People generally ignore what comes up because stock Android until recently didn't let you say "Oh, Facebook wants access to my call history huh? Well, I'll install it but not let it have that. Even now, rather than fail gracefully, Android tells the app that it's been denied a privilege so it can refuse to work until you give it what it demands.
For Facebook users, the option was no app, or trust Facebook. Which, to be fair, they were already doing, so it's not surprising they installed the app anyway.
The fact Facebook did use that permission, and does share that information with third parties, means at this point something more than a "Well, a small group of IT professionals interested in privacy who don't use Facebook anyway are doing to close our accounts! That'll fox them!" token gesture needs to be done. Maybe pressure on Google to ban the Facebook app completely?
Of course, there's a reason Google won't do this. With anti-trust lawyers scrutinizing their every move, the prospect of Google refusing to give rights to a rival that it has for itself - even though it has those rights legitimately, I mean, how's the phone app supposed to work without your call history? - probably means their lawyers will ban any hint of action against Google.
It's not that the antidepressants directly harm bacteria. It's just it makes a lot of depressed bacteria feel capable enough to go ahead and commit suicide.
What do you mean "any more"? The fidelity of a song downloaded from Youtube is much, much, better than a stereo tape recording of a clear, strong, FM radio broadcast, and probably better than a vinyl record too
It might not be as good as CDs, let alone DVD Audio or SACDs, but it's a hell of an improvement on what we had in the past.
No, they did the exact same thing for Obama's campaign, and no one batted an eyelash.
No, they didn't. This has been debunked multiple times. The Obama campaign did use Facebook, but not in the dishonest underhanded way CA did.
Twitter does the same damned things Facebook does
Not really. Twitter doesn't keep track of my age, employment history, address, club memberships, or the same information about my friends. At best, someone trying to find information about "squiggleslash" will figure out what city in Florida I live in and my approximate age, and might be able to guess algorithmically my politics, but would have a hard time finding out anything more specific. My schools? Names of employers? Forget it. You would find out the same information as you would on Slashdot, and nobody's arguing we should delete Slashdot. Well, not over privacy concerns anyway. I mean, it's pretty awful these days, a den of entitled misogynist jackwagons for the most part that rarely discusses anything interesting to do with tech, but, well, that's a different argument.
Facebook collects massive amounts of personal data, not just about you but about your friends. Even your friends who aren't on Facebook. It links this data to you personally, not a pseudonymous ID. And then it makes all that information available via the Graph API to anyone who's able to persuade you to use FB as a login method or something else unrelated to privacy.
Facebook can fix this in an instant - shut down the APIs. Introduce replacements that only allow for basic authentication and specific actions the user has to confirm. Users addresses and other information they've entered should never be shared with anyone via the API and there should be very limited access to that information via other means. There is no reason to share that information via APIs, it should not be shared via APIs. They should block that kind of information from being shared via APIs.
The NRA is doing the same thing that more successful unions, and to a lesser extent industry lobbyists, do, and that's to take an extreme position in order to hold off any change or reduce the likelihood of incremental changes that water down the "rights" it fights for.
And, you know, I don't like it, but that's their job. They're not trying to be popular, they're trying to be scary. Thus far it's been successful not merely at holding off comprehensive reform, but actually driving reform in the other direction, preventing, for example, Florida's cities from imposing restrictions on firearms in children's play parks, to name one example.
Want to beat it? Well, that's the thing isn't it. It'll require a more powerful group to run in the opposite direction, a group prepared to make itself unpopular that drives for an extreme anti-gun position.
And that's my major concern, not that the NRA will eventually be thwarted and reasonable but strong restrictions will be imposed, but that the monster that is the ARN (that's NRA spelt backwards) will end up preventing what's passed from being reasonable.
It's up to us, not the NRA, to prevent that from happening.
