Must admit the user ID change for you is annoying me much more than it should - the underscores affected the shape of your ID, which made it easier to scan read...
Just curious but can you name anyone who was really banned for just saying "I disagree with you"?
Also, the following is a list of the kinds of tweets people refer to as "spewing hate". Which of these would you classify as saying offensive things like "I disagree with you" or "I think the SJW argument is wrong"?
Is it the one saying she's a despicable whore? Or maybe the one saying that she should go kill herself because "feminists are a waste of air", or perhaps it's the one saying "Shut up bitch" (by the lawyer of Gamergate no less! I didn't know they had one!)?
Those are the first three BTW. Maybe you'll have more luck finding a tweet that says "I disagree with you" there?
Hate to break it to you but DICE did not start that particular tradition. That's been part of Slashdot for as long as I've been here, probably longer. The most infamous wasn't even under DICE's watch - OMG Ponies.
I'll be honest, the GGers won on this one, and I'd like to see posts about Google encouraging women into IT et al hit the bitbucket. The manbabies succeeded in effectively censoring all discussion of diversity in IT through shitposting and moderation abuse. The articles they post aren't for discussions.
Plus, I'll be honest, I don't particularly like being reminded that a sizable contingent, possibly even a majority, of the people I work along side actually hate women, blacks, etc, and want them to do badly.
I was happy believing the fantasy that we all believe in merit of solutions, the best winning, the worst losing, rather than in whose advocates argues loudest and with the most cruelty, and whose advocates are most easily intimidated out of our profession.
Which AJAXy one, D2 or Beta? The former's been the default for a decade or so, and when I asked Pudge about problems with the original classic UI he tended to be dismissive of people who still used it as a small minority.
To be honest, for a lot of us it just means "Who the f---? Oh my god, I'm getting old aren't I? I have no idea who half the celebrities are these days."
Oddly enough, when I was a kid, I didn't think people in their mid-forties were as out of touch then as I feel today.
I'm always surprised by the number of people who don't know the difference, and think that because they interact at work occasionally with some crappy Java applet written in the early 2000s or late 1990s, that all enterprise Java (or even most of it) is entirely in the form of Java applets.
Even in a society with no shame associated with viewing porn, which we're rapidly becoming (and why not?) a little privacy in that area is probably welcome for everyone, not just the porn viewer, but also those who really don't want to imagine what that viewer gets up to in private...
Are you agreeing with me (that Apple didn't change the relationship between customers and carriers, and indeed used SIM locking in a way that was extreme relative to other manufacturers) or correcting me on something?
No so. The original iPhone required AT & T as a carrier because it was world standard, GSM only, and AT & T was at the time the only GSM carrier in the US. When T-Mobile came along, it too supported iPhone.
Absolute balderdash. And it doesn't address the charge.
1. T-Mobile, formerly Voicestream, has been GSM since the mid 1990s. For what it's worth at&t/Cingular didn't switch until the early 2000s.
2. If what you were saying were true, there'd be no logic in locking the iPhone in the US anyway.
3. But even so, it doesn't explain why you needed a special SIM card for the iPhone, not merely an at&t one. Early iPhone buyers who were already at&t GSM users were not able to use their existing GSM cards in the iPhone - they had to instead activate the one that came in the box, giving AT&T unusually ridiculous control over their equipment choice.
Thankfully the next version of the iPhone ditched the weird SIM card requirement - but nonetheless, iPhones were still carrier locked for a long time afterwards.
Why? I'm not ranting about "SJW Friday", I'm angry that we can't have adult discussions of diversity on Slashdot because one side labels everyone concerned about, say, women in IT, as "SJWs" and then shitposts and abuses moderation in an effort to shut down discussion of the subject.
The original iPhone was so locked to at&t you weren't even allowed to use a different, non-iPhone, at&t SIM card with it.
It took Apple years to sell unlocked cellphones, and that was largely pressure from the EU where they weren't even allowed to enter certain markets until they did.
The only thing that's caused a disconnect of the cellphone from the carrier is the GSM family of standards, which finally, at last, has become a global standard that almost every carrier in the world is finally transitioning to (through LTE, GSM's 4G iteration.)
Meanwhile, Apple's seeking to undo that by advocating for the removal of physical SIM cards, locking devices to carriers just like in the old days.
