If you guys didn't push so hard to make the federal government in charge of everything...
When are"you guys" going to stop lying about that and acknowledge that the Republicans care just as much about "States Rights" as Democrats do. I've yet to see Republicans move significant power to the States when in power.
Here's a pertinent example: recreational drugs has little reason to be Federally controlled outside of safety/quality issues (ie stuff that applies to the entire country), so why do Republicans keep insisting on banning marijuana at the Federal level? What possible justification is there for it, especially when the war on drugs is mostly a war on minority cultures, that criminalizes large swathes of the country?
Not to back-up whomever you're responding to, but Germaine Greer has proposed mandatory sterilization for all men. Of course, that's not quite the same thing as castration. And, well, it's Germaine Greer, knowwhatimean? But I wonder if the GP heard that Greer proposed that filtered through a game of telephone.
Want to know why Wal-Mart hasn't unionized? Funny story. Those unions who are only interested in dues and are Mafia controlled and {insert other anti-union nonsense here} keep turning up at stores, organizing meetings, and so on.
And then, oddly enough, those stores start treating their employees well. There are wage increases, grievances are suddenly addressed, management starts dealing with various unpleasant aspects of working at Wal-Mart, and meetings are called where they point out all those voluntary improvements, all done because Wal Mart values their associates, and you don't want to unionize, those unions are nothing but trouble and...
And so the union reps disappear, usually with a smirk on their faces.
(In fairness, in one or two cases the situation was so bad the employees voted to unionize anyway, and Wal Mart went nuclear and killed the store, but threats to close the stores aren't usually part of the initial pitch - after all, if you're trying to say what good employers you are, saying "We'll fucking fire you if you unionize" isn't going to help.)
There are good, bad, and means-well-but-sucks unions much as there are organizations in any sphere.
My advice to Musk? If employees are considering unionizing, find out why, and fix the problems. It's a lot easier to give your more vulnerable staff raises and reduce the raises for your management layers, for example, than to deal with a strike.
I'm sure a self-proclaimed socialist would have won an election where almost every voter had been told, taught, and lectured upon, for more than a century that socialism was a dirty word... (and don't forget, yeah, she was obviously the DNC's choice, but ordinary Democrats generally preferred her. If you can't get the left of American center voters to support a so-called socialist
I think it's reasonable to suggest the emails were a tipping point. She was 6-10 points ahead of Trump in the polls just before Comey made his infamous intervention in the election.
But so were a lot of other tipping points. The emails were a part of a ridiculous 25 year smear campaign against the Clintons, and other smears, from the constant accusations of murder to the Benghazi nonsense, and factor in context-free dump of Podesta emails and you had a lot of things that, had any one of them not happened, might have lead to a slim Clinton victory.
Bernie may not have had that baggage, but I really don't think your racist uncle was going to vote for him.
When we decided to switch the technology had grown more capable, new algorithms for compression and such were available, and...we leapt ahead of everyone else in the world.
Uh, what?
ATSC is based upon MPEG-2. The rival standards also initially used MPEG-2 but now use H.264. It's those darned furriners who are using "new algorithms for compression", not us, alas.
Obama quote is lacking context and absolutely does not mean he had been planning on bankrupting the industry, it's talking about building new coal plants with older technology (source and write-up here. It certainly isn't a suggestion that Obama plans to "bankrupt" the coal industry, simply to require new plants be built using modern, more efficient, technologies.
The Clinton quote is largely correct for context, though it should be pointed out it was in a larger discussion about improving conditions for blue collar workers by replacing coal jobs with renewable energy jobs.
They're also getting a lot of cancellations (for all models, not just the 3) at the moment for political reasons. It behooves them to get the product out of the door and close as many orders as they can. They're not quite in an Uber situation right now, but I think they're running scared they will be by the time the Model 3 is actually ready to be delivered to customers.