"And the nominations for Best Editing 2019 are: David Brown, Deadpool II (applause), John Stevenson, Flowers over Belgium (applause), Kevin "Lolface" Michaels, "AWESOME FUNNY CAT VIDEOS 7" (murmers, confusion), and Axle of Trolldoom, for "Anita Sarkeesian BUSTED!!! Part 17" (more murmering, mass confusion.) And the winner is..."
Yeah, the US State Media has been pushing that the "But Obama" line.
I would say that trying to equate an American Presidential candidate saying "Hey, I'm Barack Obama, would you mind if I had access to the information you store on Facebook to help with my campaign?" to willing, knowing, volunteers is 100% the opposite of a foreign company pretending to be asking for a Facebook ID for reasons having nothing to do with politics, harvesting the data, and secretly passing it on to a US election campaign.
That's kinda obvious to me, but I suppose "Democrats used Facebook, Republicans used Facebook, both sides!" must look attractive when you're desperately flailing for excuses.
None of which have anything to do with Russia changing the results on voting machines
Something nobody has accused the Russians of. It's very easy to pretend that there's no scandal if you pretend the scandal is something other than what it is.
The Mueller investigation is on-going. People are being indicted left, right, and center. No, Trump hasn't been indicted yet, but he hasn't even been questioned at this point, as the lawyers have been trying to negotiate with Mueller for months a viable questioning environment where he's unlikely to screw up, a very real concern given he has a reputation for telling people things and then denying he said them afterwards (his own lawyers meet him in pairs.) If he does that in front of Mueller, then he's already committing a criminal offense.
The available evidence that's been made public suggests some degree of collusion took place, but it seems to involve a high enough degree of stupidity from those on Team Trump to merit questioning as to what degree it was deliberate.
Trump has committed numerous impeachable offenses since gaining office. The Russian investigation is important because regardless of Trump's involvement, it's fairly obvious Putin has tried to influence the election, was trying to get Trump elected, and did so using illegal means. From that point of view, it's more important to get to the bottom of it than, say, the slam dunk charges of emoluments clause violations, which are useful from the point of view of removing the senile neo-Nazi shithead, but not from the point of view of protecting our democracy from meddlers.
So sit tight, and quit it with the partisanship. If you care about America, you'll want Mueller to do his job.
That is complete bullshit. The"entire blockchain" is literally terrabytes in size. Checking for double spending is done by miners, that's what you're paying them transaction fees for.
*sigh* The quality of Slashdot moderation continues to plummet. I understand FP skimming the headline and claiming something wrong, we all do that occasionally, but if you're a moderator please, please, confirm something is correct before you mod it as "Insightful" or something else implying it's right.
No, setting your Facebook Profile to "Private" does nothing to prevent a third party from accessing your data if you allow that third party to use your account for ID purposes.
Here's what TFA says (and, frankly, they're barely touching the actual ramifications):
However, the app also collected the information of the test-takersâ(TM) Facebook friends, leading to the accumulation of a data pool tens of millions-strong. Facebookâ(TM)s âoeplatform policyâ allowed only collection of friendsâ(TM) data to improve user experience in the app and barred it being sold on or used for advertising. The discovery of the unprecedented data harvesting, and the use to which it was put, raises urgent new questions about Facebookâ(TM)s role in targeting voters in the US presidential election. It comes only weeks after indictments of 13 Russians by the special counsel Robert Mueller which stated they had used the platform to perpetrate âoeinformation warfareâ against the US.
Facebook has something called the Graph API. Whenever you allow a "Facebook app" (such as those that let you automatically log into a website when you're logged into Facebook, or those that save your game status by connecting it to your Facebook ID, or those that use your Facebook ID to let you comment on their website (the ones that also allow you to use your Twitter or Google account I mean, not the Facebook comments plugin), and, as in this example, those that let you take "tests" that they then offer to post to your wall, they use the Graph API.
The Graph API gives developers access to a horrific amount of data on a user. And while the process of linking an app to an ID is supposed to include a warning to end users about what the app can access, in practice it is normal for apps to always ask for pretty much everything, which means users, in practice, ignore the warning.
