The first step of many towards English losing it's place as the premier language in the world and the world's "second language". More countries will switch as China replaces US as biggest economic power. No surprise it's happening in Kenya as Africa is heavily invested in by China.
A better investment would be if the world adopted Esperanto; so much easier to learn than Mandarin. Based on European languages, so very easy for an English speaker to learn- especially since it was designed to be easy to learn (2 months to become low-level conversational)... and guess who else is a big believer in Esperanto? China. China already publishes all their official news in Mandarin AND Esperanto.
I bet if the EU committed to Esperanto as a universal second language, China would too- and the rest of the world would follow. Makes so much more sense than the world learning English or Mandarin, two of the hardest languages to learn as an adult.
The big problem with software development is it has no direct future. If you don't move into management-esque positions, your career will plateau early
Your statement is true. Once upon a time, that bothered me. Nowadays, I don't know I want a management position. I have witnessed many places though where when a management position opens up, they don't promote a programmer, they promote a salesman, or someone from marketing, or some other branch. Once a programmer, it's hard to get out of being a programmer.
Actually if it's not stressful, you're doing it right.
9 out of 10 times the reason for stress in development is crappy management. The 10th case is the guy who can't develop software if Stackoverflow is down.
Indeed- depends where you work. I hopped a couple of awful jobs before landing a few good ones. Once you get a good job with a good company it isn't stressful.
So if your a criminal, trap a wild animal such as a mountain lion. Tranquilize the animal and attach your phone to it (nice heavy duty leather collar or something). Wait for the animal to wake up and run away.
What if you're not a criminal but don't want to be tracked anyway? There just aren't enough mountain lions for everyone.
Not to mention the TOS you probably signed with your bail bondsman. When you're skipping bail, I don't think you enjoy the same rights to privacy as everyone else. Why are bounty hunters specifically "unauthorized" to access this data? It seems to me they do have a legitimate use for it.
If it was only ever used to track down people who skipped bail that wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that anyone can purchase the information- and use it to track anyone, not just people who jump bail.
I guess they are making the assumption that a drone flown near an airport is done with malice, whereas a goose probably doesn't have any malice toward a typical airliner. Still, is the risk really any different?
Just my bent $0.02.
There's always a chance that a drone is being operated by a terrorist organization. It's much less likely that a goose is.
If a couple of criminals get burned by their phones' location, I'm not going to cry any rivers.
According to the article they don't have to be criminals. It could be creepy Steve from the night club tracking where that hottie Denise is living. Denise regretted not coming up with a fake number at the time... she's going to regret it even more when creepy Steve shows up at her door unannounced.
And one is also expected to trust at least half of those controlling the computing resources... not sure I trust a fraction of that number.
And "trust" is your only option- it's all you can do, you can't rely on law enforcement to protect you eCoins. Because eCoins are not backed by government or insured by governments, governments are less inclined to help you get your money back if stolen by thieves and hackers.
Living up to your SlashID I see. The definition of a troll is not "someone who disagrees with you and expresses it."
I didn't say it was; nonetheless, there have always been trolls but they've not been called that.
Look at Lord Sutch, and his party; they were always considered a protest party- nowadays, we'd probably call him and the Monster Raving Looney Party "trolls".
The next thing is that the politicians will call these people "trolls". Basically in 2019 anyone who doesn't agree with your thinking is a "troll". Rather than ignoring, or actual discussion, you just label the person a "troll".
There have always been "trolls" but in the past we called them "protestors", or "dissidents".
So there are people being prevented / forbidden from interacting on, or even reading, their politician's pages by Facebook, but here the court says the politician can't do that, because it is a 1st amendment issue. Will the courts say that Facebook can't do that either?
Very interesting point. If the courts say that these are official government pages and that politicians can't block people from accessing them, I don't see why Facebook can block them.
I'm sure Facebook could successfully argue that the rest of their media is under their control to allow/block publishing as they see fit, but they may have to allow public access to all politicians' official pages. It will be interesting to see how this is handled.
How so? DDG uses Google under the hood, it just anonymizes the data. It's the exact same search engine, DDG is not doing its own searches. Now if you're getting better results with Google then it's because Google has built up memory about you and knows that when you search for Ruby that you want the programming language and not the gem, things like that.
So it's up to you, you get more personalized results but less privacy, or vice-versa.
It's only the same as Google if you "!g" it - and if you're doing that and giving google your data anyway... might as well use google.
Every year or two I give DuckDuckGo another try, because I really want to like them and prefer how they're trying to be less of a privacy nightmare than Google...
Every year or two I think "meh, still not there" and give them a pass. Unfortunately, they're not anywhere near as good as Google for searching yet. They're not even as good as Bing yet.
Listen, "literally" has a meaning. It means "literally". How about you and yours quit being cunts and use a word(s) that actually means what you are trying to convey? I suggest "not actually" or "in all falseness"?
You're fighting a losing battle there I'm afraid. A lot of words are used "incorrectly", but once a large enough group of people use them incorrectly, it becomes, as Oxford has recognized a new definition.
