Do you really consider Windows a necessity of the same magnitude as air, rail transportation etc? Talk about a Stockholm syndrome.
No wonder you'll get raped for all eternity, you're essentially telling us you can't live without Windows and thus a total hostage to Microsoft. It's bizarre. You're actually mentally ill.
If I'm writing software for people using Windows machines. Yes. If I'm supporting people using Windows machines. Yes.
It's only a fantasy land that all your clients run Linux desktops.
I'm not sure what the excitement is about, but lots of airports I've been to have Autonomous Trams. SFO in San Francisco, for example, has an autonomous tram that goes several miles from the BART station to all the terminals. I've also been in similar trams in Atlanta, Oakland, and I'm sure other places.
The trains in Atlanta airport are anonymous. I don't recall seeing any autonomous trams in Atlanta. Not that I spend much time in downtown Atlanta, but I don't recall seeing ANY trams on the streets of Atlanta. Do they have them? Maybe I've just been to the wrong parts of Atlanta where streets are car only.
First line: "“This is the type of situation I face every day,” said the tram driver, who has 25 years of experience under his belt, as he rang his bell."
Why do all these "autonomous" vehicles always have a driver or two? Amazing. I am sure it is right around the corner though. Tesla has a breakthrough AI chip which will fix it.
Why? Because people don't trust them to run alone yet. Neither the public, nor the companies producing them. Autonomous works for 99% of things- but they haven't got that last 1% ironed out yet- once the do and only once they do there will be humans around. That last 1% is going to be the hardest 1% and the longest 1%.
I don't understand tech people that still uses crap like Windoze...
I don't understand humans that still use air from the atmosphere to breathe. I don't understand rail commuters that still board trains. I don't understand grass seed companies that still use fescue seeds.
Windows is the most common platform out there- of course a large number of tech workers are still going to be using it.
I'd say it's fast on track for becoming a mainstream alternative.
Keep in mind also that it's been more common than most people think throughout the last decades. It's true that alcohol has a way longer history in the West, but the statistics are also heavily slanted by the prohibition approach to cannabis which understandably makes people less likely to admit to using it, thereby creating an image of it as more marginalized than it actually is.
I would agree with that. I think the two things are going hand in hand. The mainstream usage of it, and the push for legalization. It certainly isn't the taboo substance it once was. If you see films from the 60's-80's people smoking pot were usually losers or degenerates. Nowadays films will show everyday people, respectable people using it. Culturally, it is being portrayed more positively. I expect it to be legal almost anywhere in the Western world within my lifetime.
I doubt the same will be true for LSD though. Peyote and Magic Mushrooms might follow suit eventually as they're pretty harmless and don't have as much negative social stigma- I can see society adopting those as MJ becomes too "mainstream" and loses street cred for those on the edge. Peyote and Mushrooms will be the MJ equivalents for our grandchildren.
What I learned today from Slashdot: human beings have no free will, but a molecule can be deemed "responsible".
One could argue we DON'T have free will. We're chemical machines our thoughts are caused by chemistry in our brains based on how our brains are set up (a mix of genetic pre-programing, and our exposures in life) - we will always make the same decision in identical circumstances. We can't really change our programming. We will do what we're programmed to do.
Now, that's not a really helpful outlook- and certainly such a fatalistic view could leave people doing bad things and just saying "meh, it's what I was programmed to do"; we do want to punish people who do wrong to reprogram them (and really the rest of society) to not emulate that act... but, I don't really believe we truly have a "choice" what we do, think, and say. Our brains are always going to reach whatever conclusion they're programed (through nature and nurture) to say and do.
So 76% of alcohol related deaths are men? This is a clear sign of discrimination, we need more women dying from alcohol related deaths!
All jokes aside. If the problem were reversed society would be making a much larger issue with this and making more of a stance to protect women who are "victims of alcohol"... etc, etc.
Part of our society seems to say, if a man has a problem, it's his problem, and not something for society to worry about- no action needs to be taken to try and save men from killing themselves with alcohol; but we would "do what we can" if women were dying. The spirit of society says- men are supposed to die for their mistakes and not grumble about it because they're men, but women need protecting and if a problem impacts women we're supposed to take it serious.
Look at men getting higher education these days- the rate is dropping quickly, less and less men continue on after high school- no one cares... but women misrepresented in the tech community- WE MUST encourage more women programmers. (I'm not against this- just pointing out, we try to address issues that negatively impact women, but not for men). I'm not sure if this attitude by society (to protect women but ignore men in trouble) is prejudiced against men, women... or just indicates that society is royally screwed up in general.:)
There are two possible answers to that. The first is that there are negative side effects from those two drugs that society deems unacceptable.
