Is debunking someone's claim that they "invented" email not an example of press freedom too? Because Thiel is also bankrolling that libel suit against Gawker.
They said the smaller xbone coming out this year will be cheaper, so they're not really pulling an Osbourne. There's still good reasons to get an xbone.
It's the opposite of Nintendo. The latter has "announced" (well, acknowledged its existence) the NX and told everyone the Wii U - which has seen no price cuts - is about to be discontinued. So they've out-Osbourned Osbourne.
IIRC HPFS failed because it was part of OS/2, and because OS/2's file system requirements - that HPFS met - were considerably simpler than NT's.
IBM eventually dropped it in favor of JFS, but that was because it was owned by Microsoft, and (like all file systems) had hard limits on file and partition sizes that needed to be resolved by the mid-1990s. Had Microsoft and IBM continued to co-develop OS/2, it's quite probable HPFS would have continued to evolve too.
I don't disagree with the rest, but I'm not seeing a good reason to knock HPFS. It was the OS/2-NT politics that killed it, technically it was exactly what it said it was, a (reliable, stable) high performance file system.
Either series will do, Max is a combination cat and human, she just looks human... (yes, I had Dark Angel in mind when writing the above but I suspect the underlying concept has been done by more than one author...)
If the problem is ethics, surely the solution would be to obtain military funding for this. A source of genetically engineered animal-human hybrids, combining the best features of both, would be invaluable to a modern military that needs new ways to fight a radically different type of enemy to that it was set up to do. The military could have at its disposal superhumans with animal senses, and at the same time push forward medical technology to benefit everyone.
Why was it a problem that Windows XP users hung on to Windows XP? Vista, like Windows 10, came with a lot of issues that made users evenly split between people who couldn't stand it and people who loved it.
Had Windows XP users been subject to this kind of harassment to make them upgrade to Vista, then two things would likely have happened.
First, as I suspect will happen with 10, they'll lose users to alternatives. Admittedly that's Mac now. Back in 2006/7, Ubuntu was actually very good and had a UI a close second behind Mac OS X in terms of user friendliness. There's no doubt in my mind that, at that time, users would have switched to Ubuntu in droves. The post-GNOME 3/Unity debacle makes that an unlikely choice right now for Windows 10 skeptics, but it's certainly making people look elsewhere.
Second, and more importantly, Windows 7 would never have happened. Windows 7 is the fixed version of Vista, the first usable version of that operating system. Nobody doubts that 10 is imperfect. Even those with machines powerful enough to run it comfortably are concerned about the OS's security/privacy issues, and the forced reboots. Nobody likes this, and in a normal world Microsoft would have felt obliged to fix that.
What is the incentive for Microsoft to fix the problems with Windows 10?
The rest of the media spent the 1990s talking about Clinton's genitalia, promoted Bush as someone you'd have a beer with (no I fucking wouldn't), suppressed criticism of the lead up to the Iraq War (attacking critics as unpatriotic), and refused to drop that policy until late into Bush's presidency, and, by and large, avoided mentioning the dangers of the post-2008 Republican melt-down because they're too scared they'll be criticized as "left wing", until the rise of Trump made it impossible to ignore any more.
And how are they both "far left" and a "mouthpiece for the Democratic party"? The Democrats are a centrist party - why do you think Sanders is being badmouthed by it? The person the Democratic establishment wants to win is friends with Henry Kissenger for fuck's sake.
Look, the actual judge's order is linked in the article. Just go read that and stop attacking the source
As I've explained several times, a judge's order is useless without context. Without context, we don't know if this is Brown v. Board of Education, or one of Judge Roy Moore's pronouncements on gay marriage.
And how, may I ask, was the judge able to achieve that? Time travel? An amazing precognition ability that can predict, in some unbiased way, how his own rulings will be understood by the wider community?
No, but yours appeared to be, from your comment: "I'm not saying the story's wrong, but could you have found better sources than the Daily Caller and Zerohedge?"
You believe that wanting a better source is the same as wanting a source that tells me what I want to hear? This has to be projection on your part, because for normal human beings, wanting something "better" means "higher quality", or "something that is more of a _source_ - that is, something able to convey what happened with more accuracy - than the ones given.
But, apparently, your view is that a "better source" is one that tells you what you want to hear.
For the record, that might suit you, but it's not going to help you learn about the world around you. You'll end up literally becoming more and more stupid if you insist on judging sources by their point of view, rather than their ability to impart accurate information.
Continue down that road, and you'll end up doing idiotic things. Like revealing to the whole of Slashdot that you don't understand why someone would value a "source" like the Guardian or the Daily Telegraph over a third rate politicized blog.
