Thank you once again for the assist in demonstrating the bubble's ability to reject uncomfortable truths.
You provided no objective observations
Other than facebook and google erring overwhelming to the left of the political spectrum in similar efforts, and of twitter having similar composition to those companies?
There is no making up of a label, facebook and youtube erred primarily in one political direction in their removal of content "not contributing to the conversation". Twitter is similar in its makeup.
Your flamebait being marked for what is proves nothing other than that one person thinks it's flamebait.
And yet all I did was provide objective observations of similar companies that engaged in behaviors similar to that proposed for twitter. Thank you also for demonstrating that such uncomfortable truths (silicon valley errs primarily in one political direction) are flamebait/trolling/etc to those who feel their political bubbles threatened by honest observations.
In spite of California legislation, not because of it. Largely a legacy of the largess of defense and aerospace spending and the pure luck of the draw of major natural harbors that are gateways to the entire country. In other words California's financial success is largely due to the rest of the country, not so much its own doing, and especially not the California legislature's doing.
Hardcore Liberal here, California may as well jump off the edge of the world and leave the rest of us alone. This is the most ridiculous decisions I have read about in the last, um, well, last week (Trump trumps them all)...but this one is pretty bad.
Only very small portions of California need to make that jump to restore a balanced system. They crazy end of the spectrum is quite localized.
No dude, they do not prove your point. Quite the opposite. The "leftist" epithet is a very lame bit of virtue signaling on your part to try to both demean a strawman...
Except its not a straw man, its a factual observation, an uncomfortable truth. See facebook's and youtube's recent examples of partisan determination of what is or is not an acceptable post. The failures overwhelmingly lean in one political direction, hence the accurate epithet.
... signal to "your tribe" that you're one of them...
Nope, its a simple observation of behavior at similar companies. And my tribe, the "independent" tribe, a tribe that votes for individual candidates based on individual merit, not political parties, isn't impressed by the type of signaling you falsely perceive. I suspect some projection on your part.
If we were discussing a right leaning organization that attempts to avoid discussion with false claims of "fake news" I would have used a "rightist" epithet. But that's not the case here as facebook and youtube demonstrate.
Your use of 'leftist' drew the flamebait flag. It has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with form.
No, it has to do with the uncomfortable truth. If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem? Are you denying that twitter is likely to have a very left leaning employee base? Are you denying we have seen similar leanings and bias when facebook and youtube recently attempted the removal of offending posts?
Again, my point is demonstrated. An uncomfortable truth is offensive to some. The uncomfortable truth is the leaning of various silicon valley companies.
But then, perhaps I'm a 'leftist' and my reaction is just a justification for not being able to deal with your uncomfortable idea.
Do you realise you are doing pretty much exactly what you are criticising? "Silicon valley liberals" do this, think that etc. Exactly what you criticised your friends for doing with people in the industrial states.
You'd have a point if I were as mistaken about the nature of the consensus in silicon valley as they are about the nature of the consensus in the industrial states. Certainly there are individuals of various opinions but regional leanings are identifiable. Here is an unfordable truth for you to ponder, the partisan determination of offending posts by facebook, youtube, etc in recent history.
Can we please, everyone, stop doing this? Stop with the 'they did it first, so it justifies me doing it'?
No such argument was made. The simple argument is that twitter likely can not be trusted to make the determination on offending posts, no more than facebook or youtube, and local culture has a lot to do with this failing.
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
Left, right, sideways... there's more than one axis and more than Democrats and Republicans. I'll admit that when I was younger I thought a lot of people were trolling, you can't seriously mean that. But the older I get the more I realize that people do see things very differently, if you're kind we have different opinions and viewpoints if you're mean there's many with a very warped view of reality.
I'm not sure we are in disagreement. I'm not saying that people with a different opinion are trolling. I'm pointing out a tendency to dismiss the different opinion as a troll or fake, to make the opinion unworthy of response, to sidestep the necessity of offering an intellectual counterargument. I just used the language of one side because that particular side will most likely be making the determination of what is an offending post and we've seen how that goes with facebook, youtube, etc.
What is trolling, and not. Everyone's perspectives can differ, so... Will anyone really notice less trolling after it's implementation? We'll see.
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
And flamebait tags prove my point. Thank you for the assist.
the device driver manufacturer is not the operating system manufacturer. Who knows which is to blame, but I'm not so quick to blame Microsoft.