I live in suburban Florida and have to drive through rural parts and even a national park on my way to work every day. I've never had a problem with T-Mobile's coverage in recent memory. Ten years ago, sure. But it's been a very long time since I saw my phone go to zero bars when I've been outside.
T-Mobile has been doing some major upgrades on its coverage over the last few years, but these things take time. They essentially got licenses eleven years ago that covered the entire country, but it takes a long time to actually get towers everywhere, especially if you're also having to constantly upgrade your existing towers.
From the beginning they called their HSPA+ "4G". Some of their devices, such as the myTouch Slide 4G, which was an HSPA+ device, not an LTE device.
And, you know, this is fine. 4G is a marketing term, not a technical term. People got upset because it wasn't IMT-Advanced, but there was never any official relationship between IMT-Advanced and 4G. Moreover, at the time HSPA+ was being called 4G, it was more or less equivalent to LTE in terms of data throughput. If LTE was 4G, HSPA+ certainly is too.
T-Mobile runs both in parallel. Essentially T-Mobile is running three versions of GSM, regular 2G GSM, UMTS, and LTE. HSPA+ is kinda sorta the latest-greatest UMTS.
I _think_ T-Mobile is planning to drop 2G GSM, but I hope they don't as it's always been the most solid voice system in my experience and is nice as a fallback.
I'd hardly blame CNN for making the peeing thing public domain, as you point out Buzzfeed already published it. If you think Buzzfeed is obscure and it wasn't going around like crazy as soon as it hit Buzzfeed's website, then I have this thing called "The Internet" I need to tell you about. It's entirely reasonable for CNN to cover something that everyone is talking about anyway.
Another problem with your complaint is your assumption that the peeing thing was false. The paper itself was a genuine report put together by a respected ex-MI6 officer. It was unlikely to be 100% true - and contained caveats explaining that - but it is more likely than not that most of the facts reported are true. The odd thing is that the only statement of fact debunked so far, that a Trump aide went to another country to conspire with Russia, was actually the only statement of fact in the entire report that the report itself said it wasn't certain about. The others, including the peeing thing, had no such disclaimer attached.
And meanwhile, in Russia, people matching the description of the various sources in the paper have been arrested, suggesting that Putin himself does actually take it seriously and believed the report was mostly correct.
What's interesting is that you and everyone else focus on the peeing thing. This is a fact that to most people would be embarrassing rather than disqualifying. Nobody wants their sexual fetishes or their temperament (the incident was a unique demonstration of both) discussed in public. But that shouldn't disqualify anyone for the presidency. It was the rest of the report that should have concerned you.
FYI, lest there be any confusion, I, personally, have always had good experiences with immigration officers. But I've certainly met quite a few people who claim they haven't, and obviously photographs of handcuffed 5yos show at the very least that some immigration officers lack the humanity needed for a job that requires making unbelievably important decisions for people whose lives will be permanently affected by them.
That seems to be the least of the problems. Even if you assume good faith (and you can't... too many stories of individual immigration officers, possibly with the encouragement of higher ups, acting inhumanely towards would-be immigrants), the request doesn't make sense: if I say I don't have a Twitter or Facebook account, are they going to believe me? What are the chances I have one if I live in a part of the world with no Internet?
And if I do, and I'm actually using my Facebook account to meet up with terrorists, preparing to be the first person ever from any of those seven countries to commit an act of terrorism in the US, what makes you think I'd use the same account for that as I do talking with friends and family? I mean, having one account used for both seems like it'd be asking for trouble. Guess which password you'd end up with...
What a waste of time and resources, and a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy.
You're assuming they're actually using it for the use case anonymous browsing was built for.
I use privacy tabs for accessing my other Twitter account (I have personal and business accounts like any normal person), or my other Yahoo email account (there's the main one and the one I use for notifications from BBSes), and so on.
The "right" way to do this would be for Firefox, Chrome, et al, to make it easy to have several browser profiles, with their own cookies etc, open at once. But while I know Firefox technically supports... supported?... this feature, the last time I looked into it it required modifying shortcuts to add command line parameters I never remember.