So the judge was able to describe how his order would be received when he writing his order? It contains a description of the judge writing it that includes a representative range of opinions by his peers on his judgment, with those peers actually taking into account the order that he's writing?
There's a link to the actual court ruling, so what difference does the source make? '
The court ruling doesn't give any context. I want to know more than "A judge said something" because that's almost information free. As an example, it doesn't tell you who really went off on the deep end: the DOJ, or the judge, or both.
What's the matter, your delicate leftist sensibilities were bruised by having to wade through "offensive" material to find the link?
Are you an idiot? Is your criteria for "how I find out about the world" seriously "Is this source telling me what I want to hear"? I'm assuming some projection in your comment, because there's nothing in mine that bears any relationship to your extremist ideological twaddle.
I'd have been happy if the links were to the WSJ (minus paywall) or Times of London. Links to a politically charged blog and an economically charged blog, both of which are obsessed with ludicrous conspiracy theories, is not acceptable or useful.
FWIW I'm not really looking for either. The editorial is an opinion piece, it's interesting but people writing opinion pieces tend to think they have a license to play fast and loose with the facts.
A link to the ruling is interesting (and should have been in TFA) but by itself presents no context, something a good news article would. Who's the judge? Do lawyers generally think this is reasonable, or is it overreach? What's the DoJ's reaction?
A number of... OK, I'll be honest here, ideological nutcases, have responded to my comment pretending that my complaint is that I merely disagree with the political views of both of the websites in TFS. That's not the problem. The problem is they're unreliable and not likely to present a full picture of what's going on here. A good opinion piece from someone like Popehat might tell give us useful information, but failing that something written in a respectable news outlet as actual journalism would help. An opinion piece from a political blog, of any stripe, doesn't strike me as likely to do anything other than mislead.
Perhaps you'd like to link to this article that I apparently read and supported the use of Kos as a source?
No? I'm not surprised. It never happened.
This may come as a terrible shock to you, but the opposite of wanting trashy agenda-ridden media is wanting decent, attempts to be factual, media, not more trashy agenda-ridden media.
Bet you would've said the same if Slashdot had posted a Daily Kos article about a judge slamming Bush' DoJ...
Yes, yes, I would have done. I neither want someone to tell me what I want to hear, nor tell me what people I disagree with want to hear. I want a decent source that's going to make an effort to tell the truth.
And no, linking to the judges order doesn't mean the source is OK. I don't want to have to read a judge's order to find out whether the article that linked to it has some vague relationship with reality.
What about we do it the way we've done it since capitalism and democracy in their current forms began, both? The voters can decide who sets the laws, the legislators can legislate, and the investors can decide what businesses they want to fund in that environment?
I wish that were true. Never underestimate the stupidity of smart people. Especially when they know they're smart, so assume they know more than they really do.
It's the "more vocal about it" bit that's the problem. If you're relying on quality ratings (which admittedly is probably something you shouldn't be), then it renders them meaningless if a 6 means "Superb, but aimed at women, so lots of men for no apparent reason decided to voice their displeasure", while a 9 means "Popular with men, but the other 50% of the audience just rolled their eyes and ignored it."
Again: I'm not trying to say movie/TV/etc execs should be using IMDB ratings, just that this is but one reason why they're meaningless. Likewise you probably shouldn't use them in an Internet argument for much the same reason.
ALL of which also are REAL computers, not just a glorified "thin client", that runs a REAL, Certified UNIX as its native OS (rather than a bastardized, cloud-bound, pseudo-Linux (which of course is a pseudo-UNIX)).
Isn't the most obvious solution to incomplete transmissions to wait until the entire OS is downloaded before installing it? And isn't that what Apple is doing anyway? I doubt that's the problem here, but I'm willing to be disappointed and proven wrong...
I suggest you reread his comments, all of them, not just the one I replied to. He's saying specifically that he doesn't want to hire drug users, and that he believes the argument he should hire people without drug tests is coming from the same people who advocate for H1Bs.
If he was arguing what you're claiming, it would render literally everything he's written as completely at odds with his own argument.
Context matters.
It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Already does, No Personal Attacks and Assume Good Faith are two pillars of Wikipedian law. But enforcement is arbitrary, and it doesn't help if you're up against an admin who can pretty much accuse you of anything and force you to go through a (usually biased against you) appeals process to get your editing privileges back.
Editing Wikipedia sucks. You inevitably end up against someone playing power games, and you pay the price for it. I'm not surprised that the number of participating editors has been dropping of late. I don't even bother editing as an AIP any more, it's not worth the aggravation.