HTML5 has "local storage" in that your disk space is physically used to store the app and/or the data, however the data is linked to the app. While in theory you can use extraction tools to get at it, ultimately the data isn't easily available outside of the app.
It solves the "Needs to be online all the time" issue, kinda, but doesn't really solve any of the other problems associated with tying your data to a webapp. In fact, in some ways, it makes matters worse. The cloud, after all, is in theory running on well maintained hardware that's supposedly superior to the tablet with its delicate spinning disk platters you bounce on your knee, and is available everywhere. But if you're using local storage, unless care has been taken to ensure the local storage really is being backed up to the cloud, you're stuck with data you can't access that will be destroyed if your computer fails.
Needless to say, this limitation means it's not used very often.
I'm pretty sure Lucas didn't make a lightsaber for Episodes 4, 5, and 6 either. If I recall correctly they directly modified the negatives to create the beam effect.
This article is not about special effects. It's about digital effects. Nobody here has anything against special effects, digital or otherwise, as long as they work, the issue with digital effects is that they're used these days even when they don't work, and look unreal (Star Wars Prequels Trilogy, pretty much every post-2000 superhero movie) or stupid (someone above gave an example of the car bomb Transporter 2 thing.)
I hate to say it, as it'll come across as more antagonistic than I want it to, but the reverse holds true: if you want me (or rather us) to let you drive a car on the same roads I'm on after we've reached a certain threshold of availability of reliable, safe, self-driving cars, then you're going to have to prove you have accident rates comparable to airline accident rates.
The choice, ultimately, will (and rightly will) be taken out of your hands ultimately if the technology becomes good enough. I can see people being bothered by that, but it should be a good thing. It's certainly better than the mandated forced driving (zoning et al used to make walking and transit impractical) we see today.
If you mean from Hollywood's point of view, perhaps. I know most people feel most CGI looks "off" for whatever reason, but judging from Episode 7, that wasn't the primary concern of Abrams.
I didn't think Episode 7 looked particularly right, they continued with the kind of dark, tinted, unreal, higher contrast camera palette that's become standard lately, becoming standard presumably because making reality look worse is easier than making CGI look better. So even if there was less CGI, it still ended up looking off.
I'd be curious to know what were the effects and what was old fashioned puppetry. It (usually, with obvious exceptions such as Snoke) felt better there. But I'm wondering to what extent I'm just getting used to ugly CGI.
The only mention of Facebook, Twitter, et al above is in the description of the service Amazon provides. The court has only ruled ONE function of that service to be spam - the sending of that message via email.
email is subject to a lot of anti-spam regulations in most of Western Europe and North America right now. This ruling shouldn't really surprise anyone. It'd be interesting to see whether Amazon's current emails actually comply with CAN SPAM (they probably do, it's a weak act, and largely based upon an opt-out view of the world, but that said, Amazon does have to provide an opt-out mechanism and honor it, without checking emails I've had from the service I can't say.)
I don't think the problem for the insurers is that insurance will be unnecessary, it's that the nature of insurance will change. Right now, you have hundreds of millions of customers. With the self-driving-car, most likely models of how SDCs will be put into people's hands reduce the number of insurance customers considerably, either to owners of fleets (the SDC as Taxi model), or even the manufacturers (the leased-to-individuals model.)
Suddenly, the need for tens of thousands of agents, of huge databases collecting driver demographics, and so on, disappears, in their place a small sales team and some per-model accident analytics and feature analysis. In very real terms, even if the insurance company remains in the same hands (and what's to say Ford wouldn't just fund its insurance with a giant escrow fund? Many large companies fund their health insurance that way...) the company, as we know it today, wouldn't exist. 99% of their staff would be eliminated or replaced.
Bing is as good as Google these days (largely because Google is worse than it used to be, not because Bing is particularly great.) If Apple switched over to Bing, it'd encourage a lot of people to use the service, and realize they're not missing a lot by not using Google.
So yeah, it's worth Google paying over the odds to get Apple to make their search engine default. They would hemorrhage market share if a sizable number of people got used to an alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Must admit the user ID change for you is annoying me much more than it should - the underscores affected the shape of your ID, which made it easier to scan read...
Just curious but can you name anyone who was really banned for just saying "I disagree with you"?