No, setting your profile to private won't help you. And even if it did, so what? You're talking about a massive social engineering attack that Facebook's own practices directly encourages. Facebook pretty much encourages the authors of Candy Gems Saga The Game to ask for all your private information, so by the time the Kremlin Research Institute comes along and posts clickbait polls and surveys and quizzes, Facebook's users have been conditioned into thinking that's OK and normal and it's fine to allow them to do whatever they want.
And before you say "Well, so what, that's their fault for not being vigilant", they're not the only victims when the goal of those abusing Facebook's system is to try to manipulate large numbers of people into voting against their nation's interests.
With the tension gone your span goes from fail-under-its-own-weight mode to being able to support several times it's own weight.
In other words, if the cable tightening were to ensure the structure that supports the bridge was capable of supporting 1,000 tons, then that suggests it was never safe to begin with.
in particular not since the whole country was engrossed in the huge U.K. government pedophile scandal at the time
Yeah, Ivan. I'm not sure I should actually be helping you with your skills here, but FWIW, when you check the "Include some whataboutary" box on your checklist of things to include in your trolls, make sure it's something that doesn't reveal you're a Russian troll. I'm not going to tell you why, but even if a UK government pedophilia scandal (which has literally been in the news on and off for about 30 years now. No, really.) were somehow a reasonably on-topic thing to bring up in a discussion about Putin trying to murder enemies with chemical weapons on foreign soil, a non-troll wouldn't do it that way.
In other words, busted!
It's as clear evidence as if a pistol of Russian origin had been found at the crime scene -- who else would possibly have a Russian pistol but the Russian government spies? Clear as day.
If it were a common Russian pistol, then yeah. But this is like finding a special model of Russian pistol that only senior Russian agents are allowed to own, that have never been reported lost before, when none have been reported missing before the assassination attempt.
This isn't some simple toxin that can be produced in weaponized form by mixing a couple of household chemicals, no. This is:
- A chemical agent associated with Russia that's difficult to weaponize
- An attack on an enemy of Putin
- An attack in a country apparently considered an enemy of the Putin regime, as evidenced by Putins attempts to interfere with its governance and pit citizens against one another.
The work you're doing, Ivan, is going to lead to calamity. Putin's a punk, he's clearly mentally unstable, and the actions he's taking are likely to lead to war sooner or later. If it comes to war, there's a good chance it'll go Nuclear, and you'll probably die in the aftermath (as will millions on both sides.) Take a long, deep, hard, look at yourself, and ask yourself if that's what you want.
I doubt it. The span itself weighs 950 tons. It seems improbable they have to add extra support to ensure the bridge can carry an additional 5-10 tons, especially given the usual engineering rule of thumb that you build to support twice the forces you expect.
...which means, obviously, why did they need to do any cable tightening to begin with? If it was to ensure the structure that supports the bridge was capable of supporting 1,000 tons, then that suggests it was never safe to begin with, and raises the question of why the road was open while the bridge was up while it was still judged not capable of carrying its own weight.
In the US, you can NOT readily buy "assault weapons"...aka fully automatic weapons.
Before gunsplaining, it's usually a good idea to have a handle on what you're talking about, especially if your complaint is that your opponent doesn't know their terminology.
An assault weapon is defined as a semi-automatic weapon with two or more (one or more, in some cases) features from a list that usually includes a detachable magazine, pistol grip, and forward grip. This isn't a definition I've made up, it's the definition defined in law, both in the original Federal AWB (TITLE XI--FIREARMS, Subtitle A--Assault Weapons), and in laws by various states such as California.
You appear to be confusing the term with "Assault rifle". An assault rifle is, indeed, a select fire rifle that includes either a burst or automatic fire mode, in addition to a semi-automatic capability. This is defined in some military code somewhere that I can't be bothered to look up right now. Assault rifles (not Assault weapons) are restricted, though not banned - anyone can buy one made before the mid-1980s if they're prepared to get a stamp from the ATF.
