Yup, we don't let people willy-nilly drive them around like we do cars because each plane needs a really large runway to take off and land. Whereas this thing doesn't.
It's almost certainly a hell of a lot easier to build a self-driving flying car than it is to build a self driving regular car. Regular cars have to follow roads, watch for people in unexpected places, adapt to road works, etc. Flying cars just need a rough direction to go in, and the ability to detect obstacles, with three dimensions to move around in to dodge them.
If that weren't the case, and we weren't able to create a self driving technology, I'd still question the logic that it's somehow more difficult to manually control something like this than it is a regular car. Why? What makes it harder?
Hi, sorry to butt in but I'm Leslie Moonves, the President of CBS. After reading this, I'm convinced you're the right person to become the new showrunner of our hit show "<\Scorpion". You obviously know the cyber, which makes you more than qualified. Please email me as soon as possible.
Yeah, I know why they're hated as a cable TV company, but the ISP side of Comcast has always been pretty decent in my experience, and I don't know anyone who has anything bad to say about that side of them. Sure, the data caps is an ongoing concern, but they haven't implemented anything evil on that side, beyond introducing the concept to begin with.
git is a tiny fraction of what's needed to replace OneDrive - unsurprising given it's a source code version control/management system. If you were to start from scratch creating a OneDrive alternative, you'd probably start with Apache, not git. Add versioning and more advanced permissions to Apache's WebDAV implementation, a web interface to the same directory (preferably linked to something capable of at least viewing Word etc documents online), and client tools to sync with Apache, and you're pretty close to being there.
This is about Microsoft's non-subscription version of Office being able to access the corporate version of OneDrive, so LibreOffice won't help here.
It'd be interesting to see the FOSS community come up with an equivalent to OneDrive (if we could somehow do it without needing a central server, that'd be a major step forward) but a FOSS office suite isn't going to help.
Those will still work with the business version of OneDrive after 2020? Or did you misunderstand the summary and think Microsoft is deactivating Office 2016 in 2020 completely?
What Microsoft is announcing is relatively obscure and probably won't affect many people at all. Home users will be completely unaffected. Businesses are largely moving over to Office 365 anyway, the combination of "Corporate OneDrive + non-subscription Office" is pretty unusual.
Switching over to the Mac (or, more easily, to LibreOffice/OpenOffice) won't help in the slightest.
Somewhat dubious - most allegations turn out to be dubious extrapolations, quotes out of context, and things all parties do, but in any case, it's not the Democrats that are proposing prosecuting Assange. It's the guy he ultimately helped.
Note that $400 is the price to consumers, of which I suspect there aren't many. The real value of the machine is in hotels and other hospitality businesses (they like it because it's easy to clean and maintain, and everything arrives ready chopped), and that's where they're selling. To businesses, the machine costs a cool $1200. The articles I've read suggests that there's no difference between the commercial and personal versions of the machine.
So yeah, I think they're making a huge profit out of the press.
Volunteered makes it sound like he had a simple choice. In reality, the choice is "Do you want to buy this house? If so, you must submit to the HOA", and even that isn't much of a choice when virtually every home in a particular area is governed by more or less identical HOAs.
What makes it worse is that usually the justification is along the lines of "Well, it's not as bad as a city, because cities can make new laws whenever most people living in the city wants those laws, whereas HOAs can't create new laws after you join" - OK, yet somehow cities have relatively few overbearing laws, whereas HOAs are packed with them. HOAs already have all of the absurd, overly restrictive, overbearing by-laws that you're afraid a democratic government would pass, and you can't even get rid of them (whereas you can get rid of local government commissioners who pass ridiculous laws, and vote in people who'll get rid of them.)
Network transparency. X11 has it. Wayland doesn't. Wayland's devs tend to handwave the problem, either claiming it will somehow be implemented once they work on the other laundry list of things they want first, or claiming it's a niche requirement nobody wants or uses.
On top of that they're doing the #1 thing you're not supposed to do in development: completely rewriting a working system.