Also, the following is a list of the kinds of tweets people refer to as "spewing hate". Which of these would you classify as saying offensive things like "I disagree with you" or "I think the SJW argument is wrong"?
http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post...
Is it the one saying she's a despicable whore? Or maybe the one saying that she should go kill herself because "feminists are a waste of air", or perhaps it's the one saying "Shut up bitch" (by the lawyer of Gamergate no less! I didn't know they had one!)?
Those are the first three BTW. Maybe you'll have more luck finding a tweet that says "I disagree with you" there?
Hate to break it to you but DICE did not start that particular tradition. That's been part of Slashdot for as long as I've been here, probably longer. The most infamous wasn't even under DICE's watch - OMG Ponies.
I'll be honest, the GGers won on this one, and I'd like to see posts about Google encouraging women into IT et al hit the bitbucket. The manbabies succeeded in effectively censoring all discussion of diversity in IT through shitposting and moderation abuse. The articles they post aren't for discussions.
Plus, I'll be honest, I don't particularly like being reminded that a sizable contingent, possibly even a majority, of the people I work along side actually hate women, blacks, etc, and want them to do badly.
I was happy believing the fantasy that we all believe in merit of solutions, the best winning, the worst losing, rather than in whose advocates argues loudest and with the most cruelty, and whose advocates are most easily intimidated out of our profession.
Which AJAXy one, D2 or Beta? The former's been the default for a decade or so, and when I asked Pudge about problems with the original classic UI he tended to be dismissive of people who still used it as a small minority.
So yeah, if Wu Tang Clan dates back to 1993 and was well known then, I guess I've always been out of touch. Carry on there...
To be honest, for a lot of us it just means "Who the f---? Oh my god, I'm getting old aren't I? I have no idea who half the celebrities are these days."
Oddly enough, when I was a kid, I didn't think people in their mid-forties were as out of touch then as I feel today.
I'm always surprised by the number of people who don't know the difference, and think that because they interact at work occasionally with some crappy Java applet written in the early 2000s or late 1990s, that all enterprise Java (or even most of it) is entirely in the form of Java applets.
But do they know what kind of porn you view?
Even in a society with no shame associated with viewing porn, which we're rapidly becoming (and why not?) a little privacy in that area is probably welcome for everyone, not just the porn viewer, but also those who really don't want to imagine what that viewer gets up to in private...
Indeed.
Are you agreeing with me (that Apple didn't change the relationship between customers and carriers, and indeed used SIM locking in a way that was extreme relative to other manufacturers) or correcting me on something?
Absolute balderdash. And it doesn't address the charge.
1. T-Mobile, formerly Voicestream, has been GSM since the mid 1990s. For what it's worth at&t/Cingular didn't switch until the early 2000s.
2. If what you were saying were true, there'd be no logic in locking the iPhone in the US anyway.
3. But even so, it doesn't explain why you needed a special SIM card for the iPhone, not merely an at&t one. Early iPhone buyers who were already at&t GSM users were not able to use their existing GSM cards in the iPhone - they had to instead activate the one that came in the box, giving AT&T unusually ridiculous control over their equipment choice.
Thankfully the next version of the iPhone ditched the weird SIM card requirement - but nonetheless, iPhones were still carrier locked for a long time afterwards.
Why? I'm not ranting about "SJW Friday", I'm angry that we can't have adult discussions of diversity on Slashdot because one side labels everyone concerned about, say, women in IT, as "SJWs" and then shitposts and abuses moderation in an effort to shut down discussion of the subject.
When did they do that?
The original iPhone was so locked to at&t you weren't even allowed to use a different, non-iPhone, at&t SIM card with it.
It took Apple years to sell unlocked cellphones, and that was largely pressure from the EU where they weren't even allowed to enter certain markets until they did.
The only thing that's caused a disconnect of the cellphone from the carrier is the GSM family of standards, which finally, at last, has become a global standard that almost every carrier in the world is finally transitioning to (through LTE, GSM's 4G iteration.)
Meanwhile, Apple's seeking to undo that by advocating for the removal of physical SIM cards, locking devices to carriers just like in the old days.
Just curious, but why are you planning to sign up for a notification feed that'll push ads, malware, and tracking?
I think it's intended more for things like "You have a new email" rather than "Here are the most recent articles on my blog".