People demanding "assault weapons" be banned may be arguing for a dubious ban, but not because weapons classified as assault weapons are already banned. Far from it, the only nationwide ban on assault weapons expired during the Bush presidency.
That's the George W. Bush presidency.
That's the second Bush, the guy who fell off a segway, not the older guy who's his dad. Sorry, but I just want to make sure you know what I'm talking about because just as "Assault weapons" and "Assault rifles" have one word in common, the two presidents have words in common too, infact both "George" and "Bush" are parts of their names.
Please do not interpret this as support for the AWB. I don't support it. If you really give a rat's ass what my opinions are on gun control, check my journal.
It is a shame. It kinda is surprising, as toys are, as you point out, one of the few things left where in-store sales and browsing works best.
I say kinda, because the reasons are actually fairly well known and have nothing to do with Amazon or the Internet. TrU was bought a few years ago by an asset stripping private equity group. They essentially buy a business with the help of a massive loan, saddle the purchased business with the loan, and then extract every penny they can until the company cannot pay back the loan, and then it's bankruptcy, liquidation, and onto the next target.
And it's all legal. So a bunch of people are losing their jobs because some jackasses figured out how to "borrow" money you have no intention of paying back. We need stronger powers for bankruptcy judges in this country, but good luck getting them when the executive is basically the people who pull this shit, and congress is basically a bunch of people owned by the people who pull this shit.
.
What you mean to say that everyone you don't agree with is Hitler.
I'm pretty sure he meant the white supremacists pretty much everyone has been calling Nazis for well over half a century. Except you and some other weird Slashdotters of late who have suddenly decided now's the time to insist there's some meaningful difference between the various groups normally put under that umbrella.
And he's right. Pretty much nobody (outside of the Nazis themselves) wants Nazis on Twitter, and they're there, and given the extremism, and the consequences of that extremism, most Twitter users would rather they not be on Twitter. The question is how best to make that happen.
It was fairly simple really. What they did was take down Slashdot, which at the time was running on an old 80386 running an old, vulnerability ridden, version of Slackware Linux.
The end result was that thousand, literally thousands, of software developers had nothing to do, and ended up committing long delayed work to Github. Boom. Server down.
I don't know, but one thing.NET has over Java is that they didn't call everything "Java", leading to confusion about the JVM vs the language vs the standard classes vs the Java browser plug-in etc.
So from my point of view, de-Javaing the Enterprise Edition is long overdue and a step in the right direction.
Meh, you'll be wanting a headphone jack next. This is Apple being brave. Remember how much fun it was to type on a Sinclair ZX81? Now Apple are bringing those days back, and it's the future baby.
The people who bought the rights to DR DOS (Caldera, the company that eventually became the hated SCO) didn't sue over copyright infringement but unfair competition. Given Microsoft's behavior during the late 1980s and early 1990s, yeah, you bet they had to settle for a pretty large sum. You might want to read Judge Jackson's finding of fact to see how far they took it, even managing to intimidate IBM into effectively dropping OS/2 as an ongoing mass market product.
I used CP/M. And I used early versions of DOS. The two operating systems were nothing alike. The only thing they had in common was that early versions of DOS had a CP/M like API, to make it easier to port CP/M applications to it. It is 100% false that DOS was ever a clone of CP/M.
I went several layers deep into TFA and I must admit, I'm still confused as to what exactly is being added to ChromeOS, so I wouldn't blame the editors here who are unlikely to be as knowledgeable about the ins and outs of virtualization, containers, UML, chroot, etc.
Here's the problem: The reports claim Google is using both terms. The commit reads this:
New device policy to allow Linux VMs on Chrome OS.
If the policy is unset or set to true, running Linux VMs on Chrome OS is
allowed. The unset is allowed means non-managed devices are allowed.
Clears it up right? Well, kinda, except according to the same website, crosh has recently had commands added for "running programs inside a container".