X11's main flaw is that it's supposed to be inefficient. It might be, but I've never noticed any significant difference between user interface performance on Ubuntu vs Windows or Mac. I think much of it is "This sub-nanosecond operation that is only called once or twice every frame takes THREE TIMES AS LONG under X11 as it should!" type purism.
No, I didn't read the TFA. I read the summary, which I'm saying makes no sense. The summary doesn't mention an app. And even your summary of the article doesn't actually explain the relationship between the wireless headphones and the lawsuit, beyond a vague handwaving "headphones connect to the app" comment that doesn't address any of the issues I raised.
The person here is proposing boycotting Bose on the basis of an allegation that Bose's wireless headphones send data on listening habits to Bose, who then sells the data to third parties. Unless those wireless headphones only work with specific hardware, effectively crippling their use, or they contain a wireless GSM/etc modem, that allegation appears to be technically impossible.
If it's Bose's app that does it, then unless those headphones are designed to work with specific hardware, with the app made effectively mandatory, then the entire summary is wrong and needs to be completely rewritten.
Perhaps we should wait until the story is confirmed before launching the boycott because right now it sounds like utter bullshit.
How, exactly, are these wireless headphones sending this information back to Bose? Do they have a built in GSM modem to send back the data? Wouldn't that be a bit expensive and obvious the moment anyone takes them apart?
Alternatively, do these headphones need some kind of special driver to work? If so, does that mean they only work with certain devices, you can't, for example, use generic Bluetooth or plug some kind of linked transmitter in to an arbitrary MP3 player or TV or sound system? The headphones can only be used with a supported, Internet connected. Android or Apple device, or PC?
Because that seems... a little unlikely. I mean, imagine buying a set of headphones and finding you can only use them with certain devices. That'd piss me off.
The article quite possibly says something else, that it's an optional Bose MP3 player app or something that's sending the data. But the summary is, well, it may be right, in which case the filers of the lawsuit are about to get their ass handed to them, or it's false, in which case... it's false.
Why do people who, if you asked them, would say that things like the above shouldn't be stigmatized, then go out of their way to stigmatize them with an implication that content in those categories should be subject to some sort of special expectation of privacy?
Your logic doesn't follow. The issue is that they're already subject to stigma. Therefore (1) we need to remove that, (2) until we do, we need to ensure people who are LGBT or people with minority religious beliefs aren't targeted for that.
The second part of your claim doesn't even make sense. You're not making something subject to stigma by hiding the fact you're doing it, you're hiding it because it's stigmatized.
I think what SuperKendell is saying is that Trump's genius plan is to replace American coal mining jobs with Chinese factory jobs manufacturing machines to replace the miners.
the second two so go against the grain that I don't think they'll be able to take that plunge
The last one, maybe. The second on your list, however, a web accessible Office compatible app, has been available for a long time now. It does have a few limitations (rendering of tables in Word seems screwed up for some reason) but it works, and even works on non-Microsoft platforms.
Yes, they want you to buy Word, but their model is starting to veer towards a freemium (basics for free, extras require a subscription or purchase) away from requiring that you spend money.
It's competing against Chromebooks, if the write up is anything to go by. While Google has been working on, and released to a small number of ChromeOS users, the ability to run Android apps under ChromeOS, the system is still extremely limited. Given the Android APIs didn't support resizable windows until a year or two ago, something with probably zero adoption so far, it's a limited feature.
So, from that point of view, a locked down Windows laptop that can run webapps, like ChromeOS, and Windows apps is definitely an improvement on a Chromebook. Similar security, but the ability to run applications with a native look and feel.
What I hope is that this will push Google into either accelerating the Android integration into ChromeOS, or releasing a version of Android designed for a keyboard and mouse.
Is someone who wants to hurt gays, and who goes beyond merely believing that and voting, the right person to lead and be the public face of an organization that isn't gay hating and employs gays?
I know serviscope_minor has gone further earlier in this comments section, but honestly, where I'd take issue with both him and Eich's apologists is the notion that it was just about him having a job. Eich is welcome at virtually every company and can act as a functioning member of any team as long as he keeps his toxic views out of the workplace. But the notion he should be the CEO of Mozilla (or pretty much any organization save for those publicly identifying as homophobic) given (1) he tried to prevent 5-10% of the population, including Mozilla employees, who had done nothing wrong, from having the same rights as everyone else, and (2) when called on it, he dug in and made matters worse, demonstrating his complete lack of leadership skills by attacking those who had concerns instead of addressing their issues.
