New York might be worse than... Where, exactly? I've lived in New York and New Orleans and it's like comparing apples and rotting oranges as far as corruption is concerned. The US has a lot of corruption problems, but among the big cities New York is better than... some. I'd put it in the middle somewhere.
Seriously, where is this non-corrupt paradise? Cleveland? I don't know squat about Cleveland. It's probably Cleveland.
I'm typing this on a ZaReason and I'm a little disappointed with it, to be honest. It works well enough, but it's just a cheap plasticey generic with a ZaReason logo stuck on it. The keyboard is functional but does not feel good, the battery is pretty bad (though it is replaceable), and some of the special function keys (like the wifi toggle) don't work. I believe the same is true for System76 (which I think are rebrands of Clevo laptops) and also true for pretty much all of the other small-time laptop makers.
I can certainly forgive them for this, it's not really reasonable to compare them to Thinkpads and wonder why they can't produce a superior product with a fraction of the budget, and I do appreciate the fact that my laptop has a nice little Linux sticker instead of a Windows one, and there's a picture of Tux on what would otherwise be the Windows key... but my next laptop is probably going to be a Toughbook.
First, the F-35 had better work because at this point we are stuck with it.
This isn't exactly true. It's not going to happen, but if we needed to we could just buy a bunch of Eurofighters or Rafales. They're perfectly capable planes and we'd have no trouble buying them for a lot less money than the F-35. But, of course, that would never happen for reasons.
What if she also isn't pretty? Then Barbie has lied to her twice. Clearly Barbie's answer to any question should be: "I am an inanimate doll and can only repeat an assortment of facts selected from the 2011 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (TM). Would you like to know when horses were first domesticated? Yes / No?"
"Research suggests that domestication took place by approximately 6,000 years ago. In prehistoric times the wild horse was probably first hunted for food."
They're not penalizing normal speedruns, the summary is baiting you into thinking that. If you read the article you'll see that they're targeting tool-assisted speedruns, i.e.: ones that use pirated software.
I've read the posts you replied to and the summary, and even went so far as to consider reading the story, but I still don't know what you're talking about. I see no one in this comment thread using the word 'invent' except you (and now me).
... Regardless of whether or not the analogy is accurate, I'm wondering how it's false. It *is* your obligation to quit if your job is doing something harmful. Whether your gas guzzler meets that threshold is up in the air, I suppose it depends on just how much gas you guzzle. If you're driving one of these monsters every day, just to get to work, and you can't come up with any alternative, then yeah - you should probably quit.
Real link to what? A reporter wrote a report on some leaked information. You're asking for the source material? The emails which were leaked? The Guardian isn't Wikileaks, they operate under the old model of credibility - you're supposed to read the article and believe it not because you've gone through hundreds of emails yourself, but because the Guardian is Britain's most reputable newspaper and you trust that they've done due diligence.
This is not unreasonable, they have nearly two hundred years worth of claim to that trust, but okay - let's say you love Wikileaks and hate traditional journalism. Even if that's the case, there are instances where publishing source material can compromise the safety and identity of the informant. Even Wikileaks recognized this and acted with some measure of caution with the State Department leak. They gave the information unredacted but confidentially to some traditional journalists who then picked out and published only the pertinent information... and then blew the whole thing by publishing the encryption key. Okay fine, but that was accidental.
The point being that even if it might be nice for a traditional paper to change their methods a bit and publish more of the source material, now that the internet exists and archives like that are easy things to make available, the onus of believeability should be on the lobbyists to disprove this.
I'm not sure what topic you're replying to, but this was about Hillary Clinton using an independent email server. The story summary was talking about how that could be a security risk, and the person to whom I replied had stated that they believed that she knew that this would be controversial and did it anyway. I said that it seemed plausible to me that she wouldn't have given something like that much consideration.
This is an interesting point. If we assume that cronyism is ubiquitous then we need to consider the cronies just as much as the candidate.
In this case the cronies missed, or didn't care, that using a private server would look bad. So that's either a sign of incompetent cronies, or a sign of cronies who care more about doing their jobs than they do about playing at adversarial politics...
Sure, I do. If I were taking over as Secretary of State the particular email server which I was using would not be the first thing on my mind. I know a lot of Slashdotters think of the tech stuff first and the other stuff never, but that isn't the job she was doing. I think that's completely plausible.
Now at some point this probably should have occurred to her IT staff, but since there was no rule against what she was doing and there had been no scandals about this previously maybe they decided it didn't matter. Remember how Palin was using private email for public stuff and nobody really cared? Or, since we're talking about security, maybe they were just so cocksure that they felt they could handle it. Which, to be fair, they seem to have done. I find that plausible as well.