Privacy tabs are the only easy way to open a new window that has its own set of cookies, without using a different browser. So the headline isn't surprising.
A real survey would have been based upon people who use privacy tabs for the use case envisioned, eg browsing porn or attacking the government in countries where that's already illegal. I seriously doubt they ever did that.
You know, everyone rags on microUSB for this, but honestly, my only problem with microUSB on every device I've ever had is the four dimensionality issue. As far as their robustness goes, only the 10 year old car charger in my mini-van (in hot-ass Florida where it goes beyond 100 degrees inside the van during the summer every day) has ever "worn out" and required wiggling before making a connection. My in home chargers and basic USB cables work great.
By comparison, most 3.5mm audio jacks - which are often mentioned here as the gold standard of robust connectors - usually start to have problems making a reliable connection within anything between 3 months (for something cheap) and 2-3 years (for something higher quality.)
This is probably another reason why I'm not as scared of USB headphones as many people here are. I'm not suggesting microUSB can't be improved upon, but it's nowhere near as fragile as people pretend it is.
OK, what I should have written was "what passes for universal healthcare".
(And lest anyone who knows me be confused, I still maintain the ACA was a shitty attempt at healthcare reform, as it was always doomed to be overturned by the next Republican majority. But it was, I'll give it that, an attempt to create universal healthcare in a country without it.)
Absolutely. My understanding is that this was caused by a sudden rise in the number of neutrinos from the Sun, from a solar flare (the Helmsley-Surtani event) created during 2011. There's nothing to worry about.
If Clinton had been a "proven criminal" she'd have been convicted of something. As it was even congressional investigations by a Republican Congress couldn't pin anything on her. The FBI investigations were because people kept making allegations about her, allegations that in many cases the FBI was obliged to investigate.
I could probably ruin your life by having a group of us continually, for 25 years, make up allegations against you, accusing you of murdering anyone who you have a connection with who's died, pretending that anything that goes wrong that you have a vague relationship to was caused by deliberate actions on your part, looking for cases where standard practices in your industry change over eight years and highlighting cases where you didn't go along, and so on. Eventually you'd end up under multiple investigations.
Clinton was never a great candidate. She believed too strongly she needed the blessing of those in power to gain power, and she was too much of a hawk on issues related to war. But she wasn't the criminal mastermind her critics pretended she was.
Last year, I'd have told you avoid languages like Ruby, Python, etc, and work on the latest greatest: node.js, Swift, and, of course, Java. However, it's a year later, so don't learn any of that rubbish, you need to learn iLng, Visiwo, G, and, of course, Java.
As long as you have a good grounding in those languages, many of which are so new they literally don't exist yet, you should be fine for the next three to four months.
Do we know at this stage whether this feature requires permission from the user (like going fullscreen), or just happens without the user having any control over what's going on (like autoplaying videos)?
If the former, it's going to be hard to spam people, and it kinda makes sense as an API given the move to shift desktop applications to the web. If the latter, I'm uninstalling Chrome and f--- em.
It's just that you don't want to admit that it really is censorship.
The sentence you quote says it is censorship, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
And more to the point, "troll" is often synonymous with "I disagree" or "How dare you have that opinion!"
No, it isn't. That's a stupid comment to make, and you're a stupid person. And it doesn't address anything in my comment either.
Thanks for bringing in a strawman on a completely unrelated topic
The comment I was making was talking about how words can have negative connotations but can describe justifiable actions. If you're saying "Bigot" is not an example of that, then perhaps you should explain why, rather than claiming I'm introducing a "strawman" of some sort, which even if it were true (it isn't), wouldn't be an appropriate criticism of my comment, given its lack of relevance.
It's a partial Muslim ban. Section 5(b) bans Muslims from entering the country from any of the affected countries if they're escaping religious persecution.