HTML5 has "local storage" in that your disk space is physically used to store the app and/or the data, however the data is linked to the app. While in theory you can use extraction tools to get at it, ultimately the data isn't easily available outside of the app.
It solves the "Needs to be online all the time" issue, kinda, but doesn't really solve any of the other problems associated with tying your data to a webapp. In fact, in some ways, it makes matters worse. The cloud, after all, is in theory running on well maintained hardware that's supposedly superior to the tablet with its delicate spinning disk platters you bounce on your knee, and is available everywhere. But if you're using local storage, unless care has been taken to ensure the local storage really is being backed up to the cloud, you're stuck with data you can't access that will be destroyed if your computer fails.
Needless to say, this limitation means it's not used very often.
I'm pretty sure Lucas didn't make a lightsaber for Episodes 4, 5, and 6 either. If I recall correctly they directly modified the negatives to create the beam effect.
This article is not about special effects. It's about digital effects. Nobody here has anything against special effects, digital or otherwise, as long as they work, the issue with digital effects is that they're used these days even when they don't work, and look unreal (Star Wars Prequels Trilogy, pretty much every post-2000 superhero movie) or stupid (someone above gave an example of the car bomb Transporter 2 thing.)
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it says #37 to me. You're the second person claiming it's 29th so I assume I _am_ reading it wrong, but how?
So the highway and airport systems should be shut down too?
I hate to say it, as it'll come across as more antagonistic than I want it to, but the reverse holds true: if you want me (or rather us) to let you drive a car on the same roads I'm on after we've reached a certain threshold of availability of reliable, safe, self-driving cars, then you're going to have to prove you have accident rates comparable to airline accident rates.
The choice, ultimately, will (and rightly will) be taken out of your hands ultimately if the technology becomes good enough. I can see people being bothered by that, but it should be a good thing. It's certainly better than the mandated forced driving (zoning et al used to make walking and transit impractical) we see today.
Hence the lawsuits.
If the drunk doesn't sue you, who's going to pay his or her hospital bills?
If you mean from Hollywood's point of view, perhaps. I know most people feel most CGI looks "off" for whatever reason, but judging from Episode 7, that wasn't the primary concern of Abrams.
I didn't think Episode 7 looked particularly right, they continued with the kind of dark, tinted, unreal, higher contrast camera palette that's become standard lately, becoming standard presumably because making reality look worse is easier than making CGI look better. So even if there was less CGI, it still ended up looking off.
I'd be curious to know what were the effects and what was old fashioned puppetry. It (usually, with obvious exceptions such as Snoke) felt better there. But I'm wondering to what extent I'm just getting used to ugly CGI.
Because it's not email?
The only mention of Facebook, Twitter, et al above is in the description of the service Amazon provides. The court has only ruled ONE function of that service to be spam - the sending of that message via email.
email is subject to a lot of anti-spam regulations in most of Western Europe and North America right now. This ruling shouldn't really surprise anyone. It'd be interesting to see whether Amazon's current emails actually comply with CAN SPAM (they probably do, it's a weak act, and largely based upon an opt-out view of the world, but that said, Amazon does have to provide an opt-out mechanism and honor it, without checking emails I've had from the service I can't say.)
I don't think the problem for the insurers is that insurance will be unnecessary, it's that the nature of insurance will change. Right now, you have hundreds of millions of customers. With the self-driving-car, most likely models of how SDCs will be put into people's hands reduce the number of insurance customers considerably, either to owners of fleets (the SDC as Taxi model), or even the manufacturers (the leased-to-individuals model.)
Suddenly, the need for tens of thousands of agents, of huge databases collecting driver demographics, and so on, disappears, in their place a small sales team and some per-model accident analytics and feature analysis. In very real terms, even if the insurance company remains in the same hands (and what's to say Ford wouldn't just fund its insurance with a giant escrow fund? Many large companies fund their health insurance that way...) the company, as we know it today, wouldn't exist. 99% of their staff would be eliminated or replaced.
That's what they're worrying about.
Bing is as good as Google these days (largely because Google is worse than it used to be, not because Bing is particularly great.) If Apple switched over to Bing, it'd encourage a lot of people to use the service, and realize they're not missing a lot by not using Google.
So yeah, it's worth Google paying over the odds to get Apple to make their search engine default. They would hemorrhage market share if a sizable number of people got used to an alternative.