of party sandwiches. maybe you should think about giving people a few more options. maybe your candidates would spend less time flinging shit at each other if there were more "eachothers" and less "shit".
Just out of curiosity, what do slashdotters think about men being forced to work with women?
It would seem, judging by things like history books, and the biggest news stories of 2017, that a lot of men don't like working with women. So why are we forcing them to? Is there something wrong with a group, even a large group of men wanting a life where they don't work with women?
Maybe they simply aren't comfortable around girls? Maybe they want to go home to their wives having not spent all day with other women? Maybe they feel overpowered by women in the work place, or maybe they feel like every comment they make to or around women to be a liability in a way very different than comments with male colleagues?
The point is that it doesn't matter what the reason. Why are we forcing men to work with women? What's wrong with the very simple: this is a men-only workplace?
I understand that twenty years ago, that would have meant women couldn't be hired. But these days, there are plenty of female-run companies, and plenty of what-would-have-been-called-progressive companies who enjoy women in the workplace.
So is it time to drop the affirmative action of requiring men to accept women in the workplace?
Today, going forward, what would happen if we were to start allowing companies to limit their workforce to men-only, purely because their workforce desires such?
The concept that everyone has a vote, and that every vote is equal falls apart when a) those voters are misinformed and when b) those votes are manipulated psychologically.
Of course, being misinformed and psychologically manipulated is the very definition of competitive marketing.
As such, combining marketing tactics with political campaigning tactics basically destroys democracy.
Sure, the voters voted for it. And I guess by that definition it's democracy, but no more than a child who votes the way his father tells him to vote, or an employee the way his boss tells him to vote, or an american the way his russian facebook friends convinces him to vote.
It's simply too easy to convince large swaths of voters of important misinformation.
This is when democracy fails.
All conversation will be held in the strictest of confidence.
Memory will be wiped after you leave.
So, tell me about your problems.
(forgive me if I've flubbed a line or two, it's been close to thirty years since my second sound card).
But my country has vast spaces of unpopulated area. All are fully accessible via portable fuel. They'd be totally inaccessible by electric car without trillions of dollars of electrical infrastructure.
And funny thing "majority". I would argue that the few huge countries are the majority -- of the landscape. We're talking about infrastructure on a global scale. The most geography would be the majority. Not the number of pipsqueak nations, and not the number of humans. We're talking about roads. So the geography that would have/need/build the majority of the roads, would represent the majority.
Therefore, my huge country is indeed the majority. And I do believe that my country is the largest country in this world. As such, you're talking about an unfathomable expense to solve a problem that we certainly do not have. Our population of cars is dwarfed to irrelevance next to our population of trees. We aren't polluting. But we do need a way to cross this country. Shockingly, we actually have very few roads by density -- mostly because they are just that crazy expensive for such few humans.
Umm, that's very very very small by my country's standard. And it has EVERYTHING to do with the infrastructure required to support electric cars driving across it.
millions of square kilometres of roaded area without anyone around is much larger than Norway.
A crack in a road requires maintenance eventually. A downed power line requires maintenance immediately. A cracked road creates problems in that part of the road. A broken powerline causes problems for 5'000 miles. Like I said, they aren't congruent.
And we won't enjoy other benefits of electricity in the middle of nowhere where no people have ever lived.
Also: your country != my country.
Norway is very very small.
They work without electricity between them.
There are no road-systems without gas along them. It's actually necessary in order to build and service the roads themselves.
See, that's what you're forgetting. It's all a part of the same system. You can choose a "better" technique, but if it requires more than the pairing itself, then it isn't "better" until you can justify the added complexity.
5'000 miles of empty road doesn't support 5'000 miles of electricity transmission because the road needs very little maintenance, and can have a few cracks without any problems, whereas the electric cables need a lot of maintenance, and can't suffer even a tiny amount of wear. The two technologies simply aren't congruent. So unless you're going to enjoy other benefits from the electricity, it simply ain't gonna work.
Not to mention that transmitting electricity that far is about a 50% loss start to finish.
Electric cars simply don't work if you use your car to drive somewhere without electricity. It's that simple. Just like all electric objects, they work great within the electrical grid, and they die a horrible useless death when there's no electricity around.
Sure, I drive my car around the city. But that's not far, and that's not long, and that's not expensive.
I also drive my car to other cities, and through mountains, on vacations and car club trips. Electric cars are useless in such territories.
I frequently drive two hours between cities, or four hours of concrete slab at a time. That's the fun of roads. Once they are built, they cost nothing until maintenance day. That big highway in the middle of nowhere doesn't breakdown with any degree of frequency.
And you want to put live power lines along it? To supply electricity to charging stations? You want 5'000 miles of powerlines between cities? Not being used for anything but electricity transport? With repeaters and cables and poles and towers? Think of the crazy amount of maintenance. Oh, and winds and ice and animals and no security of any kind?
Any bets electric cars will charge off of gas-powered charging stations? Congrats.
I'll say it again. Electricity doesn't work outside of cities. Just like sewers, and any other kind of infrastructure.
Change the fuel to whatever you want, but the idea of portable fuel is lack-of-infrastructure. Cars are the definition of portable.
If someone breaks into my home, and steals my neighbour's trinket, I'm still the victim of a home invasion. So the company is also a victim.
Privacy screens and turning the monitor doesn't stop me, as a public customer, from suddenly walking behind the secretary, head-on, and taking a photograph as I walk by.