I'll wager you're one of the first to blame "Linux" when some piece of hardware doesn't work properly, even if the vendor gives no shits and does not release even a scrap of documentation.
Well the Linux developers should have signed the NDA to get access to the documents. Its the Linux developer's philosophy and terms that prevents some developer participation. If you want someone to work with you there needs to be some accommodation, but with Linux there is no accommodation, only submitting to the dictates of the GPL. Well that's the tradeoff Linux developers chose, open source at the price of less cooperation from others. They made that choice, they are certainly entitled to make that chose, but choices have consequences, so yes, it is Linux's fault.
What is trolling, and not. Everyone's perspectives can differ, so... Will anyone really notice less trolling after it's implementation? We'll see.
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country and this will possibly lead to even greater election defeats.
Prior to the 2016 election I had some arguments with friends in that bubble. Trying to explain to them that the "blue wall" of the industrial states was nonsense. That many blue collar "democrats" are moderate non-ideologues who are not necessary loyal to the party, they have a certain independence. All things being equal a democratic candidate may have an advantage but if a republican candidate can deliver a "better" message to them they will consider voting for the republican candidate. Ex: the "Reagan Democrats". But no, to the silicon valley types the blue wall was impenetrable, no one could ever vote for a republican, no one could ever let economic fears and concerns be their deciding factor. And on election day they learned how wrong they were.
This twitter feature will just silence those outside the bubble, and those inside the bubble will hear fewer "warnings" from outside and have an even deeper sense of false security in the future.
One way to think about it is that BTC needs to do all the same things in terms of power usage as the current banking network AND large amounts of expensive math on top of it. The power cost for mining is in addition to the power consumed by doing stuff the banking system also does.
One way to mitigate the waste of bitcoin is to have fewer miners. The bitcoin network needs a reasonable number of distributed and independent miners. More miners don't necessarily make the network any more secure, they just increase the power consumption. Matter of fact one could argue that the unbounded number of miners creates an opportunity for an insecure network. The industrialization and commercialization of bitcoin mining is what brought us near to a hypothetical 51% attack a few years ago.
Perhaps mining should be restricted. Large scale miners prohibited. Software could solve this, sorry, you or your region is providing too much hash rate and excess mining solutions will be discarded.
Irrelevant. Your political opinion does not disprove wikileak's political agenda, it merely exemplifies the the political beliefs behind wikileaks's political agenda.
He turned Wikileaks from a service publishing information to the public while protecting the source to a political weapon to push a specific political agenda.
Actually wikileaks *always* pushed a political agenda. Their famous gulf war video was edited so as to remove the fact that the journalists killed were essentially "embedded" with an armed insurgent group while blocks away American troops were fighting other insurgents. Hang with insurgents near a firefight and you run the legitimate risk of getting Apache'd.
Wikileaks was the same during the Bush and Obama years, the only difference is that some cheered during the former and others cheered during the latter. The difference only being the politics of those cheering.
The fact that any company sold anything to Iran at all under sanctions was basically a "let's see you stop me" move, and they got rightly called on that.
True they didn't have the sophistication to create a cutout company. A Czech company created a non-EU cutout company to sell goods to, who would in turn sell goods to Iran. Different ownership, a friend of a friend owned the cutout. The Czech company got its extra sales at a good price, the cutout got a good markup and basically reshipped unopened boxes. The Iranian buyers paid noticeably more for the goods but it understood the complications and workaround.
Now this was possible since the goods were consumer luxury items. Not tightly controlled and tracked military grade type stuff. YMMV depending on the goods.
ZTE is a publicly traded company, and a massive one at that. What you're proposing is that every single ZTE shareholder would have to somehow invest in this new company, every single employee would have to resign from the original and join the new, and every single asset would have to be transferred to the new company tax free.
No, most shareholders are irrelevant. However the new company will have the same major shareholders (founders, early investors, communist party officials, etc... the pre-public and government folks) and possibly the same executives. As for assets they will get the good valuable and important stuff and the old shareholders will get to keep the legacy and unimportant stuff, and the mistakes.
I've seen this in the US. A company goes bankrupt. The previous owners/management contact the company that was supposed to do the asset auction and they make a pre-auction bulk purchase of the good stuff necessary to reboot under a new name.
By "hardening" I was referring to the U remaining contained after an explosion and/or crash (launch failure, etc). Basically that keeping a specialized U container from leaking seemed a simpler problem than keeping a fueled reactor from leaking.