However, yeah, we all know that alcohol has some pretty bad side effects, and we know that the above "official" reason is probably not the real reason. The real reason is that alcohol is established in our society and the other two are not. Alcohol has been consumed for thousands of years and has always been part of mainstream western civilization. We (mainstream society) understand it better; most people know their limits and can stop at a slight buzz without going all the way over into drunkenness.
I'm not sure when Marijuana was introduced to the West, I'll have to investigate, but it has never been part of mainstream society and so would be looked at as something bad by the concerned people in charge. LSD was certainly something new to last century and not part of long time western culture.
If man had been smoking weed in Western civilization for the last 2000 years and alcohol not discovered until last century then their roles in our society would probably be reversed. As it is, alcohol has been the acceptable drug of choice and is what is acceptable to society despite it's downsides. You're fighting inertia. Even Jesus drank wine in Western tradition. If Jesus had a bong society might be different today.
You don't get to claim straw man while making your own. Nobody claimed it was OK.
I made no strawman. He said "But those are OK because nobody used a gun, right?" claiming that I (and people who are against guns) are only against gun crime- which is ridiculous. Murder is murder no matter what the weapon used. Claiming otherwise IS a strawman and a pretty ridiculous unsubstantiatable one at that.
They pointed out that you can kill people without guns, but nobody is calling for bans on all the other things you can kill someone with. In fact, it's usually easier to kill more people with something other than a gun. A propane tank bomb, or a fertilizer bomb, or even just a fire, for example.
And you know what, that's another strawman? Bombs ARE illegal- it's irrelevant to use bombs as a defence of guns. I'm not in favour of making bombs legal either. The FBI will quickly visit your house if they suspect you of building one. But to follow your strawman, how many people are killed by fertilizer bombs in the US each year? Most years 0. If you average over the history of the US it is probably less than 1 a year.
Guns are most useful for killing a small number of people.
If you're in favor of banning guns because they are dangerous, you should be in favor of banning trucks and propane tanks for the same reason. And also cleaners with chlorine or ammonia, etc etc.
Guns are used to murder more people than any other device. You probably have more people killed with a gun in a day than you do with a truck in a year. Also a truck serves a purpose, it has a value to mankind. There is no other purpose to a gun, other than to kill other people, things, or pose a threat to do so.
A gun is useless to society. A truck is highly valuable to society. There's a huge difference, and surely you can see that.
I do not eat insects. No bird we commonly eat eats insects either. My cat is too lazy to hunt birds these days. Thus -- mosquitoes having health problems? What's the downside?
Chickens absolutely would eat insects... when they can. Nowadays they're all raised in tiny little cages though so probably won't get to eat many.
Between this and global warming, I'm pretty sure that there will not be a planet Earth in 50 years from now.
Earth will be a giant ball of plastic.
What if all this is planned? What if the blackhole at the centre of our galaxy is a cosmic-sized amazon package and all the stars orbiting it are just cosmic-sized packing peanuts.
But against unarmed victims, they all work great. Nice, France: 86 killed with a truck. Manchester, England: 20 killed with a homemade bomb.
But those are OK because nobody used a gun, right?
Oh, hello Mr. Strawman! Why, what a load of crap you are! I don't know who told you that it is legal to kill people with knives or trucks, but you're pretty gullible if you believe them.
Regarding "they all work good". You point a gun at an unarmed person- you have very little resistance and a very high chance of killing your victim. You try to stab someone with a knife- you stand a reasonable chance of failing, being disposed of your knife, and suffering wounds yourself. And if you do make contact- it's hard to make a quick kill and move on to the next victim. Same with a vehicle- yeah the potential is there to get a lot of people at once- but you essentially get one shot- and then your "Weapon" is disabled.
There's a reason why our soldiers are equipped with guns as their primary weapons and not knives or trucks. Driving trucks at the opposition in war wouldn't work very well- and our knife wielding soldiers would be quickly shot down.
Guns are much more efficient killing weapons... in fact that is their primary purpose. It's a lot harder to ban knives or trucks because they serve a purpose other than killing- in fact, killing isn't what they're primarily designed to do.
Yup, four shot. Horrible. If four people had been stabbed, or four run over with a truck, that is OK somehow.
It's a lot harder to mass murder someone in one go with a knife or a truck than with a gun. You risk immediate injury to yourself and are more likely to fail. Guns are much better murder weapons- that's why people don't warn you about taking a gun to a knife fight.