This could mean one of eleventeen things. They include:
1. Both LXC style container technology and VMWare style VMs are coming to ChromeOS.
2. Google is using the term "container" to describe some kind of lightweight VM type technology that'll appear in ChromeOS.
5. Google has no idea what VMs are and/or has no idea what containers are, and has confused them, and is planning an LXC style sandboxing environment for ChromeOS.
6. Like 5. but Google knows, it just doesn't care.
9. chromeunboxed is actually making shit up.
I have no idea what the truth is. I'm guessing 6 simply because the low spec of most Chromebooks would make 2 less likely.
Slashdot Mirror
People generally ignore what comes up because stock Android until recently didn't let you say "Oh, Facebook wants access to my call history huh? Well, I'll install it but not let it have that. Even now, rather than fail gracefully, Android tells the app that it's been denied a privilege so it can refuse to work until you give it what it demands.
For Facebook users, the option was no app, or trust Facebook. Which, to be fair, they were already doing, so it's not surprising they installed the app anyway.
The fact Facebook did use that permission, and does share that information with third parties, means at this point something more than a "Well, a small group of IT professionals interested in privacy who don't use Facebook anyway are doing to close our accounts! That'll fox them!" token gesture needs to be done. Maybe pressure on Google to ban the Facebook app completely?
Of course, there's a reason Google won't do this. With anti-trust lawyers scrutinizing their every move, the prospect of Google refusing to give rights to a rival that it has for itself - even though it has those rights legitimately, I mean, how's the phone app supposed to work without your call history? - probably means their lawyers will ban any hint of action against Google.
It's not that the antidepressants directly harm bacteria. It's just it makes a lot of depressed bacteria feel capable enough to go ahead and commit suicide.
What do you mean "any more"? The fidelity of a song downloaded from Youtube is much, much, better than a stereo tape recording of a clear, strong, FM radio broadcast, and probably better than a vinyl record too
It might not be as good as CDs, let alone DVD Audio or SACDs, but it's a hell of an improvement on what we had in the past.
No, they didn't. This has been debunked multiple times. The Obama campaign did use Facebook, but not in the dishonest underhanded way CA did.
Not really. Twitter doesn't keep track of my age, employment history, address, club memberships, or the same information about my friends. At best, someone trying to find information about "squiggleslash" will figure out what city in Florida I live in and my approximate age, and might be able to guess algorithmically my politics, but would have a hard time finding out anything more specific. My schools? Names of employers? Forget it. You would find out the same information as you would on Slashdot, and nobody's arguing we should delete Slashdot. Well, not over privacy concerns anyway. I mean, it's pretty awful these days, a den of entitled misogynist jackwagons for the most part that rarely discusses anything interesting to do with tech, but, well, that's a different argument.
Facebook collects massive amounts of personal data, not just about you but about your friends. Even your friends who aren't on Facebook. It links this data to you personally, not a pseudonymous ID. And then it makes all that information available via the Graph API to anyone who's able to persuade you to use FB as a login method or something else unrelated to privacy.
Facebook can fix this in an instant - shut down the APIs. Introduce replacements that only allow for basic authentication and specific actions the user has to confirm. Users addresses and other information they've entered should never be shared with anyone via the API and there should be very limited access to that information via other means. There is no reason to share that information via APIs, it should not be shared via APIs. They should block that kind of information from being shared via APIs.
They choose not to. Shut the fuckers down.
The NRA is doing the same thing that more successful unions, and to a lesser extent industry lobbyists, do, and that's to take an extreme position in order to hold off any change or reduce the likelihood of incremental changes that water down the "rights" it fights for.
And, you know, I don't like it, but that's their job. They're not trying to be popular, they're trying to be scary. Thus far it's been successful not merely at holding off comprehensive reform, but actually driving reform in the other direction, preventing, for example, Florida's cities from imposing restrictions on firearms in children's play parks, to name one example.