They were very careful with the wording, so nobody could CTRL-F "Muslim" and find the smoking gun, but no Judge in the US is going to treat it as anything other than a religious test, given there's no justification for the test to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
When are"you guys" going to stop lying about that and acknowledge that the Republicans care just as much about "States Rights" as Democrats do. I've yet to see Republicans move significant power to the States when in power.
Here's a pertinent example: recreational drugs has little reason to be Federally controlled outside of safety/quality issues (ie stuff that applies to the entire country), so why do Republicans keep insisting on banning marijuana at the Federal level? What possible justification is there for it, especially when the war on drugs is mostly a war on minority cultures, that criminalizes large swathes of the country?
Not to back-up whomever you're responding to, but Germaine Greer has proposed mandatory sterilization for all men. Of course, that's not quite the same thing as castration. And, well, it's Germaine Greer, knowwhatimean? But I wonder if the GP heard that Greer proposed that filtered through a game of telephone.
Want to know why Wal-Mart hasn't unionized? Funny story. Those unions who are only interested in dues and are Mafia controlled and {insert other anti-union nonsense here} keep turning up at stores, organizing meetings, and so on.
And then, oddly enough, those stores start treating their employees well. There are wage increases, grievances are suddenly addressed, management starts dealing with various unpleasant aspects of working at Wal-Mart, and meetings are called where they point out all those voluntary improvements, all done because Wal Mart values their associates, and you don't want to unionize, those unions are nothing but trouble and...
And so the union reps disappear, usually with a smirk on their faces.
(In fairness, in one or two cases the situation was so bad the employees voted to unionize anyway, and Wal Mart went nuclear and killed the store, but threats to close the stores aren't usually part of the initial pitch - after all, if you're trying to say what good employers you are, saying "We'll fucking fire you if you unionize" isn't going to help.)
There are good, bad, and means-well-but-sucks unions much as there are organizations in any sphere.
My advice to Musk? If employees are considering unionizing, find out why, and fix the problems. It's a lot easier to give your more vulnerable staff raises and reduce the raises for your management layers, for example, than to deal with a strike.
I'm sure a self-proclaimed socialist would have won an election where almost every voter had been told, taught, and lectured upon, for more than a century that socialism was a dirty word... (and don't forget, yeah, she was obviously the DNC's choice, but ordinary Democrats generally preferred her. If you can't get the left of American center voters to support a so-called socialist
I think it's reasonable to suggest the emails were a tipping point. She was 6-10 points ahead of Trump in the polls just before Comey made his infamous intervention in the election.
But so were a lot of other tipping points. The emails were a part of a ridiculous 25 year smear campaign against the Clintons, and other smears, from the constant accusations of murder to the Benghazi nonsense, and factor in context-free dump of Podesta emails and you had a lot of things that, had any one of them not happened, might have lead to a slim Clinton victory.
Bernie may not have had that baggage, but I really don't think your racist uncle was going to vote for him.
Uh, what?
ATSC is based upon MPEG-2. The rival standards also initially used MPEG-2 but now use H.264. It's those darned furriners who are using "new algorithms for compression", not us, alas.
Obama quote is lacking context and absolutely does not mean he had been planning on bankrupting the industry, it's talking about building new coal plants with older technology (source and write-up here. It certainly isn't a suggestion that Obama plans to "bankrupt" the coal industry, simply to require new plants be built using modern, more efficient, technologies.
The Clinton quote is largely correct for context, though it should be pointed out it was in a larger discussion about improving conditions for blue collar workers by replacing coal jobs with renewable energy jobs.
They're also getting a lot of cancellations (for all models, not just the 3) at the moment for political reasons. It behooves them to get the product out of the door and close as many orders as they can. They're not quite in an Uber situation right now, but I think they're running scared they will be by the time the Model 3 is actually ready to be delivered to customers.
I live in suburban Florida and have to drive through rural parts and even a national park on my way to work every day. I've never had a problem with T-Mobile's coverage in recent memory. Ten years ago, sure. But it's been a very long time since I saw my phone go to zero bars when I've been outside.