Slashdot Mirror
Is debunking someone's claim that they "invented" email not an example of press freedom too? Because Thiel is also bankrolling that libel suit against Gawker.
They said the smaller xbone coming out this year will be cheaper, so they're not really pulling an Osbourne. There's still good reasons to get an xbone.
It's the opposite of Nintendo. The latter has "announced" (well, acknowledged its existence) the NX and told everyone the Wii U - which has seen no price cuts - is about to be discontinued. So they've out-Osbourned Osbourne.
>
FWIW, the fourth console in the XBOX series is likely to be called the "XBOX THREE SIXTY..."
IIRC HPFS failed because it was part of OS/2, and because OS/2's file system requirements - that HPFS met - were considerably simpler than NT's.
IBM eventually dropped it in favor of JFS, but that was because it was owned by Microsoft, and (like all file systems) had hard limits on file and partition sizes that needed to be resolved by the mid-1990s. Had Microsoft and IBM continued to co-develop OS/2, it's quite probable HPFS would have continued to evolve too.
I don't disagree with the rest, but I'm not seeing a good reason to knock HPFS. It was the OS/2-NT politics that killed it, technically it was exactly what it said it was, a (reliable, stable) high performance file system.
Either series will do, Max is a combination cat and human, she just looks human... (yes, I had Dark Angel in mind when writing the above but I suspect the underlying concept has been done by more than one author...)
If the problem is ethics, surely the solution would be to obtain military funding for this. A source of genetically engineered animal-human hybrids, combining the best features of both, would be invaluable to a modern military that needs new ways to fight a radically different type of enemy to that it was set up to do. The military could have at its disposal superhumans with animal senses, and at the same time push forward medical technology to benefit everyone.
What could possibly go wrong?
Why was it a problem that Windows XP users hung on to Windows XP? Vista, like Windows 10, came with a lot of issues that made users evenly split between people who couldn't stand it and people who loved it.
Had Windows XP users been subject to this kind of harassment to make them upgrade to Vista, then two things would likely have happened.
First, as I suspect will happen with 10, they'll lose users to alternatives. Admittedly that's Mac now. Back in 2006/7, Ubuntu was actually very good and had a UI a close second behind Mac OS X in terms of user friendliness. There's no doubt in my mind that, at that time, users would have switched to Ubuntu in droves. The post-GNOME 3/Unity debacle makes that an unlikely choice right now for Windows 10 skeptics, but it's certainly making people look elsewhere.
Second, and more importantly, Windows 7 would never have happened. Windows 7 is the fixed version of Vista, the first usable version of that operating system. Nobody doubts that 10 is imperfect. Even those with machines powerful enough to run it comfortably are concerned about the OS's security/privacy issues, and the forced reboots. Nobody likes this, and in a normal world Microsoft would have felt obliged to fix that.
What is the incentive for Microsoft to fix the problems with Windows 10?
The rest of the media spent the 1990s talking about Clinton's genitalia, promoted Bush as someone you'd have a beer with (no I fucking wouldn't), suppressed criticism of the lead up to the Iraq War (attacking critics as unpatriotic), and refused to drop that policy until late into Bush's presidency, and, by and large, avoided mentioning the dangers of the post-2008 Republican melt-down because they're too scared they'll be criticized as "left wing", until the rise of Trump made it impossible to ignore any more.
And how are they both "far left" and a "mouthpiece for the Democratic party"? The Democrats are a centrist party - why do you think Sanders is being badmouthed by it? The person the Democratic establishment wants to win is friends with Henry Kissenger for fuck's sake.
As I've explained several times, a judge's order is useless without context. Without context, we don't know if this is Brown v. Board of Education, or one of Judge Roy Moore's pronouncements on gay marriage.
And how, may I ask, was the judge able to achieve that? Time travel? An amazing precognition ability that can predict, in some unbiased way, how his own rulings will be understood by the wider community?
You believe that wanting a better source is the same as wanting a source that tells me what I want to hear? This has to be projection on your part, because for normal human beings, wanting something "better" means "higher quality", or "something that is more of a _source_ - that is, something able to convey what happened with more accuracy - than the ones given.
But, apparently, your view is that a "better source" is one that tells you what you want to hear.
For the record, that might suit you, but it's not going to help you learn about the world around you. You'll end up literally becoming more and more stupid if you insist on judging sources by their point of view, rather than their ability to impart accurate information.