"Sir! You aren't allowed to be back here."
"Okay. Bye."
Way too late.
Are you going to call the mirror on the other side of the room a zero-day bug? What about the wall of glass windows after dark?
Silly question, as it pertains to everything on earth. 3 is better than 1. You can take the majority, you can do something else entirely, you can fail outright, you can know that something's wrong, that's the exception not the rule.
sorry your family get-togethers never include young children. mine tend to. Sorry your old friends don't have children either. Maybe you should all get together to get a bulk-discount on some fertility treatments?
Also sorry you have no client-facing duties at work. I do, and there's no celebrity gossip when you're asking for someone's money professionally. I rarely do locker-room meetings.
Perhaps you aren't able to read. Life has sex all over the place. But there are plenty of places where it is most very absent. As I've said, I'll bet that six individual hours of every one of your days has "sex" as a very inappropriate and disallowed subject. That's already half of your waking hours.
So, with that as a given, if half of your time has negative consequences to such subjects, then auto-suggesting it 100% of the time is equally inappropriate -- and just plain incorrect, as a guess.
So, riddle me this. Doesn't this allow very amateur hackers to cause major industry upsets? I can walk into just about any office building, and grab some random private information by looking over a secretary's shoulder. I then tell the company (anonymously, sure) that I stole one customer's information. The company then needs to announce to the world that they've been breached.
So little old me, with a few minutes per day, can cause a big corporate to announce a breach of 1 customer every single day.
Sounds like a blaming-the-victim kind of thing.
Interesting. So with two DNS systems, I can easily look up the DNS of a site in two independent sources, and actually corroborate it? That's fantastic! If both the USA and Russia agree, I can be way more sure.
Maybe we should have a third, like Australia, or Argentina, so we can have a 2 vs 1 determination? Hell, call it DNS-5 and store it parity-distributed like RAID-5 and be beautiful.
You might want to define "mainstream of human interaction". I think you'll find that 90% of the time that you spend interactive with humans, the word "sex" is either inappropriate or not tolerated. Think of every minute that you spend at work. Think of most family get-togethers. Think of interviews, shopping, and every contractor you've hired. Any time you're speaking with someone with whom you're exchanging money, you likely avoid any suggestion of "sex".
Think about the number of people that you speak with every day, with whom you've never uttered the word even once.
a "popular" topic in some locations, not in others. I'd argue not in most. NSFW. I'd argue that most of your day is incompatible with each of those searches that you mention.
Why are you so against typing your search in the first place? Why do you need suggestions at all? One day you'll be old enough to spell "sex" without help. And maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to type too fast for suggestions to show up in-time anyway.
Mod up please. This is how I felt reading the article. I need to pay lawyers and notaries before someone will listen to me?
What if it doesn't reflect my current decisions? Same can be said of my lawyer's notarized copy too.
How do I change my legal DNR? I need to call lawyers and such.
How do I change my tattoo DNR? I use the sharpie in my junk drawer.
I'm fine with confusion when a permanent tattoo DNR has a ballpoint pen line running through it. That's confusion. But it really doesn't get any more clear than this case. If someone else was dumb enough to have a tattoo and change their mind and still keep the tattoo...well then they would have been dumb enough to keep the legal document unchanged too.
I would argue that "A- Blood type" is an instruction. It's actually even worse than DNR. DNR leaves it up to the medical staff to actually do it. "A- Blood type" translates into "don't waste time with a blood test, and instead just pump A- directly into my veins".
Well, "don't do a blood test" is an instruction. But more than that, what if I know that my blood type is "B+"? Respecting my tattoo would be killing me.
Information is just information. Acting on information makes that information a directive.
Another problem that 1% had, and that no one wanted solved, especially by a solution with a huge cost: no one will be looking over my shoulder when my battery is dead.
It's not about comfort. It's about context.
It's really this simple. If you were at a gala dinner, at your local theatre, spending $2'500 dollars per ticket, enjoying wine, a silent auction, city council discussions, and a celebrity performance, and you're talking to the mayor of the city, and he turns to you and says "I want to have...", don't finish his sentence with "sex?".
Some subjects simply aren't appropriate in some situations. And since google doesn't know what your situation is -- locker-room or ballroom -- then err on the side of polite, always.
Doesn't stop you from typing whatever you want.
The difference is that if you're the mayor's aid, and you finish his sentence that way in front of the theatre staff, then you get fired, and appropriately so. If you're professional, then you may offer suggestions of all sorts, just not the ones that might be considered out-of-place at the gala.
...from auto-guess? Yeah. Don't auto-guess things that are ever taboo.
It's really this simple. If you were at a gala dinner, at your local theatre, spending $500 dollars per ticket, enjoying wine, a silent auction, city council discussions, and a celebrity performance, and you're talking to the mayor of the city, and he turns to you and says "I want to have...", don't finish his sentence with "sex?".
Some subjects simply aren't appropriate in some situations. And since google doesn't know what your situation is -- locker-room or ballroom -- then err on the side of polite, always.
Doesn't stop you from typing whatever you want.
The difference is that if you're the mayor's aid, and you finish his sentence that way in front of the theatre staff, then you get fired, and appropriately so. If you're professional, then you may offer suggestions of all sorts, just not the ones that might be considered out-of-place at the gala.
"plenty"? sure. "most likely"? no. Doesn't need to be auto-guessed. If you're guessing, you're wrong.