Want to beat it? Well, that's the thing isn't it. It'll require a more powerful group to run in the opposite direction, a group prepared to make itself unpopular that drives for an extreme anti-gun position.
And that's my major concern, not that the NRA will eventually be thwarted and reasonable but strong restrictions will be imposed, but that the monster that is the ARN (that's NRA spelt backwards) will end up preventing what's passed from being reasonable.
It's up to us, not the NRA, to prevent that from happening.
I didn't know Sean Hannity had a Slashdot ID. Welcome to Slashdot Sean I guess.
"And the nominations for Best Editing 2019 are: David Brown, Deadpool II (applause), John Stevenson, Flowers over Belgium (applause), Kevin "Lolface" Michaels, "AWESOME FUNNY CAT VIDEOS 7" (murmers, confusion), and Axle of Trolldoom, for "Anita Sarkeesian BUSTED!!! Part 17" (more murmering, mass confusion.) And the winner is..."
Awesome, that's so awesome in fact I'm going to friend you now and read all your Slashdot journal entries!
Yeah, the US State Media has been pushing that the "But Obama" line.
I would say that trying to equate an American Presidential candidate saying "Hey, I'm Barack Obama, would you mind if I had access to the information you store on Facebook to help with my campaign?" to willing, knowing, volunteers is 100% the opposite of a foreign company pretending to be asking for a Facebook ID for reasons having nothing to do with politics, harvesting the data, and secretly passing it on to a US election campaign.
That's kinda obvious to me, but I suppose "Democrats used Facebook, Republicans used Facebook, both sides!" must look attractive when you're desperately flailing for excuses.
Something nobody has accused the Russians of. It's very easy to pretend that there's no scandal if you pretend the scandal is something other than what it is.
The Mueller investigation is on-going. People are being indicted left, right, and center. No, Trump hasn't been indicted yet, but he hasn't even been questioned at this point, as the lawyers have been trying to negotiate with Mueller for months a viable questioning environment where he's unlikely to screw up, a very real concern given he has a reputation for telling people things and then denying he said them afterwards (his own lawyers meet him in pairs.) If he does that in front of Mueller, then he's already committing a criminal offense.
The available evidence that's been made public suggests some degree of collusion took place, but it seems to involve a high enough degree of stupidity from those on Team Trump to merit questioning as to what degree it was deliberate.
Trump has committed numerous impeachable offenses since gaining office. The Russian investigation is important because regardless of Trump's involvement, it's fairly obvious Putin has tried to influence the election, was trying to get Trump elected, and did so using illegal means. From that point of view, it's more important to get to the bottom of it than, say, the slam dunk charges of emoluments clause violations, which are useful from the point of view of removing the senile neo-Nazi shithead, but not from the point of view of protecting our democracy from meddlers.
So sit tight, and quit it with the partisanship. If you care about America, you'll want Mueller to do his job.
That is complete bullshit. The"entire blockchain" is literally terrabytes in size. Checking for double spending is done by miners, that's what you're paying them transaction fees for.
It is built into their desktop OS (Edge opens PDF files by default.)
*sigh* The quality of Slashdot moderation continues to plummet. I understand FP skimming the headline and claiming something wrong, we all do that occasionally, but if you're a moderator please, please, confirm something is correct before you mod it as "Insightful" or something else implying it's right.
No, setting your Facebook Profile to "Private" does nothing to prevent a third party from accessing your data if you allow that third party to use your account for ID purposes.
Here's what TFA says (and, frankly, they're barely touching the actual ramifications):
Facebook has something called the Graph API. Whenever you allow a "Facebook app" (such as those that let you automatically log into a website when you're logged into Facebook, or those that save your game status by connecting it to your Facebook ID, or those that use your Facebook ID to let you comment on their website (the ones that also allow you to use your Twitter or Google account I mean, not the Facebook comments plugin), and, as in this example, those that let you take "tests" that they then offer to post to your wall, they use the Graph API.