Slashdot has made this jerk their martyr for some reason. He's not. He wasn't "fired", he was pressured to leave a job he was manifestly unqualified for. And, you know, if Eich's views were that open source was an abomination, or even that Firefox should have a more IE-like user interface, we wouldn't have even seen a debate about how terrible it is that someone should be "fired" (he wasn't) for "his views" (his views triggering a sequence of events that eventually showed he was unsuitable for the job.)
For those defending Eich, I really don't think this is about some high minded principle about people getting top jobs as long as they keep their opinions out of their work life.
You're thinking of the common phrase "a whopper of a lie".
No, I'm not. I have literally never heard that phrase ever in my life. I have heard people accused of "telling whoppers" however.
Words have multiple meanings. Did you know that the word "Whopper", in addition to "lie", also means "A particular type of flame grilled hamburger sandwich manufactured by the Burger King corporation", for example?
Well, the word they're using in the ad is "Whopper", so what about just describing its more common definition (which they should be doing anyway), which is a very, very, big lie?
That'd not merely make their marketing ineffective, it would actually destroy the "Whopper" brand in the process, making absolutely certain people associate burgers-called-whoppers with dishonesty - well, that is, if these ads weren't doing that already.
Much more effective than simply redirecting people to rival chains, which would be a temporary set back for Burger King at best.
Replace "donate money" with "cast my vote for a candidate who will ban it".
Why? It was Eich's monetary donations, to an anti-Prop 8 campaign that claimed homosexuals were a danger to children, that concerned people. How he voted wasn't something anyone even knew (though we can obviously guess.)
Should it prevent him being employed at my company? Um hell yes, there's no way I'm going to employ someone who wants me dead.
I've actually worked alongside a Nazi. For the benefit of Slashdotters who think every liberal calls someone a Nazi just because they vote Republican - no, this guy had the Hitler Youth slogan tattooed, in the original German, on his arms, and kept sending white supremacist literature to a red headed colleague (which apparently Nazis like even more than blonds with blue eyes, for some reason), and he hated Jews but avoided talking about it at work.
Do I think he should have been fired? No. I think he needed a job just like everyone else, though if I'd employed him I'd have insisted he keep his vile political views out of the office, and I'm concerned my employer didn't ever sit down and have that talk with him.
But, that said, if he'd been promoted to management, absolutely, he should have been canned. It is absolutely a disqualification to harbor discriminatory views if you're going to be in charge of people, including people belonging to the arbitrary groups you hate.
Eich was, of course, an extreme example. He:
1. Harbored extreme views, and made no serious attempt to deal with the concerns people had about his ability to work along side them
2. Was promoted to CEO, where he had to work alongside literally everyone.
3. Was, as CEO the public face of the organization.
4. When called on his actions a few years before the CEO debacle, he completely failed to address the issue in a constructive manner, instead attacking those who were concerned.
With (4), Eich was already disqualified. I mean, forget 1-3, (4) meant he wasn't capable of dealing with controversies. Can you imagine that idiot dealing with, say, DRM in Mozilla? I can just imagine the official Mozilla blog posting something like: "Hey, I support it! And anyone who disagrees with me is a troll, so there."
But 1-3 were also pretty terrible, and I personally wouldn't have let him get that far on that basis were it my organization.
What if one of those 'consenting' adults is a disturbed or mentally ill person
Are they consenting? Reminds me of the anti-gay nonsense, "If we legalize sex between consenting men, what next, men and animals? Men and children?"
maybe one that had suffered many cruelties in their childhood or some other trauma that affected their self importance?
If it makes them happy, and it's what they want to do, and doesn't damage them in any way. Not that it matters, but professional dominatrices tend to report that their customers tend to be powerful people, not weakened, traumatized, people who were molested in their youth and are no longer capable of functioning as a human with agency. (I would assume though that their clientele is biased towards powerful people based upon the fact it's mostly the rich that can afford to pay a few hundred dollars a week on being dominated.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, we don't let people willy-nilly drive them around like we do cars because each plane needs a really large runway to take off and land. Whereas this thing doesn't.