Best you can do is have a laugh about it. Here are some quotes from Jamie Redknapp British football pundit, using the word "literally" in the modern "incorrect" way. He's literally the king of the new meaning of the word.
"These balls now - they literally explode off your feet."
"The ball literally gave him a haircut."
"He’s literally just eaten the fourth official."
“He literally chopped him in half in that challenge”
"He’s literally turned him inside out."
"[Michael Owen] literally turns into a greyhound"
"He had to cut back inside onto his left, because he literally hasn’t got a right foot"
Now if only the wages were going up instead of staying stagnant while inflation increases, at least on necessities. Food, heat, shelter all going up faster then wages while luxuries come down to keep the official inflation rates low.
That is true, currently, although I don't blame that on automation. That's really only been a phenomenon for the last few years; automation has been going on far longer than that.
Seems very anti-business and it will hurt us. Perhaps not immediately, or much a year from now, but we're eating the seeds of business that could be giant cash crops over the next 5 to ten years (and everyone will blame the stuttering economy at that time on whichever poor fool happens to be president then).
1) is making productivity go up- and making everyone wealthier. A robot that makes 100 widgy-ma-call-its for the same cost as man making 10 means we're all better off- the cost of a widgy-ma-call-it is less for us.
2) Naturally, that means some people lose jobs. Fortunately, economies are fairly dynamic and new jobs get created. We spend less buying widgets from Walmart than we used to, so now we can afford someone to mow our lawns, or cut our hair. Some jobs are created as we lose others.
Across many countries in the developed world, unemployment is actually quite low. Despite automation being higher than it has ever been in the past, unemployment is at fairly low levels in most places... now signs are we're probably going to hit a global recession in the next few years that might temporarily change that- but as of right now, there doesn't seem to be an immediate need to panic.
Automation might eventually take too many jobs- and take them faster than we can create new ones, but, that doesn't seem to be a short term problem.
Nanny state overstepping its authority. Claiming it is the sole decider of all things legal and illegal. If an action does not aggress against another, than it is legal.
There's the key. Improperly disposing of bodies IS currently illegal- thus the need to pass a law to make this legal (or rather, be another defined proper way to dispose of a body).
Slashdot Mirror
The first step of many towards English losing it's place as the premier language in the world and the world's "second language". More countries will switch as China replaces US as biggest economic power. No surprise it's happening in Kenya as Africa is heavily invested in by China.
A better investment would be if the world adopted Esperanto; so much easier to learn than Mandarin. Based on European languages, so very easy for an English speaker to learn- especially since it was designed to be easy to learn (2 months to become low-level conversational)... and guess who else is a big believer in Esperanto? China. China already publishes all their official news in Mandarin AND Esperanto.
I bet if the EU committed to Esperanto as a universal second language, China would too- and the rest of the world would follow. Makes so much more sense than the world learning English or Mandarin, two of the hardest languages to learn as an adult.
I am shocked that people with money get better services.
I'm planning on starting a meth lab in a camper if I get cancer so that I can afford the better services.
Bears, Alligators, Cougars, Wolverines, Coyotes,
I fear that I'm too old to catch myself a cougar now.
The big problem with software development is it has no direct future. If you don't move into management-esque positions, your career will plateau early
Your statement is true. Once upon a time, that bothered me. Nowadays, I don't know I want a management position. I have witnessed many places though where when a management position opens up, they don't promote a programmer, they promote a salesman, or someone from marketing, or some other branch. Once a programmer, it's hard to get out of being a programmer.
Actually if it's not stressful, you're doing it right.
9 out of 10 times the reason for stress in development is crappy management. The 10th case is the guy who can't develop software if Stackoverflow is down.
Indeed- depends where you work. I hopped a couple of awful jobs before landing a few good ones. Once you get a good job with a good company it isn't stressful.
So if your a criminal, trap a wild animal such as a mountain lion. Tranquilize the animal and attach your phone to it (nice heavy duty leather collar or something). Wait for the animal to wake up and run away.
What if you're not a criminal but don't want to be tracked anyway? There just aren't enough mountain lions for everyone.
It's part of the TOS you sign with your carrier.
Not to mention the TOS you probably signed with your bail bondsman. When you're skipping bail, I don't think you enjoy the same rights to privacy as everyone else. Why are bounty hunters specifically "unauthorized" to access this data? It seems to me they do have a legitimate use for it.
If it was only ever used to track down people who skipped bail that wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that anyone can purchase the information- and use it to track anyone, not just people who jump bail.
I guess they are making the assumption that a drone flown near an airport is done with malice, whereas a goose probably doesn't have any malice toward a typical airliner. Still, is the risk really any different?
Just my bent $0.02.
There's always a chance that a drone is being operated by a terrorist organization. It's much less likely that a goose is.
What if those drones are carrying knives?
Then you hunt them down using a drone carrying a gun.
You don't even need the drones. Just claim you saw one. You can even phone it in anonymously.
So, instead of bomb threats we're going to start having Drone-threats?
It's part of the TOS you sign with your carrier.
If a couple of criminals get burned by their phones' location, I'm not going to cry any rivers.