T-Mobile has been doing some major upgrades on its coverage over the last few years, but these things take time. They essentially got licenses eleven years ago that covered the entire country, but it takes a long time to actually get towers everywhere, especially if you're also having to constantly upgrade your existing towers.
From the beginning they called their HSPA+ "4G". Some of their devices, such as the myTouch Slide 4G, which was an HSPA+ device, not an LTE device.
And, you know, this is fine. 4G is a marketing term, not a technical term. People got upset because it wasn't IMT-Advanced, but there was never any official relationship between IMT-Advanced and 4G. Moreover, at the time HSPA+ was being called 4G, it was more or less equivalent to LTE in terms of data throughput. If LTE was 4G, HSPA+ certainly is too.
T-Mobile runs both in parallel. Essentially T-Mobile is running three versions of GSM, regular 2G GSM, UMTS, and LTE. HSPA+ is kinda sorta the latest-greatest UMTS.
I _think_ T-Mobile is planning to drop 2G GSM, but I hope they don't as it's always been the most solid voice system in my experience and is nice as a fallback.
No, a blanket ban is fine. Remember, if it's legitimate, if it's a real story, the chances of another newspaper not covering it are pretty much zero.
I'd hardly blame CNN for making the peeing thing public domain, as you point out Buzzfeed already published it. If you think Buzzfeed is obscure and it wasn't going around like crazy as soon as it hit Buzzfeed's website, then I have this thing called "The Internet" I need to tell you about. It's entirely reasonable for CNN to cover something that everyone is talking about anyway.
Another problem with your complaint is your assumption that the peeing thing was false. The paper itself was a genuine report put together by a respected ex-MI6 officer. It was unlikely to be 100% true - and contained caveats explaining that - but it is more likely than not that most of the facts reported are true. The odd thing is that the only statement of fact debunked so far, that a Trump aide went to another country to conspire with Russia, was actually the only statement of fact in the entire report that the report itself said it wasn't certain about. The others, including the peeing thing, had no such disclaimer attached.
And meanwhile, in Russia, people matching the description of the various sources in the paper have been arrested, suggesting that Putin himself does actually take it seriously and believed the report was mostly correct.
What's interesting is that you and everyone else focus on the peeing thing. This is a fact that to most people would be embarrassing rather than disqualifying. Nobody wants their sexual fetishes or their temperament (the incident was a unique demonstration of both) discussed in public. But that shouldn't disqualify anyone for the presidency. It was the rest of the report that should have concerned you.
FYI, lest there be any confusion, I, personally, have always had good experiences with immigration officers. But I've certainly met quite a few people who claim they haven't, and obviously photographs of handcuffed 5yos show at the very least that some immigration officers lack the humanity needed for a job that requires making unbelievably important decisions for people whose lives will be permanently affected by them.
That seems to be the least of the problems. Even if you assume good faith (and you can't... too many stories of individual immigration officers, possibly with the encouragement of higher ups, acting inhumanely towards would-be immigrants), the request doesn't make sense: if I say I don't have a Twitter or Facebook account, are they going to believe me? What are the chances I have one if I live in a part of the world with no Internet?
And if I do, and I'm actually using my Facebook account to meet up with terrorists, preparing to be the first person ever from any of those seven countries to commit an act of terrorism in the US, what makes you think I'd use the same account for that as I do talking with friends and family? I mean, having one account used for both seems like it'd be asking for trouble. Guess which password you'd end up with...
What a waste of time and resources, and a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy.
I mean, could it actually Starkiller Base?
You're assuming they're actually using it for the use case anonymous browsing was built for.
I use privacy tabs for accessing my other Twitter account (I have personal and business accounts like any normal person), or my other Yahoo email account (there's the main one and the one I use for notifications from BBSes), and so on.
The "right" way to do this would be for Firefox, Chrome, et al, to make it easy to have several browser profiles, with their own cookies etc, open at once. But while I know Firefox technically supports... supported?... this feature, the last time I looked into it it required modifying shortcuts to add command line parameters I never remember.
