Yes it is. You produce whatever it was that made you make the assertion in the first place. No, you can't prove a negative, but if you make an assertion, you're not being asked to prove a negative, you're being asked to show your work.
If Pruitt has said that global warming is not caused by humans, then he needs to produce the evidence behind that, or shut the fuck up.
Alas no. The major issue with evacuations is predicting the path. Hurricanes going slower doesn't mean they're less likely to change path 12 hours before impact.
And here we have that same Luke about to murder his own nephew, whom he has known his entire life, in his sleep!
Let's be clear here: he considers murdering his nephew in his sleep, and then decides not to. You make it sound like he would have done if he had the chance - he had the chance, he choose not to.
And no, it's not the first time. In Return of the Jedi he nearly kills Anakin. He decides, at the last minute, not to do so.
I find most of the criticism of TLJ misplaced. Your criticism is typical, unfortunately: it feels like people wanted to hate it, and so spent a lot of time redefining scenes to imply things that weren't really there.
I'm not saying TLJ was perfect, the Holdo/Poe thing was... really, really, atrociously done. But the complaints about Luke seem to miss the point of him, his journey, and how actually they prove he's the same person, just... rather more cynical than he was before. Is he capable of evil? He's Darth Vader's son. He's always been portrayed as rash and prone to being tempted by bad choices. The entire Emperor scene in Return of the Jedi was about that. He's manipulated by Palpatine. He fights and nearly kills his father. He is saved only be recognizing at the last moment, at literally the last moment, the evil that he'd be doing. I know, I know, that's the film with Ewoks in it, we don't want it to be cannon. But it is.
Well, that's good to hear, that means the current plague of people spoofing caller ID numbers must exist only in our imaginations and the GP's suggestions are completely unnecessary. When I got a call the other day from 000 000 0000 it was clearly from someone who really owned that number, I'm guessing it must have been one of Alexander Graham Bell's descendants, am I right?
He literally covered this in the second paragraph, starting with the words "Before anyone complains" clearly anticipating that this would be something Slashdot's army of Actuallys would need an answer to. The response you wrote out is not only longer than the paragraph you skipped, but the entirety of his message.
Probably. I think another issue is that it's a film nobody asked for. Before the reviews started coming in the consensus was that it would be terrible, not because of any insider knowledge (the news the initial attempts to make the film had gone wrong didn't help, of course, but it's not as if anyone said "Ron Howard? Now there's a crappy director who'll ruin everything!"), but because nobody could see how a backstory film about one of the few genuinely fleshed out characters in Star Wars could possibly be interesting. What's the film supposed to say? How he became cynical? We already got a sense of that in Empire Strikes Back.
What amazes me is that they're now talking about a Boba Fett film, a character whose critical backstory has actually already been put on screen, and who is ultimately just a background character in the OT.
I've enjoyed most of what Disney's Lucasfilm has put out so far. If the reviewers are saying Solo's good, we'll probably watch it because I suspect it is. TFA was great. TLJ was too. Rogue One was awesome. But I also know I just don't feel like there's any compelling reason to watch Solo. Other than it might be good I mean, something that applies to a lot of films that come out every year that I don't go see.
While I'm the one that said SPDIF is obsolete, I'm also in the same boat. Unfortunately Kenwood doesn't make receivers any more. I'm running mine until either the heat death of the universe, or, uh, it stops working.
Google pretty much ignores search strings these days, so sure. Besides, why would you want to prevent searches that include "git" somewhere on the same page from being included in your GNOME GVFS search? It's a common term, I believe (now, correct me if I'm wrong on this) a very popular revision control system, the kind of thing you'd see mentioned on many tech sites, including those that mention issues with GVFS that might involve, well, bugs and stuff.
Seems a weird assertion, especially as plain old Dolby Digital is now public domain (the patents expired this year, or maybe last year, I can't remember) - so presumably there's no way Dolby could stop people from doing that.
That said, AC-3 over SPDIF is suboptimal. It's probably fine for playing pre-recorded content, but, for example, for a game sound track it'd introduce substantial latency.
It will probably count people as long as they're wearing T-shirts with black and yellow stripes. So whatever entity needs the counting done just needs to hand out those T-shirts.
I agree. If it's not immersive enough displayed pan and scanned in 4:3 on a black and white TV with mono audio, with commercials every five minutes, and with the screen rolling now and again and covered in snow due to a weak signal, then it's obviously a terrible movie.
Can you expand on this? This is the first time I've heard that Dolby is preventing anyone from using 5.1 speakers. At least ten to twenty years ago pretty much every 5.1 system worked fine, what's changed, or what was I missing 10-20 years ago?
It's a genuine question, I suspect there's some context here I'm missing.
Hard to see that doing a damned thing unless somehow GNOME's "NTFS" became immensely popular for some reason. The problem here is a dominant organization destroying support for a smaller organization's product by giving it the same name.