Continue down that road, and you'll end up doing idiotic things. Like revealing to the whole of Slashdot that you don't understand why someone would value a "source" like the Guardian or the Daily Telegraph over a third rate politicized blog.
So the judge was able to describe how his order would be received when he writing his order? It contains a description of the judge writing it that includes a representative range of opinions by his peers on his judgment, with those peers actually taking into account the order that he's writing?
How did he perform this amazing act? Time travel?
The court ruling doesn't give any context. I want to know more than "A judge said something" because that's almost information free. As an example, it doesn't tell you who really went off on the deep end: the DOJ, or the judge, or both.
Are you an idiot? Is your criteria for "how I find out about the world" seriously "Is this source telling me what I want to hear"? I'm assuming some projection in your comment, because there's nothing in mine that bears any relationship to your extremist ideological twaddle.
I'd have been happy if the links were to the WSJ (minus paywall) or Times of London. Links to a politically charged blog and an economically charged blog, both of which are obsessed with ludicrous conspiracy theories, is not acceptable or useful.
FWIW I'm not really looking for either. The editorial is an opinion piece, it's interesting but people writing opinion pieces tend to think they have a license to play fast and loose with the facts.
A link to the ruling is interesting (and should have been in TFA) but by itself presents no context, something a good news article would. Who's the judge? Do lawyers generally think this is reasonable, or is it overreach? What's the DoJ's reaction?
A number of... OK, I'll be honest here, ideological nutcases, have responded to my comment pretending that my complaint is that I merely disagree with the political views of both of the websites in TFS. That's not the problem. The problem is they're unreliable and not likely to present a full picture of what's going on here. A good opinion piece from someone like Popehat might tell give us useful information, but failing that something written in a respectable news outlet as actual journalism would help. An opinion piece from a political blog, of any stripe, doesn't strike me as likely to do anything other than mislead.
Perhaps you'd like to link to this article that I apparently read and supported the use of Kos as a source?
No? I'm not surprised. It never happened.
This may come as a terrible shock to you, but the opposite of wanting trashy agenda-ridden media is wanting decent, attempts to be factual, media, not more trashy agenda-ridden media.
Yes, yes, I would have done. I neither want someone to tell me what I want to hear, nor tell me what people I disagree with want to hear. I want a decent source that's going to make an effort to tell the truth.
And no, linking to the judges order doesn't mean the source is OK. I don't want to have to read a judge's order to find out whether the article that linked to it has some vague relationship with reality.
I'm not saying the story's wrong, but could you have found better sources than the Daily Caller and Zerohedge?
What about we do it the way we've done it since capitalism and democracy in their current forms began, both? The voters can decide who sets the laws, the legislators can legislate, and the investors can decide what businesses they want to fund in that environment?
I wish that were true. Never underestimate the stupidity of smart people. Especially when they know they're smart, so assume they know more than they really do.
It's the "more vocal about it" bit that's the problem. If you're relying on quality ratings (which admittedly is probably something you shouldn't be), then it renders them meaningless if a 6 means "Superb, but aimed at women, so lots of men for no apparent reason decided to voice their displeasure", while a 9 means "Popular with men, but the other 50% of the audience just rolled their eyes and ignored it."
Again: I'm not trying to say movie/TV/etc execs should be using IMDB ratings, just that this is but one reason why they're meaningless. Likewise you probably shouldn't use them in an Internet argument for much the same reason.
*facepalms then shakes head sadly*
Looks like it's working, I just see a bunch of asterisks after "is" and before the "...".
Your post isn't appearing here. Did you remember to type your Slashdot password as the last line of your post? That's a common mistake.
Isn't the most obvious solution to incomplete transmissions to wait until the entire OS is downloaded before installing it? And isn't that what Apple is doing anyway? I doubt that's the problem here, but I'm willing to be disappointed and proven wrong...
I suggest you reread his comments, all of them, not just the one I replied to. He's saying specifically that he doesn't want to hire drug users, and that he believes the argument he should hire people without drug tests is coming from the same people who advocate for H1Bs.
If he was arguing what you're claiming, it would render literally everything he's written as completely at odds with his own argument.
Context matters.
It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Already does, No Personal Attacks and Assume Good Faith are two pillars of Wikipedian law. But enforcement is arbitrary, and it doesn't help if you're up against an admin who can pretty much accuse you of anything and force you to go through a (usually biased against you) appeals process to get your editing privileges back.
Editing Wikipedia sucks. You inevitably end up against someone playing power games, and you pay the price for it. I'm not surprised that the number of participating editors has been dropping of late. I don't even bother editing as an AIP any more, it's not worth the aggravation.