No need to harden the reactor. Ship it without the U installed. The U can be in a separate hardened container and installed in the reactor at the destination if the transit is trouble free.
Slashdot Mirror
"Leftists" is the label that is made up.
"leftist
noun
a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views."
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
Thank you once again for the assist in demonstrating the bubble's ability to reject uncomfortable truths.
You provided no objective observations
Other than facebook and google erring overwhelming to the left of the political spectrum in similar efforts, and of twitter having similar composition to those companies?
What's factual about making up a label ...
There is no making up of a label, facebook and youtube erred primarily in one political direction in their removal of content "not contributing to the conversation". Twitter is similar in its makeup.
Your flamebait being marked for what is proves nothing other than that one person thinks it's flamebait.
And yet all I did was provide objective observations of similar companies that engaged in behaviors similar to that proposed for twitter. Thank you also for demonstrating that such uncomfortable truths (silicon valley errs primarily in one political direction) are flamebait/trolling/etc to those who feel their political bubbles threatened by honest observations.
... the #1 economy in America ...
In spite of California legislation, not because of it. Largely a legacy of the largess of defense and aerospace spending and the pure luck of the draw of major natural harbors that are gateways to the entire country. In other words California's financial success is largely due to the rest of the country, not so much its own doing, and especially not the California legislature's doing.
Hardcore Liberal here, California may as well jump off the edge of the world and leave the rest of us alone. This is the most ridiculous decisions I have read about in the last, um, well, last week (Trump trumps them all) ...but this one is pretty bad.
Only very small portions of California need to make that jump to restore a balanced system. They crazy end of the spectrum is quite localized.
No dude, they do not prove your point. Quite the opposite. The "leftist" epithet is a very lame bit of virtue signaling on your part to try to both demean a strawman ...
Except its not a straw man, its a factual observation, an uncomfortable truth. See facebook's and youtube's recent examples of partisan determination of what is or is not an acceptable post. The failures overwhelmingly lean in one political direction, hence the accurate epithet.
... signal to "your tribe" that you're one of them ...
Nope, its a simple observation of behavior at similar companies. And my tribe, the "independent" tribe, a tribe that votes for individual candidates based on individual merit, not political parties, isn't impressed by the type of signaling you falsely perceive. I suspect some projection on your part.
If we were discussing a right leaning organization that attempts to avoid discussion with false claims of "fake news" I would have used a "rightist" epithet. But that's not the case here as facebook and youtube demonstrate.
Your use of 'leftist' drew the flamebait flag. It has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with form.
No, it has to do with the uncomfortable truth. If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem? Are you denying that twitter is likely to have a very left leaning employee base? Are you denying we have seen similar leanings and bias when facebook and youtube recently attempted the removal of offending posts?
Again, my point is demonstrated. An uncomfortable truth is offensive to some. The uncomfortable truth is the leaning of various silicon valley companies.
But then, perhaps I'm a 'leftist' and my reaction is just a justification for not being able to deal with your uncomfortable idea.
A crack in the bubble. ;-)
Do you realise you are doing pretty much exactly what you are criticising? "Silicon valley liberals" do this, think that etc. Exactly what you criticised your friends for doing with people in the industrial states.
You'd have a point if I were as mistaken about the nature of the consensus in silicon valley as they are about the nature of the consensus in the industrial states. Certainly there are individuals of various opinions but regional leanings are identifiable. Here is an unfordable truth for you to ponder, the partisan determination of offending posts by facebook, youtube, etc in recent history.
Can we please, everyone, stop doing this? Stop with the 'they did it first, so it justifies me doing it'?
No such argument was made. The simple argument is that twitter likely can not be trusted to make the determination on offending posts, no more than facebook or youtube, and local culture has a lot to do with this failing.
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
Left, right, sideways... there's more than one axis and more than Democrats and Republicans. I'll admit that when I was younger I thought a lot of people were trolling, you can't seriously mean that. But the older I get the more I realize that people do see things very differently, if you're kind we have different opinions and viewpoints if you're mean there's many with a very warped view of reality.
I'm not sure we are in disagreement. I'm not saying that people with a different opinion are trolling. I'm pointing out a tendency to dismiss the different opinion as a troll or fake, to make the opinion unworthy of response, to sidestep the necessity of offering an intellectual counterargument. I just used the language of one side because that particular side will most likely be making the determination of what is an offending post and we've seen how that goes with facebook, youtube, etc.