Legal gun owners don't murder. That's what the best data available tells us. Which makes perfect sense if you don't suffer from liberal hysteria, because tracing murder by registered firearm is trivial.
Unfortunately, they get murdered. Statistics show that owning a gun makes you a much higher risk at being a victim of gun crime. Brandishing a gun or owning a gun that could get stolen is more likely to get you shot than not carrying a gun.
What *exactly* are they proposing? They listed some issues with bitcoin that come with pretty much any other kind of investment, but investors aren't protected from, such as loosing all of your principal, forgetting passwords, and getting hacked.
These all happen to current traditional investors with current regulation. What exactly are they proposing to prevent this from happening with Bitcoin?
I think it's more trying to sound "in the now" than actually proposing any real legislation. What can they do?
Public Education programs. Regulate advertising for bitcoin. They could try banning access to exchanges. Try taxing gains or taxing miners. They could make commercial sites not able to accept the coin, or give information about the person providing the coins.
It's very difficult to know how successful they'd be with any of those options. You'd need a concentrated international effort if you REALLY wanted to regulate bitcoin. You also run into- how far are you going to take this? Just bitcoin, or whatabout Etherium and others? Is Dogecoin considered a real crytpocurrency? What about people who create their own little joke cryptos?
At the end of the day- this is just some people talking about a current day issue, trying to sound like they're doing something.
I always though Linus was a bit of a douche bag, but really, a lot of intelligent people who achieve "fame" or success relatively young are. I think the same personality type that leads to the dedication needed to create something as important as Linux, also tends to create less than stellar human beings.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously.
Do you really consider Windows a necessity of the same magnitude as air, rail transportation etc? Talk about a Stockholm syndrome.
No wonder you'll get raped for all eternity, you're essentially telling us you can't live without Windows and thus a total hostage to Microsoft. It's bizarre. You're actually mentally ill.
If I'm writing software for people using Windows machines. Yes. If I'm supporting people using Windows machines. Yes.
It's only a fantasy land that all your clients run Linux desktops.
I'm not sure what the excitement is about, but lots of airports I've been to have Autonomous Trams. SFO in San Francisco, for example, has an autonomous tram that goes several miles from the BART station to all the terminals. I've also been in similar trams in Atlanta, Oakland, and I'm sure other places.
The trains in Atlanta airport are anonymous. I don't recall seeing any autonomous trams in Atlanta. Not that I spend much time in downtown Atlanta, but I don't recall seeing ANY trams on the streets of Atlanta. Do they have them? Maybe I've just been to the wrong parts of Atlanta where streets are car only.
First line: "“This is the type of situation I face every day,” said the tram driver, who has 25 years of experience under his belt, as he rang his bell."
Why do all these "autonomous" vehicles always have a driver or two? Amazing. I am sure it is right around the corner though. Tesla has a breakthrough AI chip which will fix it.
Why? Because people don't trust them to run alone yet. Neither the public, nor the companies producing them. Autonomous works for 99% of things- but they haven't got that last 1% ironed out yet- once the do and only once they do there will be humans around. That last 1% is going to be the hardest 1% and the longest 1%.
I don't understand tech people that still uses crap like Windoze...
I don't understand humans that still use air from the atmosphere to breathe.
I don't understand rail commuters that still board trains.
I don't understand grass seed companies that still use fescue seeds.
Windows is the most common platform out there- of course a large number of tech workers are still going to be using it.
I'd say it's fast on track for becoming a mainstream alternative.
Keep in mind also that it's been more common than most people think throughout the last decades. It's true that alcohol has a way longer history in the West, but the statistics are also heavily slanted by the prohibition approach to cannabis which understandably makes people less likely to admit to using it, thereby creating an image of it as more marginalized than it actually is.
I would agree with that. I think the two things are going hand in hand. The mainstream usage of it, and the push for legalization. It certainly isn't the taboo substance it once was. If you see films from the 60's-80's people smoking pot were usually losers or degenerates. Nowadays films will show everyday people, respectable people using it. Culturally, it is being portrayed more positively. I expect it to be legal almost anywhere in the Western world within my lifetime.
I doubt the same will be true for LSD though. Peyote and Magic Mushrooms might follow suit eventually as they're pretty harmless and don't have as much negative social stigma- I can see society adopting those as MJ becomes too "mainstream" and loses street cred for those on the edge. Peyote and Mushrooms will be the MJ equivalents for our grandchildren.