It's almost certainly a hell of a lot easier to build a self-driving flying car than it is to build a self driving regular car. Regular cars have to follow roads, watch for people in unexpected places, adapt to road works, etc. Flying cars just need a rough direction to go in, and the ability to detect obstacles, with three dimensions to move around in to dodge them.
If that weren't the case, and we weren't able to create a self driving technology, I'd still question the logic that it's somehow more difficult to manually control something like this than it is a regular car. Why? What makes it harder?
Hi, sorry to butt in but I'm Leslie Moonves, the President of CBS. After reading this, I'm convinced you're the right person to become the new showrunner of our hit show "<\Scorpion". You obviously know the cyber, which makes you more than qualified. Please email me as soon as possible.
PS: You guys like being paid in "Bitcons", right?
Yeah, I know why they're hated as a cable TV company, but the ISP side of Comcast has always been pretty decent in my experience, and I don't know anyone who has anything bad to say about that side of them. Sure, the data caps is an ongoing concern, but they haven't implemented anything evil on that side, beyond introducing the concept to begin with.
git is a tiny fraction of what's needed to replace OneDrive - unsurprising given it's a source code version control/management system. If you were to start from scratch creating a OneDrive alternative, you'd probably start with Apache, not git. Add versioning and more advanced permissions to Apache's WebDAV implementation, a web interface to the same directory (preferably linked to something capable of at least viewing Word etc documents online), and client tools to sync with Apache, and you're pretty close to being there.
This is about Microsoft's non-subscription version of Office being able to access the corporate version of OneDrive, so LibreOffice won't help here.
It'd be interesting to see the FOSS community come up with an equivalent to OneDrive (if we could somehow do it without needing a central server, that'd be a major step forward) but a FOSS office suite isn't going to help.
Those will still work with the business version of OneDrive after 2020? Or did you misunderstand the summary and think Microsoft is deactivating Office 2016 in 2020 completely?
What Microsoft is announcing is relatively obscure and probably won't affect many people at all. Home users will be completely unaffected. Businesses are largely moving over to Office 365 anyway, the combination of "Corporate OneDrive + non-subscription Office" is pretty unusual.
Switching over to the Mac (or, more easily, to LibreOffice/OpenOffice) won't help in the slightest.
Somewhat dubious - most allegations turn out to be dubious extrapolations, quotes out of context, and things all parties do, but in any case, it's not the Democrats that are proposing prosecuting Assange. It's the guy he ultimately helped.
Note that $400 is the price to consumers, of which I suspect there aren't many. The real value of the machine is in hotels and other hospitality businesses (they like it because it's easy to clean and maintain, and everything arrives ready chopped), and that's where they're selling. To businesses, the machine costs a cool $1200. The articles I've read suggests that there's no difference between the commercial and personal versions of the machine.
So yeah, I think they're making a huge profit out of the press.
You're surprised? Geez, I thought everyone knew that users 36915037, 2678435, and 6 were still using ICQ!
Volunteered makes it sound like he had a simple choice. In reality, the choice is "Do you want to buy this house? If so, you must submit to the HOA", and even that isn't much of a choice when virtually every home in a particular area is governed by more or less identical HOAs.
What makes it worse is that usually the justification is along the lines of "Well, it's not as bad as a city, because cities can make new laws whenever most people living in the city wants those laws, whereas HOAs can't create new laws after you join" - OK, yet somehow cities have relatively few overbearing laws, whereas HOAs are packed with them. HOAs already have all of the absurd, overly restrictive, overbearing by-laws that you're afraid a democratic government would pass, and you can't even get rid of them (whereas you can get rid of local government commissioners who pass ridiculous laws, and vote in people who'll get rid of them.)
The entire concept of HOAs needs to be outlawed.
Network transparency. X11 has it. Wayland doesn't. Wayland's devs tend to handwave the problem, either claiming it will somehow be implemented once they work on the other laundry list of things they want first, or claiming it's a niche requirement nobody wants or uses.