So it is very likely they wrote the works themselves as they would have been sufficiently educated to do so. These aspects are typically not in question.
That doesn't seem consistent with Marcan priority, which is pretty widely accepted. For Luke to have written his own gospel he'd have to be in his eighties at least when he wrote it, if he were using Mark as a source.
I'm not an expert on this, I'm just repeating what I remember from a course I took.
That's why the gospels were written in Greek? Wait, what's the reason you give? Lack of evidence for Jesus' existence is why the gospels were written in greek? How does that work?
Greek was the "international" language, pervasive throughout the Roman empire at the time. Any information you'd want to spread would almost certainly be written in Greek. It held more or less the position that English does today. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, they were also poor and it's virtually certain that they were illiterate. The gospel "according to Luke" is not a gospel written by Luke, it's a gospel attributed to Luke and written by someone else. Someone who wanted the information disseminated, and so wrote it in Greek.
If you read a few comments up you'll see that we're talking about someone who advocated for stealing CD keys. It's not a matter of figuring out whether the company has produced a bad product.
Regarding Steam DRM, you're conflating two separate things: one thing is DRM, the other is the ability to get your games back in case of hard drive failure. Most such services will give you this ability regardless of DRM. Good Old Games, for example, allows you to get your games back and has no DRM. The Humble Bundle makes DRM optional, but provides this ability regardless of whether the game is DRMed or DRM-free. There are more examples.
"On your head" is a phrase which is generally only applied to negative actions, and is associated with feelings of guilt. So rescuing a busload of orphans is not something that would be described as "on your head," since you should feel no guilt stemming from such an action. Tying a shoe is also not something which a person would or should feel guilty about, so that too would not be described as "on your head." The person posting above, who was advocating in favor of stealing, was trying to suggest that it was somehow righteous. I disagreed.
This also amazes me, when it happens. People frequently defend Steam's DRM or Bethesda after they sue someone else into the dirt, just because they're a fan of the games that the two studios put out. It's appalling how easy it is to acquire someone's unthinking loyalty.
That is not what has happened here. One person has advocated for theft (yes theft, not copyright infringement - the next person to buy the game is now deprived of the CD-key), because "you couldn't reliably resell/buy used copies." There's no moral ground to stand on there, the only ethical response when a company produces a bad product is to decline to give them your money. Anything else you do is on your head.
The majority of the people who voted checked the box for "no award." I can see that by reading posts from the rest of the thread, as you instruct me to do. You're suggesting that these people who voted not to grant any award to anyone didn't actually read the material that they were voting on? That they were denying this award to everyone solely because someone told them to vote that way? That this whole argument is all a bunch of rhetoric from people who don't care about the thing they're ruining in the process, but are just using it to push their agenda?
Jealous and stupid are subjective, but I don't see where you're getting hypocrites from. They didn't like the direction in which the awards were going, so they worked to change it.
Usually when someone works to get people to vote a certain way we call that "campaigning," but "gaming the nominations" is, I suppose, another way to put it.
The evidence from the puppies is the awards given to their non-preferred works. They come along and say: "Look at how the Hugos are being awarded to preachy books, obviously being voted on by preachy people." QED
Result: "Let's organize some non-preachy people (i.e.: people who agree with us) to get the Hugos awarded to the books we like instead." It doesn't have to be some malevolent conspiracy, all awards are like that.
Nothing to do with sustainability, nothing to do with robotic surgeons: worst summary ever. Not that I blame the submitter for this, it's the article which says "robot" when it really means remote controlled instrument, and "sustainability" when it's really talking about inadequate training. This is ridiculous though. I had this brief vision of robotic surgeons operating via some machine learning algorithm and... sustainability something... I hadn't worked out how sustainability factored into it before my illusion was dashed. Maybe they were running out of humans or something.
They're also not LASERs (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation), but are rather laser diodes. Am I being too picky when I notice that? Electrical engineers tend to get annoyed when I point out that their version of lasers aren't real lasers.
That 2.x distro was the last that Google did for the Nexus One, but I'm running 4.4.4 (Carbon rom) on mine just fine. And I installed that... a year ago? There's probably a more recent one now.
I too would like better standardization on the hardware, but it doesn't seem as though the device manufacturers are willing to go for that. Everyone wants their own non-standard custom sparkly feature, to make their junky phone stand out from everyone else's. I'm not sure Google deserves all or even the majority of the blame there.
Slashdot Mirror
New York might be worse than... Where, exactly? I've lived in New York and New Orleans and it's like comparing apples and rotting oranges as far as corruption is concerned. The US has a lot of corruption problems, but among the big cities New York is better than... some. I'd put it in the middle somewhere.