Now, if Google (1) created "NTFS" for Android/ChromeOS, and (2) deliberately modified their search engine (which may or may not have legal issues associated with it) to favor search results referring to the Android/ChromeOS version, then that might work. But GNOME? GNOME doesn't have the market power. That's the problem. GNOME calling something a name already in use by Microsoft would punish GNOME users, not Microsoft.
money earned from selling real products and services is some sort of taboo blood money or something
For consumer products, yeah, They've never had problems with the idea of charging for commercial services, and in some cases - such as Google Apps (not Google Docs, I mean the domain management/integration system) - they've actually withdrawn the ad supported version.
I believe the issue with consumer products is twofold - (1) they don't want to get into the support arena for that kind of thing, and (2) they don't want to be seen as competitors to companies that, in practice, are going to be their customers. Hence selling off Motorola almost as soon as they bought it, the "We want to but..." constant flip flopping over buying T-Mobile, and so on.
So why do they sometimes dip their toe in the market? Same reason that, for example, Microsoft occasionally does with hardware (they have the same problem): sometimes they know their customers are not going to produce the right products unless they're shown the right products can be successful. So they'll produce phones, tablets, laptops, etc, until it becomes clear that several third parties are producing the right phones, tablets, laptops, and so on.
And that also explains why they're withdrawing from the tablet space. It's not that Google thinks tablets are failures, it's that everyone and their brother are producing good tablets that are at least as good as Google's, and usually cheaper. People who buy tablets already know what they're getting and it's what Google expects them to get. Google doesn't have to show leadership in this space any more.
Chromebooks? Maybe. It's still a market Google wants to show leadership in. Part of that is Google hasn't really finished ChromeOS yet. So they want to make sure there's at least a handful of high end tablets that are getting the updates Google wants them to get.
Phones? Google wants to make sure certain types of phone are available. I actually think they're screwing this side of things up, but, hey, that almost proves the principle here.
I would hope that astronomers would have something more important to do, than splitting hairs over the exact definition of a planet.
Unfortunately the fact a relatively small proportion don't have anything better to do is why the IAU created this ridiculous "Dwarf planet" classification in the first place. As I understand it, it's not even a definition supported by most astronomers (who would be the first to point out no planet has "cleared its orbit", and aren't exactly sure why that minority is so upset at the idea that the Solar System might have thousands of planets.
Also, is it me or is the summary bizarre? It proposes that astronomers only became interested in Pluto's formation after it was "discovered" (not redefined) to be a dwarf planet. It also uses the term comets when, presumably, it just means space debris, and seems to be treating it as unusual that a planet would form from space debris slowly clumping together over billions of years due to gravity.
"States rights" generally means the right to treat Black people like shit. All other times you hear it used it generally isn't the basis of a deep abiding principle that any Republican claims it to mean. They will always be consistent on the being shitty to dark people, but on all other issues it's "If we want it, we'll push for it on a national level. If we can't have that, we'll push for it on a state level and pretend the government cannot prevent states from having that due to a temporary interpretation of the constitution."
Only if there's a strong chance it'd impact other organizations. Enron's collapse wasn't the collapse of the economy, despite also being a huge organization (albeit having only about 15% of the market cap of Facebook unadjusted for inflation - but I suspect way more jobs were impacted.)
Facebook is probably overall a leech on productivity across the country, so I suspect in the longer term it would help the US economy overall for it to completely collapse.
I really feel like nobody here, from the submitter to the comments patting this guy on the back, have any idea what the term "unmodified" means.
It's an impressive achievement, but if it involves additional hardware being attached to the NES - even if via the NES's cartridge port - it's not "unmodified" in any meaningful sense of the word.
How about we use that little talked about third way between outright nationalization and privatization, and just - lightly, mostly, but occasionally heavily where it's necessary - regulate private companies?
I know that's an entirely new concept and has never been tried before but...
Yeah, there's a whole bunch of things they could do that does not involve blocking the app store. Fines and the possible arrest of Russian Apple employees would be next. They have a recent history of murdering businessmen they don't like - even outside of Russia - and on a less dramatic level abusing Interpol warrants and otherwise harassing and causing a nuisance for people outside of their jurisdiction.
This is a country unbound by the constraints of following the law. Which is one of the major reasons why there's concern about the level of influence it has with the current government and why, for example, Mitt Romney in 2012 ran in part on a campaign expressing concern that the Obama administration wasn't taking it seriously.
If addressing climate change reduces jobs, it would be the first time a serious massive effort that involves completely revamping how industries work, redesigning almost every process, pouring trillions into research and development to make these things work, has caused a reduction in jobs overall.
You have nothing to worry about, though every reason to distrust the people trying to scare you into keeping the status quo.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is. You produce whatever it was that made you make the assertion in the first place. No, you can't prove a negative, but if you make an assertion, you're not being asked to prove a negative, you're being asked to show your work.