What I learned today from Slashdot: human beings have no free will, but a molecule can be deemed "responsible".
One could argue we DON'T have free will. We're chemical machines our thoughts are caused by chemistry in our brains based on how our brains are set up (a mix of genetic pre-programing, and our exposures in life) - we will always make the same decision in identical circumstances. We can't really change our programming. We will do what we're programmed to do.
Now, that's not a really helpful outlook- and certainly such a fatalistic view could leave people doing bad things and just saying "meh, it's what I was programmed to do"; we do want to punish people who do wrong to reprogram them (and really the rest of society) to not emulate that act... but, I don't really believe we truly have a "choice" what we do, think, and say. Our brains are always going to reach whatever conclusion they're programed (through nature and nurture) to say and do.
So 76% of alcohol related deaths are men? This is a clear sign of discrimination, we need more women dying from alcohol related deaths!
All jokes aside. If the problem were reversed society would be making a much larger issue with this and making more of a stance to protect women who are "victims of alcohol"... etc, etc.
Part of our society seems to say, if a man has a problem, it's his problem, and not something for society to worry about- no action needs to be taken to try and save men from killing themselves with alcohol; but we would "do what we can" if women were dying. The spirit of society says- men are supposed to die for their mistakes and not grumble about it because they're men, but women need protecting and if a problem impacts women we're supposed to take it serious.
Look at men getting higher education these days- the rate is dropping quickly, less and less men continue on after high school- no one cares... but women misrepresented in the tech community- WE MUST encourage more women programmers. (I'm not against this- just pointing out, we try to address issues that negatively impact women, but not for men). I'm not sure if this attitude by society (to protect women but ignore men in trouble) is prejudiced against men, women... or just indicates that society is royally screwed up in general. :)
There are two possible answers to that. The first is that there are negative side effects from those two drugs that society deems unacceptable.
However, yeah, we all know that alcohol has some pretty bad side effects, and we know that the above "official" reason is probably not the real reason. The real reason is that alcohol is established in our society and the other two are not. Alcohol has been consumed for thousands of years and has always been part of mainstream western civilization. We (mainstream society) understand it better; most people know their limits and can stop at a slight buzz without going all the way over into drunkenness.
I'm not sure when Marijuana was introduced to the West, I'll have to investigate, but it has never been part of mainstream society and so would be looked at as something bad by the concerned people in charge. LSD was certainly something new to last century and not part of long time western culture.
If man had been smoking weed in Western civilization for the last 2000 years and alcohol not discovered until last century then their roles in our society would probably be reversed. As it is, alcohol has been the acceptable drug of choice and is what is acceptable to society despite it's downsides. You're fighting inertia. Even Jesus drank wine in Western tradition. If Jesus had a bong society might be different today.
the rate of death attributed to alcohol has been falling since 2012. Sounds like a better trend to me.
I'll raise a toast to that!
You don't get to claim straw man while making your own. Nobody claimed it was OK.
I made no strawman. He said "But those are OK because nobody used a gun, right?" claiming that I (and people who are against guns) are only against gun crime- which is ridiculous. Murder is murder no matter what the weapon used. Claiming otherwise IS a strawman and a pretty ridiculous unsubstantiatable one at that.
They pointed out that you can kill people without guns, but nobody is calling for bans on all the other things you can kill someone with. In fact, it's usually easier to kill more people with something other than a gun. A propane tank bomb, or a fertilizer bomb, or even just a fire, for example.
And you know what, that's another strawman? Bombs ARE illegal- it's irrelevant to use bombs as a defence of guns. I'm not in favour of making bombs legal either. The FBI will quickly visit your house if they suspect you of building one. But to follow your strawman, how many people are killed by fertilizer bombs in the US each year? Most years 0. If you average over the history of the US it is probably less than 1 a year.
Guns are most useful for killing a small number of people.
If you're in favor of banning guns because they are dangerous, you should be in favor of banning trucks and propane tanks for the same reason. And also cleaners with chlorine or ammonia, etc etc.
Guns are used to murder more people than any other device. You probably have more people killed with a gun in a day than you do with a truck in a year. Also a truck serves a purpose, it has a value to mankind. There is no other purpose to a gun, other than to kill other people, things, or pose a threat to do so.
A gun is useless to society. A truck is highly valuable to society. There's a huge difference, and surely you can see that.
I do not eat insects. No bird we commonly eat eats insects either. My cat is too lazy to hunt birds these days. Thus -- mosquitoes having health problems? What's the downside?