According to the article they don't have to be criminals. It could be creepy Steve from the night club tracking where that hottie Denise is living. Denise regretted not coming up with a fake number at the time... she's going to regret it even more when creepy Steve shows up at her door unannounced.
And one is also expected to trust at least half of those controlling the computing resources... not sure I trust a fraction of that number.
And "trust" is your only option- it's all you can do, you can't rely on law enforcement to protect you eCoins. Because eCoins are not backed by government or insured by governments, governments are less inclined to help you get your money back if stolen by thieves and hackers.
Living up to your SlashID I see. The definition of a troll is not "someone who disagrees with you and expresses it."
I didn't say it was; nonetheless, there have always been trolls but they've not been called that.
Look at Lord Sutch, and his party; they were always considered a protest party- nowadays, we'd probably call him and the Monster Raving Looney Party "trolls".
You have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to TROLL TRUMP!
I try not to bully intellectually challenged people so I shall refrain from trolling him.
The next thing is that the politicians will call these people "trolls". Basically in 2019 anyone who doesn't agree with your thinking is a "troll". Rather than ignoring, or actual discussion, you just label the person a "troll".
There have always been "trolls" but in the past we called them "protestors", or "dissidents".
So there are people being prevented / forbidden from interacting on, or even reading, their politician's pages by Facebook, but here the court says the politician can't do that, because it is a 1st amendment issue. Will the courts say that Facebook can't do that either?
Very interesting point. If the courts say that these are official government pages and that politicians can't block people from accessing them, I don't see why Facebook can block them.
I'm sure Facebook could successfully argue that the rest of their media is under their control to allow/block publishing as they see fit, but they may have to allow public access to all politicians' official pages. It will be interesting to see how this is handled.
How so? DDG uses Google under the hood, it just anonymizes the data. It's the exact same search engine, DDG is not doing its own searches. Now if you're getting better results with Google then it's because Google has built up memory about you and knows that when you search for Ruby that you want the programming language and not the gem, things like that.
So it's up to you, you get more personalized results but less privacy, or vice-versa.
It's only the same as Google if you "!g" it - and if you're doing that and giving google your data anyway... might as well use google.
And the results are as good as Google,
Every year or two I give DuckDuckGo another try, because I really want to like them and prefer how they're trying to be less of a privacy nightmare than Google...
Every year or two I think "meh, still not there" and give them a pass. Unfortunately, they're not anywhere near as good as Google for searching yet. They're not even as good as Bing yet.
Listen, "literally" has a meaning. It means "literally". How about you and yours quit being cunts and use a word(s) that actually means what you are trying to convey? I suggest "not actually" or "in all falseness"?
You're fighting a losing battle there I'm afraid. A lot of words are used "incorrectly", but once a large enough group of people use them incorrectly, it becomes, as Oxford has recognized a new definition.
Best you can do is have a laugh about it. Here are some quotes from Jamie Redknapp British football pundit, using the word "literally" in the modern "incorrect" way. He's literally the king of the new meaning of the word.
"These balls now - they literally explode off your feet."
"The ball literally gave him a haircut."
"He’s literally just eaten the fourth official."
“He literally chopped him in half in that challenge”
"He’s literally turned him inside out."
"[Michael Owen] literally turns into a greyhound"
"He had to cut back inside onto his left, because he literally hasn’t got a right foot"
Now if only the wages were going up instead of staying stagnant while inflation increases, at least on necessities. Food, heat, shelter all going up faster then wages while luxuries come down to keep the official inflation rates low.
That is true, currently, although I don't blame that on automation. That's really only been a phenomenon for the last few years; automation has been going on far longer than that.
Seems very anti-business and it will hurt us. Perhaps not immediately, or much a year from now, but we're eating the seeds of business that could be giant cash crops over the next 5 to ten years (and everyone will blame the stuttering economy at that time on whichever poor fool happens to be president then).
There are two forces at work with automation.
1) is making productivity go up- and making everyone wealthier. A robot that makes 100 widgy-ma-call-its for the same cost as man making 10 means we're all better off- the cost of a widgy-ma-call-it is less for us.
2) Naturally, that means some people lose jobs. Fortunately, economies are fairly dynamic and new jobs get created. We spend less buying widgets from Walmart than we used to, so now we can afford someone to mow our lawns, or cut our hair. Some jobs are created as we lose others.
Across many countries in the developed world, unemployment is actually quite low. Despite automation being higher than it has ever been in the past, unemployment is at fairly low levels in most places... now signs are we're probably going to hit a global recession in the next few years that might temporarily change that- but as of right now, there doesn't seem to be an immediate need to panic.
Automation might eventually take too many jobs- and take them faster than we can create new ones, but, that doesn't seem to be a short term problem.
I thought that Video killed the radio star!
You have very low comprehension abilities if you think that was a rant, or that it applies to most countries around today.
Nanny state overstepping its authority. Claiming it is the sole decider of all things legal and illegal. If an action does not aggress against another, than it is legal.
There's the key. Improperly disposing of bodies IS currently illegal- thus the need to pass a law to make this legal (or rather, be another defined proper way to dispose of a body).