Seriously, where is this non-corrupt paradise? Cleveland? I don't know squat about Cleveland. It's probably Cleveland.
Well. Point made.
Sounds like a good time, so to speak.
Huh. Yeah, I would certainly not want to be there in a combat situation. Must be a bitch when it rains too.
There. That's the explanation I was looking for, thank you.
I'm typing this on a ZaReason and I'm a little disappointed with it, to be honest. It works well enough, but it's just a cheap plasticey generic with a ZaReason logo stuck on it. The keyboard is functional but does not feel good, the battery is pretty bad (though it is replaceable), and some of the special function keys (like the wifi toggle) don't work. I believe the same is true for System76 (which I think are rebrands of Clevo laptops) and also true for pretty much all of the other small-time laptop makers.
I can certainly forgive them for this, it's not really reasonable to compare them to Thinkpads and wonder why they can't produce a superior product with a fraction of the budget, and I do appreciate the fact that my laptop has a nice little Linux sticker instead of a Windows one, and there's a picture of Tux on what would otherwise be the Windows key... but my next laptop is probably going to be a Toughbook.
First, the F-35 had better work because at this point we are stuck with it.
This isn't exactly true. It's not going to happen, but if we needed to we could just buy a bunch of Eurofighters or Rafales. They're perfectly capable planes and we'd have no trouble buying them for a lot less money than the F-35. But, of course, that would never happen for reasons.
What if she also isn't pretty? Then Barbie has lied to her twice. Clearly Barbie's answer to any question should be: "I am an inanimate doll and can only repeat an assortment of facts selected from the 2011 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (TM). Would you like to know when horses were first domesticated? Yes / No?"
"Research suggests that domestication took place by approximately 6,000 years ago. In prehistoric times the wild horse was probably first hunted for food."
They're not penalizing normal speedruns, the summary is baiting you into thinking that. If you read the article you'll see that they're targeting tool-assisted speedruns, i.e.: ones that use pirated software.
I've read the posts you replied to and the summary, and even went so far as to consider reading the story, but I still don't know what you're talking about. I see no one in this comment thread using the word 'invent' except you (and now me).
... Regardless of whether or not the analogy is accurate, I'm wondering how it's false. It *is* your obligation to quit if your job is doing something harmful. Whether your gas guzzler meets that threshold is up in the air, I suppose it depends on just how much gas you guzzle. If you're driving one of these monsters every day, just to get to work, and you can't come up with any alternative, then yeah - you should probably quit.
Real link to what? A reporter wrote a report on some leaked information. You're asking for the source material? The emails which were leaked? The Guardian isn't Wikileaks, they operate under the old model of credibility - you're supposed to read the article and believe it not because you've gone through hundreds of emails yourself, but because the Guardian is Britain's most reputable newspaper and you trust that they've done due diligence.
This is not unreasonable, they have nearly two hundred years worth of claim to that trust, but okay - let's say you love Wikileaks and hate traditional journalism. Even if that's the case, there are instances where publishing source material can compromise the safety and identity of the informant. Even Wikileaks recognized this and acted with some measure of caution with the State Department leak. They gave the information unredacted but confidentially to some traditional journalists who then picked out and published only the pertinent information... and then blew the whole thing by publishing the encryption key. Okay fine, but that was accidental.
The point being that even if it might be nice for a traditional paper to change their methods a bit and publish more of the source material, now that the internet exists and archives like that are easy things to make available, the onus of believeability should be on the lobbyists to disprove this.
I'm not sure what topic you're replying to, but this was about Hillary Clinton using an independent email server. The story summary was talking about how that could be a security risk, and the person to whom I replied had stated that they believed that she knew that this would be controversial and did it anyway. I said that it seemed plausible to me that she wouldn't have given something like that much consideration.
This is an interesting point. If we assume that cronyism is ubiquitous then we need to consider the cronies just as much as the candidate.
In this case the cronies missed, or didn't care, that using a private server would look bad. So that's either a sign of incompetent cronies, or a sign of cronies who care more about doing their jobs than they do about playing at adversarial politics...
Sure, I do. If I were taking over as Secretary of State the particular email server which I was using would not be the first thing on my mind. I know a lot of Slashdotters think of the tech stuff first and the other stuff never, but that isn't the job she was doing. I think that's completely plausible.
Now at some point this probably should have occurred to her IT staff, but since there was no rule against what she was doing and there had been no scandals about this previously maybe they decided it didn't matter. Remember how Palin was using private email for public stuff and nobody really cared? Or, since we're talking about security, maybe they were just so cocksure that they felt they could handle it. Which, to be fair, they seem to have done. I find that plausible as well.