Chickens absolutely would eat insects... when they can. Nowadays they're all raised in tiny little cages though so probably won't get to eat many.
Sorry... that sounded trippy... I took a bite of Ozzy Osbourne earlier.
Between this and global warming, I'm pretty sure that there will not be a planet Earth in 50 years from now.
Earth will be a giant ball of plastic.
What if all this is planned? What if the blackhole at the centre of our galaxy is a cosmic-sized amazon package and all the stars orbiting it are just cosmic-sized packing peanuts.
And Ozzy Osbourne eats bats, so he is consuming plastic too. Nobody eat Ozzy Osbourne, or you're just making the problem worse.
Plastic would be the less concerning pollutant you might pick up from eating Ozzy Osbourne.
Perhaps they can call the planet "Krill" instead then.
Except isn't this one a cold dead planet? Also it has like 8X the mass of Earth and 2X as big. How would gravity be there?
It would be illogical to believe that a planet with 2X the gravity of earth could not sustain life.
Don't charge your USB "personal pleasure devices" with that plug.
Actually, an Alexa powered "pleasure device" sounds a good idea. Voice operated...
"Alexa, vibrate harder... harder... more Alexa... more... harder... say baa for me... say baaaaaaaaaa"
But against unarmed victims, they all work great. Nice, France: 86 killed with a truck. Manchester, England: 20 killed with a homemade bomb.
But those are OK because nobody used a gun, right?
Oh, hello Mr. Strawman! Why, what a load of crap you are! I don't know who told you that it is legal to kill people with knives or trucks, but you're pretty gullible if you believe them.
Regarding "they all work good".
You point a gun at an unarmed person- you have very little resistance and a very high chance of killing your victim.
You try to stab someone with a knife- you stand a reasonable chance of failing, being disposed of your knife, and suffering wounds yourself. And if you do make contact- it's hard to make a quick kill and move on to the next victim.
Same with a vehicle- yeah the potential is there to get a lot of people at once- but you essentially get one shot- and then your "Weapon" is disabled.
There's a reason why our soldiers are equipped with guns as their primary weapons and not knives or trucks. Driving trucks at the opposition in war wouldn't work very well- and our knife wielding soldiers would be quickly shot down.
Guns are much more efficient killing weapons... in fact that is their primary purpose. It's a lot harder to ban knives or trucks because they serve a purpose other than killing- in fact, killing isn't what they're primarily designed to do.
As a nerd, I don't find this newsworthy. Did Elon Musk take the day off or something?
He was the shooter.
Those "four spaces" people always were a bit too touchy.
Because guns! If only Linus had told them not to carry guns, this never would have happened.
It's the year of the Linux Desktop Murderers.
Yup, four shot. Horrible. If four people had been stabbed, or four run over with a truck, that is OK somehow.
It's a lot harder to mass murder someone in one go with a knife or a truck than with a gun. You risk immediate injury to yourself and are more likely to fail. Guns are much better murder weapons- that's why people don't warn you about taking a gun to a knife fight.
Legal gun owners don't murder. That's what the best data available tells us. Which makes perfect sense if you don't suffer from liberal hysteria, because tracing murder by registered firearm is trivial.
Unfortunately, they get murdered. Statistics show that owning a gun makes you a much higher risk at being a victim of gun crime. Brandishing a gun or owning a gun that could get stolen is more likely to get you shot than not carrying a gun.
What *exactly* are they proposing? They listed some issues with bitcoin that come with pretty much any other kind of investment, but investors aren't protected from, such as loosing all of your principal, forgetting passwords, and getting hacked.
These all happen to current traditional investors with current regulation. What exactly are they proposing to prevent this from happening with Bitcoin?
I think it's more trying to sound "in the now" than actually proposing any real legislation. What can they do?
Public Education programs. Regulate advertising for bitcoin. They could try banning access to exchanges. Try taxing gains or taxing miners. They could make commercial sites not able to accept the coin, or give information about the person providing the coins.
It's very difficult to know how successful they'd be with any of those options. You'd need a concentrated international effort if you REALLY wanted to regulate bitcoin. You also run into- how far are you going to take this? Just bitcoin, or whatabout Etherium and others? Is Dogecoin considered a real crytpocurrency? What about people who create their own little joke cryptos?
At the end of the day- this is just some people talking about a current day issue, trying to sound like they're doing something.
I always though Linus was a bit of a douche bag, but really, a lot of intelligent people who achieve "fame" or success relatively young are. I think the same personality type that leads to the dedication needed to create something as important as Linux, also tends to create less than stellar human beings.