The Graph API gives developers access to a horrific amount of data on a user. And while the process of linking an app to an ID is supposed to include a warning to end users about what the app can access, in practice it is normal for apps to always ask for pretty much everything, which means users, in practice, ignore the warning.
No, setting your profile to private won't help you. And even if it did, so what? You're talking about a massive social engineering attack that Facebook's own practices directly encourages. Facebook pretty much encourages the authors of Candy Gems Saga The Game to ask for all your private information, so by the time the Kremlin Research Institute comes along and posts clickbait polls and surveys and quizzes, Facebook's users have been conditioned into thinking that's OK and normal and it's fine to allow them to do whatever they want.
And before you say "Well, so what, that's their fault for not being vigilant", they're not the only victims when the goal of those abusing Facebook's system is to try to manipulate large numbers of people into voting against their nation's interests.
In other words, if the cable tightening were to ensure the structure that supports the bridge was capable of supporting 1,000 tons, then that suggests it was never safe to begin with.
No, because it's not that simple, Ivan.
Yeah, Ivan. I'm not sure I should actually be helping you with your skills here, but FWIW, when you check the "Include some whataboutary" box on your checklist of things to include in your trolls, make sure it's something that doesn't reveal you're a Russian troll. I'm not going to tell you why, but even if a UK government pedophilia scandal (which has literally been in the news on and off for about 30 years now. No, really.) were somehow a reasonably on-topic thing to bring up in a discussion about Putin trying to murder enemies with chemical weapons on foreign soil, a non-troll wouldn't do it that way.
In other words, busted!
If it were a common Russian pistol, then yeah. But this is like finding a special model of Russian pistol that only senior Russian agents are allowed to own, that have never been reported lost before, when none have been reported missing before the assassination attempt.
This isn't some simple toxin that can be produced in weaponized form by mixing a couple of household chemicals, no. This is:
- A chemical agent associated with Russia that's difficult to weaponize
- An attack on an enemy of Putin
- An attack in a country apparently considered an enemy of the Putin regime, as evidenced by Putins attempts to interfere with its governance and pit citizens against one another.
The work you're doing, Ivan, is going to lead to calamity. Putin's a punk, he's clearly mentally unstable, and the actions he's taking are likely to lead to war sooner or later. If it comes to war, there's a good chance it'll go Nuclear, and you'll probably die in the aftermath (as will millions on both sides.) Take a long, deep, hard, look at yourself, and ask yourself if that's what you want.
I doubt it. The span itself weighs 950 tons. It seems improbable they have to add extra support to ensure the bridge can carry an additional 5-10 tons, especially given the usual engineering rule of thumb that you build to support twice the forces you expect.
No they didn't. When was the last time you "programmed in .NET"?
They called C# C#. They called the CLR the CLR. The CLI the CLI. The CIL the CIL. Now, if you want to complain that they went overboard with that...
Before gunsplaining, it's usually a good idea to have a handle on what you're talking about, especially if your complaint is that your opponent doesn't know their terminology.
An assault weapon is defined as a semi-automatic weapon with two or more (one or more, in some cases) features from a list that usually includes a detachable magazine, pistol grip, and forward grip. This isn't a definition I've made up, it's the definition defined in law, both in the original Federal AWB (TITLE XI--FIREARMS, Subtitle A--Assault Weapons), and in laws by various states such as California.
You appear to be confusing the term with "Assault rifle". An assault rifle is, indeed, a select fire rifle that includes either a burst or automatic fire mode, in addition to a semi-automatic capability. This is defined in some military code somewhere that I can't be bothered to look up right now. Assault rifles (not Assault weapons) are restricted, though not banned - anyone can buy one made before the mid-1980s if they're prepared to get a stamp from the ATF.
People demanding "assault weapons" be banned may be arguing for a dubious ban, but not because weapons classified as assault weapons are already banned. Far from it, the only nationwide ban on assault weapons expired during the Bush presidency.
That's the George W. Bush presidency.