Privacy tabs are the only easy way to open a new window that has its own set of cookies, without using a different browser. So the headline isn't surprising.
A real survey would have been based upon people who use privacy tabs for the use case envisioned, eg browsing porn or attacking the government in countries where that's already illegal. I seriously doubt they ever did that.
You know, everyone rags on microUSB for this, but honestly, my only problem with microUSB on every device I've ever had is the four dimensionality issue. As far as their robustness goes, only the 10 year old car charger in my mini-van (in hot-ass Florida where it goes beyond 100 degrees inside the van during the summer every day) has ever "worn out" and required wiggling before making a connection. My in home chargers and basic USB cables work great.
By comparison, most 3.5mm audio jacks - which are often mentioned here as the gold standard of robust connectors - usually start to have problems making a reliable connection within anything between 3 months (for something cheap) and 2-3 years (for something higher quality.)
This is probably another reason why I'm not as scared of USB headphones as many people here are. I'm not suggesting microUSB can't be improved upon, but it's nowhere near as fragile as people pretend it is.
OK, what I should have written was "what passes for universal healthcare".
(And lest anyone who knows me be confused, I still maintain the ACA was a shitty attempt at healthcare reform, as it was always doomed to be overturned by the next Republican majority. But it was, I'll give it that, an attempt to create universal healthcare in a country without it.)
Absolutely. My understanding is that this was caused by a sudden rise in the number of neutrinos from the Sun, from a solar flare (the Helmsley-Surtani event) created during 2011. There's nothing to worry about.
If Clinton had been a "proven criminal" she'd have been convicted of something. As it was even congressional investigations by a Republican Congress couldn't pin anything on her. The FBI investigations were because people kept making allegations about her, allegations that in many cases the FBI was obliged to investigate.
I could probably ruin your life by having a group of us continually, for 25 years, make up allegations against you, accusing you of murdering anyone who you have a connection with who's died, pretending that anything that goes wrong that you have a vague relationship to was caused by deliberate actions on your part, looking for cases where standard practices in your industry change over eight years and highlighting cases where you didn't go along, and so on. Eventually you'd end up under multiple investigations.
Clinton was never a great candidate. She believed too strongly she needed the blessing of those in power to gain power, and she was too much of a hawk on issues related to war. But she wasn't the criminal mastermind her critics pretended she was.
Last year, I'd have told you avoid languages like Ruby, Python, etc, and work on the latest greatest: node.js, Swift, and, of course, Java. However, it's a year later, so don't learn any of that rubbish, you need to learn iLng, Visiwo, G, and, of course, Java.
As long as you have a good grounding in those languages, many of which are so new they literally don't exist yet, you should be fine for the next three to four months.
This is a family website so I wouldn't dream of writing swear words unredacted.
Do we know at this stage whether this feature requires permission from the user (like going fullscreen), or just happens without the user having any control over what's going on (like autoplaying videos)?
If the former, it's going to be hard to spam people, and it kinda makes sense as an API given the move to shift desktop applications to the web. If the latter, I'm uninstalling Chrome and f--- em.
The sentence you quote says it is censorship, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
No, it isn't. That's a stupid comment to make, and you're a stupid person. And it doesn't address anything in my comment either.
The comment I was making was talking about how words can have negative connotations but can describe justifiable actions. If you're saying "Bigot" is not an example of that, then perhaps you should explain why, rather than claiming I'm introducing a "strawman" of some sort, which even if it were true (it isn't), wouldn't be an appropriate criticism of my comment, given its lack of relevance.
It's a partial Muslim ban. Section 5(b) bans Muslims from entering the country from any of the affected countries if they're escaping religious persecution.
They were very careful with the wording, so nobody could CTRL-F "Muslim" and find the smoking gun, but no Judge in the US is going to treat it as anything other than a religious test, given there's no justification for the test to begin with.