If Pruitt has said that global warming is not caused by humans, then he needs to produce the evidence behind that, or shut the fuck up.
Alas no. The major issue with evacuations is predicting the path. Hurricanes going slower doesn't mean they're less likely to change path 12 hours before impact.
Let's be clear here: he considers murdering his nephew in his sleep, and then decides not to. You make it sound like he would have done if he had the chance - he had the chance, he choose not to.
And no, it's not the first time. In Return of the Jedi he nearly kills Anakin. He decides, at the last minute, not to do so.
I find most of the criticism of TLJ misplaced. Your criticism is typical, unfortunately: it feels like people wanted to hate it, and so spent a lot of time redefining scenes to imply things that weren't really there.
I'm not saying TLJ was perfect, the Holdo/Poe thing was... really, really, atrociously done. But the complaints about Luke seem to miss the point of him, his journey, and how actually they prove he's the same person, just... rather more cynical than he was before. Is he capable of evil? He's Darth Vader's son. He's always been portrayed as rash and prone to being tempted by bad choices. The entire Emperor scene in Return of the Jedi was about that. He's manipulated by Palpatine. He fights and nearly kills his father. He is saved only be recognizing at the last moment, at literally the last moment, the evil that he'd be doing. I know, I know, that's the film with Ewoks in it, we don't want it to be cannon. But it is.
Well, that's good to hear, that means the current plague of people spoofing caller ID numbers must exist only in our imaginations and the GP's suggestions are completely unnecessary. When I got a call the other day from 000 000 0000 it was clearly from someone who really owned that number, I'm guessing it must have been one of Alexander Graham Bell's descendants, am I right?
He literally covered this in the second paragraph, starting with the words "Before anyone complains" clearly anticipating that this would be something Slashdot's army of Actuallys would need an answer to. The response you wrote out is not only longer than the paragraph you skipped, but the entirety of his message.
Probably. I think another issue is that it's a film nobody asked for. Before the reviews started coming in the consensus was that it would be terrible, not because of any insider knowledge (the news the initial attempts to make the film had gone wrong didn't help, of course, but it's not as if anyone said "Ron Howard? Now there's a crappy director who'll ruin everything!"), but because nobody could see how a backstory film about one of the few genuinely fleshed out characters in Star Wars could possibly be interesting. What's the film supposed to say? How he became cynical? We already got a sense of that in Empire Strikes Back.
What amazes me is that they're now talking about a Boba Fett film, a character whose critical backstory has actually already been put on screen, and who is ultimately just a background character in the OT.
I've enjoyed most of what Disney's Lucasfilm has put out so far. If the reviewers are saying Solo's good, we'll probably watch it because I suspect it is. TFA was great. TLJ was too. Rogue One was awesome. But I also know I just don't feel like there's any compelling reason to watch Solo. Other than it might be good I mean, something that applies to a lot of films that come out every year that I don't go see.
I too want to destroy my phone every time I accidentally pick it up with the wrong hand.
Wasn't "Keeping the doctor away" the thing that killed Steve Jobs?
While I'm the one that said SPDIF is obsolete, I'm also in the same boat. Unfortunately Kenwood doesn't make receivers any more. I'm running mine until either the heat death of the universe, or, uh, it stops working.
Google pretty much ignores search strings these days, so sure. Besides, why would you want to prevent searches that include "git" somewhere on the same page from being included in your GNOME GVFS search? It's a common term, I believe (now, correct me if I'm wrong on this) a very popular revision control system, the kind of thing you'd see mentioned on many tech sites, including those that mention issues with GVFS that might involve, well, bugs and stuff.
Seems a weird assertion, especially as plain old Dolby Digital is now public domain (the patents expired this year, or maybe last year, I can't remember) - so presumably there's no way Dolby could stop people from doing that.
That said, AC-3 over SPDIF is suboptimal. It's probably fine for playing pre-recorded content, but, for example, for a game sound track it'd introduce substantial latency.
Regardless, isn't SPDIF obsolete anyway?
It will probably count people as long as they're wearing T-shirts with black and yellow stripes. So whatever entity needs the counting done just needs to hand out those T-shirts.
I agree. If it's not immersive enough displayed pan and scanned in 4:3 on a black and white TV with mono audio, with commercials every five minutes, and with the screen rolling now and again and covered in snow due to a weak signal, then it's obviously a terrible movie.
Can you expand on this? This is the first time I've heard that Dolby is preventing anyone from using 5.1 speakers. At least ten to twenty years ago pretty much every 5.1 system worked fine, what's changed, or what was I missing 10-20 years ago?
It's a genuine question, I suspect there's some context here I'm missing.
Hard to see that doing a damned thing unless somehow GNOME's "NTFS" became immensely popular for some reason. The problem here is a dominant organization destroying support for a smaller organization's product by giving it the same name.