That's the second Bush, the guy who fell off a segway, not the older guy who's his dad. Sorry, but I just want to make sure you know what I'm talking about because just as "Assault weapons" and "Assault rifles" have one word in common, the two presidents have words in common too, infact both "George" and "Bush" are parts of their names.
Please do not interpret this as support for the AWB. I don't support it. If you really give a rat's ass what my opinions are on gun control, check my journal.
It is a shame. It kinda is surprising, as toys are, as you point out, one of the few things left where in-store sales and browsing works best.
I say kinda, because the reasons are actually fairly well known and have nothing to do with Amazon or the Internet. TrU was bought a few years ago by an asset stripping private equity group. They essentially buy a business with the help of a massive loan, saddle the purchased business with the loan, and then extract every penny they can until the company cannot pay back the loan, and then it's bankruptcy, liquidation, and onto the next target.
And it's all legal. So a bunch of people are losing their jobs because some jackasses figured out how to "borrow" money you have no intention of paying back. We need stronger powers for bankruptcy judges in this country, but good luck getting them when the executive is basically the people who pull this shit, and congress is basically a bunch of people owned by the people who pull this shit. .
I'm pretty sure he meant the white supremacists pretty much everyone has been calling Nazis for well over half a century. Except you and some other weird Slashdotters of late who have suddenly decided now's the time to insist there's some meaningful difference between the various groups normally put under that umbrella.
And he's right. Pretty much nobody (outside of the Nazis themselves) wants Nazis on Twitter, and they're there, and given the extremism, and the consequences of that extremism, most Twitter users would rather they not be on Twitter. The question is how best to make that happen.
It was fairly simple really. What they did was take down Slashdot, which at the time was running on an old 80386 running an old, vulnerability ridden, version of Slackware Linux.
The end result was that thousand, literally thousands, of software developers had nothing to do, and ended up committing long delayed work to Github. Boom. Server down.
I don't know, but one thing .NET has over Java is that they didn't call everything "Java", leading to confusion about the JVM vs the language vs the standard classes vs the Java browser plug-in etc.
So from my point of view, de-Javaing the Enterprise Edition is long overdue and a step in the right direction.
Meh, you'll be wanting a headphone jack next. This is Apple being brave. Remember how much fun it was to type on a Sinclair ZX81? Now Apple are bringing those days back, and it's the future baby.
The people who bought the rights to DR DOS (Caldera, the company that eventually became the hated SCO) didn't sue over copyright infringement but unfair competition. Given Microsoft's behavior during the late 1980s and early 1990s, yeah, you bet they had to settle for a pretty large sum. You might want to read Judge Jackson's finding of fact to see how far they took it, even managing to intimidate IBM into effectively dropping OS/2 as an ongoing mass market product.
I used CP/M. And I used early versions of DOS. The two operating systems were nothing alike. The only thing they had in common was that early versions of DOS had a CP/M like API, to make it easier to port CP/M applications to it. It is 100% false that DOS was ever a clone of CP/M.
I went several layers deep into TFA and I must admit, I'm still confused as to what exactly is being added to ChromeOS, so I wouldn't blame the editors here who are unlikely to be as knowledgeable about the ins and outs of virtualization, containers, UML, chroot, etc.
Here's the problem: The reports claim Google is using both terms. The commit reads this:
Clears it up right? Well, kinda, except according to the same website, crosh has recently had commands added for "running programs inside a container".
This could mean one of eleventeen things. They include:
1. Both LXC style container technology and VMWare style VMs are coming to ChromeOS.
2. Google is using the term "container" to describe some kind of lightweight VM type technology that'll appear in ChromeOS.
5. Google has no idea what VMs are and/or has no idea what containers are, and has confused them, and is planning an LXC style sandboxing environment for ChromeOS.
6. Like 5. but Google knows, it just doesn't care. 9. chromeunboxed is actually making shit up.
I have no idea what the truth is. I'm guessing 6 simply because the low spec of most Chromebooks would make 2 less likely.