On top of that they're doing the #1 thing you're not supposed to do in development: completely rewriting a working system.
X11's main flaw is that it's supposed to be inefficient. It might be, but I've never noticed any significant difference between user interface performance on Ubuntu vs Windows or Mac. I think much of it is "This sub-nanosecond operation that is only called once or twice every frame takes THREE TIMES AS LONG under X11 as it should!" type purism.
I'm not happy about this.
No, I didn't read the TFA. I read the summary, which I'm saying makes no sense. The summary doesn't mention an app. And even your summary of the article doesn't actually explain the relationship between the wireless headphones and the lawsuit, beyond a vague handwaving "headphones connect to the app" comment that doesn't address any of the issues I raised.
The person here is proposing boycotting Bose on the basis of an allegation that Bose's wireless headphones send data on listening habits to Bose, who then sells the data to third parties. Unless those wireless headphones only work with specific hardware, effectively crippling their use, or they contain a wireless GSM/etc modem, that allegation appears to be technically impossible.
If it's Bose's app that does it, then unless those headphones are designed to work with specific hardware, with the app made effectively mandatory, then the entire summary is wrong and needs to be completely rewritten.
Unfortunately, no one can be told what Virtual Reality is. You have to see it for yourself.
Perhaps we should wait until the story is confirmed before launching the boycott because right now it sounds like utter bullshit.
How, exactly, are these wireless headphones sending this information back to Bose? Do they have a built in GSM modem to send back the data? Wouldn't that be a bit expensive and obvious the moment anyone takes them apart?
Alternatively, do these headphones need some kind of special driver to work? If so, does that mean they only work with certain devices, you can't, for example, use generic Bluetooth or plug some kind of linked transmitter in to an arbitrary MP3 player or TV or sound system? The headphones can only be used with a supported, Internet connected. Android or Apple device, or PC?
Because that seems... a little unlikely. I mean, imagine buying a set of headphones and finding you can only use them with certain devices. That'd piss me off.
The article quite possibly says something else, that it's an optional Bose MP3 player app or something that's sending the data. But the summary is, well, it may be right, in which case the filers of the lawsuit are about to get their ass handed to them, or it's false, in which case... it's false.
Either way, I wouldn't start a boycott yet.
Your logic doesn't follow. The issue is that they're already subject to stigma. Therefore (1) we need to remove that, (2) until we do, we need to ensure people who are LGBT or people with minority religious beliefs aren't targeted for that.
The second part of your claim doesn't even make sense. You're not making something subject to stigma by hiding the fact you're doing it, you're hiding it because it's stigmatized.
I think what SuperKendell is saying is that Trump's genius plan is to replace American coal mining jobs with Chinese factory jobs manufacturing machines to replace the miners.
The last one, maybe. The second on your list, however, a web accessible Office compatible app, has been available for a long time now. It does have a few limitations (rendering of tables in Word seems screwed up for some reason) but it works, and even works on non-Microsoft platforms.
Yes, they want you to buy Word, but their model is starting to veer towards a freemium (basics for free, extras require a subscription or purchase) away from requiring that you spend money.
It's competing against Chromebooks, if the write up is anything to go by. While Google has been working on, and released to a small number of ChromeOS users, the ability to run Android apps under ChromeOS, the system is still extremely limited. Given the Android APIs didn't support resizable windows until a year or two ago, something with probably zero adoption so far, it's a limited feature.
So, from that point of view, a locked down Windows laptop that can run webapps, like ChromeOS, and Windows apps is definitely an improvement on a Chromebook. Similar security, but the ability to run applications with a native look and feel.
What I hope is that this will push Google into either accelerating the Android integration into ChromeOS, or releasing a version of Android designed for a keyboard and mouse.
Is someone who wants to hurt gays, and who goes beyond merely believing that and voting, the right person to lead and be the public face of an organization that isn't gay hating and employs gays?