So it is very likely they wrote the works themselves as they would have been sufficiently educated to do so. These aspects are typically not in question.
That doesn't seem consistent with Marcan priority, which is pretty widely accepted. For Luke to have written his own gospel he'd have to be in his eighties at least when he wrote it, if he were using Mark as a source.
I'm not an expert on this, I'm just repeating what I remember from a course I took.
That's why the gospels were written in Greek? Wait, what's the reason you give? Lack of evidence for Jesus' existence is why the gospels were written in greek? How does that work?
Greek was the "international" language, pervasive throughout the Roman empire at the time. Any information you'd want to spread would almost certainly be written in Greek. It held more or less the position that English does today. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, they were also poor and it's virtually certain that they were illiterate. The gospel "according to Luke" is not a gospel written by Luke, it's a gospel attributed to Luke and written by someone else. Someone who wanted the information disseminated, and so wrote it in Greek.
If you read a few comments up you'll see that we're talking about someone who advocated for stealing CD keys. It's not a matter of figuring out whether the company has produced a bad product.
Regarding Steam DRM, you're conflating two separate things: one thing is DRM, the other is the ability to get your games back in case of hard drive failure. Most such services will give you this ability regardless of DRM. Good Old Games, for example, allows you to get your games back and has no DRM. The Humble Bundle makes DRM optional, but provides this ability regardless of whether the game is DRMed or DRM-free. There are more examples.
"On your head" is a phrase which is generally only applied to negative actions, and is associated with feelings of guilt. So rescuing a busload of orphans is not something that would be described as "on your head," since you should feel no guilt stemming from such an action. Tying a shoe is also not something which a person would or should feel guilty about, so that too would not be described as "on your head." The person posting above, who was advocating in favor of stealing, was trying to suggest that it was somehow righteous. I disagreed.
This also amazes me, when it happens. People frequently defend Steam's DRM or Bethesda after they sue someone else into the dirt, just because they're a fan of the games that the two studios put out. It's appalling how easy it is to acquire someone's unthinking loyalty.
That is not what has happened here. One person has advocated for theft (yes theft, not copyright infringement - the next person to buy the game is now deprived of the CD-key), because "you couldn't reliably resell/buy used copies." There's no moral ground to stand on there, the only ethical response when a company produces a bad product is to decline to give them your money. Anything else you do is on your head.
The majority of the people who voted checked the box for "no award." I can see that by reading posts from the rest of the thread, as you instruct me to do. You're suggesting that these people who voted not to grant any award to anyone didn't actually read the material that they were voting on? That they were denying this award to everyone solely because someone told them to vote that way? That this whole argument is all a bunch of rhetoric from people who don't care about the thing they're ruining in the process, but are just using it to push their agenda?
Gee.
Jealous and stupid are subjective, but I don't see where you're getting hypocrites from. They didn't like the direction in which the awards were going, so they worked to change it.
Usually when someone works to get people to vote a certain way we call that "campaigning," but "gaming the nominations" is, I suppose, another way to put it.
The evidence from the puppies is the awards given to their non-preferred works. They come along and say: "Look at how the Hugos are being awarded to preachy books, obviously being voted on by preachy people." QED
Result: "Let's organize some non-preachy people (i.e.: people who agree with us) to get the Hugos awarded to the books we like instead." It doesn't have to be some malevolent conspiracy, all awards are like that.
I'm not following your point. You have linked to a wiki article discussing one component of a laser. Does that... no, I just don't get it.
Nothing to do with sustainability, nothing to do with robotic surgeons: worst summary ever. Not that I blame the submitter for this, it's the article which says "robot" when it really means remote controlled instrument, and "sustainability" when it's really talking about inadequate training. This is ridiculous though. I had this brief vision of robotic surgeons operating via some machine learning algorithm and... sustainability something... I hadn't worked out how sustainability factored into it before my illusion was dashed. Maybe they were running out of humans or something.
They're also not LASERs (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation), but are rather laser diodes. Am I being too picky when I notice that? Electrical engineers tend to get annoyed when I point out that their version of lasers aren't real lasers.
That 2.x distro was the last that Google did for the Nexus One, but I'm running 4.4.4 (Carbon rom) on mine just fine. And I installed that... a year ago? There's probably a more recent one now.
I too would like better standardization on the hardware, but it doesn't seem as though the device manufacturers are willing to go for that. Everyone wants their own non-standard custom sparkly feature, to make their junky phone stand out from everyone else's. I'm not sure Google deserves all or even the majority of the blame there.