Now, if Google (1) created "NTFS" for Android/ChromeOS, and (2) deliberately modified their search engine (which may or may not have legal issues associated with it) to favor search results referring to the Android/ChromeOS version, then that might work. But GNOME? GNOME doesn't have the market power. That's the problem. GNOME calling something a name already in use by Microsoft would punish GNOME users, not Microsoft.
For consumer products, yeah, They've never had problems with the idea of charging for commercial services, and in some cases - such as Google Apps (not Google Docs, I mean the domain management/integration system) - they've actually withdrawn the ad supported version.
I believe the issue with consumer products is twofold - (1) they don't want to get into the support arena for that kind of thing, and (2) they don't want to be seen as competitors to companies that, in practice, are going to be their customers. Hence selling off Motorola almost as soon as they bought it, the "We want to but..." constant flip flopping over buying T-Mobile, and so on.
So why do they sometimes dip their toe in the market? Same reason that, for example, Microsoft occasionally does with hardware (they have the same problem): sometimes they know their customers are not going to produce the right products unless they're shown the right products can be successful. So they'll produce phones, tablets, laptops, etc, until it becomes clear that several third parties are producing the right phones, tablets, laptops, and so on.
And that also explains why they're withdrawing from the tablet space. It's not that Google thinks tablets are failures, it's that everyone and their brother are producing good tablets that are at least as good as Google's, and usually cheaper. People who buy tablets already know what they're getting and it's what Google expects them to get. Google doesn't have to show leadership in this space any more.
Chromebooks? Maybe. It's still a market Google wants to show leadership in. Part of that is Google hasn't really finished ChromeOS yet. So they want to make sure there's at least a handful of high end tablets that are getting the updates Google wants them to get.
Phones? Google wants to make sure certain types of phone are available. I actually think they're screwing this side of things up, but, hey, that almost proves the principle here.
Unfortunately the fact a relatively small proportion don't have anything better to do is why the IAU created this ridiculous "Dwarf planet" classification in the first place. As I understand it, it's not even a definition supported by most astronomers (who would be the first to point out no planet has "cleared its orbit", and aren't exactly sure why that minority is so upset at the idea that the Solar System might have thousands of planets.
Also, is it me or is the summary bizarre? It proposes that astronomers only became interested in Pluto's formation after it was "discovered" (not redefined) to be a dwarf planet. It also uses the term comets when, presumably, it just means space debris, and seems to be treating it as unusual that a planet would form from space debris slowly clumping together over billions of years due to gravity.
"States rights" generally means the right to treat Black people like shit. All other times you hear it used it generally isn't the basis of a deep abiding principle that any Republican claims it to mean. They will always be consistent on the being shitty to dark people, but on all other issues it's "If we want it, we'll push for it on a national level. If we can't have that, we'll push for it on a state level and pretend the government cannot prevent states from having that due to a temporary interpretation of the constitution."
That settles it. Probably a bunch of Republicans doing it to "own the libs".
Only if there's a strong chance it'd impact other organizations. Enron's collapse wasn't the collapse of the economy, despite also being a huge organization (albeit having only about 15% of the market cap of Facebook unadjusted for inflation - but I suspect way more jobs were impacted.)
Facebook is probably overall a leech on productivity across the country, so I suspect in the longer term it would help the US economy overall for it to completely collapse.
It's hard to think of any way in which Facebook being damaged would hurt the US economy...
I really feel like nobody here, from the submitter to the comments patting this guy on the back, have any idea what the term "unmodified" means.
It's an impressive achievement, but if it involves additional hardware being attached to the NES - even if via the NES's cartridge port - it's not "unmodified" in any meaningful sense of the word.
How about we use that little talked about third way between outright nationalization and privatization, and just - lightly, mostly, but occasionally heavily where it's necessary - regulate private companies?
I know that's an entirely new concept and has never been tried before but...
Yeah, there's a whole bunch of things they could do that does not involve blocking the app store. Fines and the possible arrest of Russian Apple employees would be next. They have a recent history of murdering businessmen they don't like - even outside of Russia - and on a less dramatic level abusing Interpol warrants and otherwise harassing and causing a nuisance for people outside of their jurisdiction.
This is a country unbound by the constraints of following the law. Which is one of the major reasons why there's concern about the level of influence it has with the current government and why, for example, Mitt Romney in 2012 ran in part on a campaign expressing concern that the Obama administration wasn't taking it seriously.
Blocking the Apple store? It doesn't need to.
If addressing climate change reduces jobs, it would be the first time a serious massive effort that involves completely revamping how industries work, redesigning almost every process, pouring trillions into research and development to make these things work, has caused a reduction in jobs overall.
You have nothing to worry about, though every reason to distrust the people trying to scare you into keeping the status quo.