I know serviscope_minor has gone further earlier in this comments section, but honestly, where I'd take issue with both him and Eich's apologists is the notion that it was just about him having a job. Eich is welcome at virtually every company and can act as a functioning member of any team as long as he keeps his toxic views out of the workplace. But the notion he should be the CEO of Mozilla (or pretty much any organization save for those publicly identifying as homophobic) given (1) he tried to prevent 5-10% of the population, including Mozilla employees, who had done nothing wrong, from having the same rights as everyone else, and (2) when called on it, he dug in and made matters worse, demonstrating his complete lack of leadership skills by attacking those who had concerns instead of addressing their issues.
Slashdot has made this jerk their martyr for some reason. He's not. He wasn't "fired", he was pressured to leave a job he was manifestly unqualified for. And, you know, if Eich's views were that open source was an abomination, or even that Firefox should have a more IE-like user interface, we wouldn't have even seen a debate about how terrible it is that someone should be "fired" (he wasn't) for "his views" (his views triggering a sequence of events that eventually showed he was unsuitable for the job.)
For those defending Eich, I really don't think this is about some high minded principle about people getting top jobs as long as they keep their opinions out of their work life.
Yes it does
Not always, no.
No, I'm not. I have literally never heard that phrase ever in my life. I have heard people accused of "telling whoppers" however.
Words have multiple meanings. Did you know that the word "Whopper", in addition to "lie", also means "A particular type of flame grilled hamburger sandwich manufactured by the Burger King corporation", for example?
Well, the word they're using in the ad is "Whopper", so what about just describing its more common definition (which they should be doing anyway), which is a very, very, big lie?
That'd not merely make their marketing ineffective, it would actually destroy the "Whopper" brand in the process, making absolutely certain people associate burgers-called-whoppers with dishonesty - well, that is, if these ads weren't doing that already.
Much more effective than simply redirecting people to rival chains, which would be a temporary set back for Burger King at best.
Why? It was Eich's monetary donations, to an anti-Prop 8 campaign that claimed homosexuals were a danger to children, that concerned people. How he voted wasn't something anyone even knew (though we can obviously guess.)
I've actually worked alongside a Nazi. For the benefit of Slashdotters who think every liberal calls someone a Nazi just because they vote Republican - no, this guy had the Hitler Youth slogan tattooed, in the original German, on his arms, and kept sending white supremacist literature to a red headed colleague (which apparently Nazis like even more than blonds with blue eyes, for some reason), and he hated Jews but avoided talking about it at work.
Do I think he should have been fired? No. I think he needed a job just like everyone else, though if I'd employed him I'd have insisted he keep his vile political views out of the office, and I'm concerned my employer didn't ever sit down and have that talk with him.
But, that said, if he'd been promoted to management, absolutely, he should have been canned. It is absolutely a disqualification to harbor discriminatory views if you're going to be in charge of people, including people belonging to the arbitrary groups you hate.
Eich was, of course, an extreme example. He:
1. Harbored extreme views, and made no serious attempt to deal with the concerns people had about his ability to work along side them
2. Was promoted to CEO, where he had to work alongside literally everyone.
3. Was, as CEO the public face of the organization. 4. When called on his actions a few years before the CEO debacle, he completely failed to address the issue in a constructive manner, instead attacking those who were concerned.
With (4), Eich was already disqualified. I mean, forget 1-3, (4) meant he wasn't capable of dealing with controversies. Can you imagine that idiot dealing with, say, DRM in Mozilla? I can just imagine the official Mozilla blog posting something like: "Hey, I support it! And anyone who disagrees with me is a troll, so there."
But 1-3 were also pretty terrible, and I personally wouldn't have let him get that far on that basis were it my organization.
Are they consenting? Reminds me of the anti-gay nonsense, "If we legalize sex between consenting men, what next, men and animals? Men and children?"
If it makes them happy, and it's what they want to do, and doesn't damage them in any way. Not that it matters, but professional dominatrices tend to report that their customers tend to be powerful people, not weakened, traumatized, people who were molested in their youth and are no longer capable of functioning as a human with agency. (I would assume though that their clientele is biased towards powerful people based upon the fact it's mostly the rich that can afford to pay a few hundred dollars a week on being dominated.)