What is trolling, and not. Everyone's perspectives can differ, so... Will anyone really notice less trolling after it's implementation? We'll see.
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
And flamebait tags prove my point. Thank you for the assist.
They fired about 3,000 quality assurance people over the last few years. This is why MS patches suck so bad now.
I guess that was not simply the legacy version teams, Win XP, Vista, 7, 8. ;-(
the device driver manufacturer is not the operating system manufacturer. Who knows which is to blame, but I'm not so quick to blame Microsoft.
I'll wager you're one of the first to blame "Linux" when some piece of hardware doesn't work properly, even if the vendor gives no shits and does not release even a scrap of documentation.
Well the Linux developers should have signed the NDA to get access to the documents. Its the Linux developer's philosophy and terms that prevents some developer participation. If you want someone to work with you there needs to be some accommodation, but with Linux there is no accommodation, only submitting to the dictates of the GPL. Well that's the tradeoff Linux developers chose, open source at the price of less cooperation from others. They made that choice, they are certainly entitled to make that chose, but choices have consequences, so yes, it is Linux's fault.
What is trolling, and not. Everyone's perspectives can differ, so... Will anyone really notice less trolling after it's implementation? We'll see.
Confronting a leftist with an "uncomfortable" truth is trolling. Seen it many times, the accusation is a defensive reaction to dismiss the "uncomfortable" thoughts, to avoid having to respond on the merits.
Twitters new group think reinforcement feature!
Seriously. Silcon valley liberals think silencing non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts will help their side? They will just reinforce their leftist bubble of estrangement from the rest of the country and this will possibly lead to even greater election defeats.
Prior to the 2016 election I had some arguments with friends in that bubble. Trying to explain to them that the "blue wall" of the industrial states was nonsense. That many blue collar "democrats" are moderate non-ideologues who are not necessary loyal to the party, they have a certain independence. All things being equal a democratic candidate may have an advantage but if a republican candidate can deliver a "better" message to them they will consider voting for the republican candidate. Ex: the "Reagan Democrats". But no, to the silicon valley types the blue wall was impenetrable, no one could ever vote for a republican, no one could ever let economic fears and concerns be their deciding factor. And on election day they learned how wrong they were.
This twitter feature will just silence those outside the bubble, and those inside the bubble will hear fewer "warnings" from outside and have an even deeper sense of false security in the future.
One way to think about it is that BTC needs to do all the same things in terms of power usage as the current banking network AND large amounts of expensive math on top of it. The power cost for mining is in addition to the power consumed by doing stuff the banking system also does.
One way to mitigate the waste of bitcoin is to have fewer miners. The bitcoin network needs a reasonable number of distributed and independent miners. More miners don't necessarily make the network any more secure, they just increase the power consumption. Matter of fact one could argue that the unbounded number of miners creates an opportunity for an insecure network. The industrialization and commercialization of bitcoin mining is what brought us near to a hypothetical 51% attack a few years ago.
Perhaps mining should be restricted. Large scale miners prohibited. Software could solve this, sorry, you or your region is providing too much hash rate and excess mining solutions will be discarded.
Except America didn't belong in that country.
Irrelevant. Your political opinion does not disprove wikileak's political agenda, it merely exemplifies the the political beliefs behind wikileaks's political agenda.
Back in the 70's, $6 Million would have bought you a whole Bionic Man.
Now adjust for 40+ years of inflation. Might want to review the costs using modern components too. :-)
Cameras are cheap. People to watch them, however, aren't.
Google is working with the Pentagon to fix that.
He turned Wikileaks from a service publishing information to the public while protecting the source to a political weapon to push a specific political agenda.
Actually wikileaks *always* pushed a political agenda. Their famous gulf war video was edited so as to remove the fact that the journalists killed were essentially "embedded" with an armed insurgent group while blocks away American troops were fighting other insurgents. Hang with insurgents near a firefight and you run the legitimate risk of getting Apache'd.
Wikileaks was the same during the Bush and Obama years, the only difference is that some cheered during the former and others cheered during the latter. The difference only being the politics of those cheering.
Ever try using Tor? Now multiply the slowness that is Tor times 1,000. You'd be lucky to get 300 baud.
Good, we can go back to text emails. That would solve a few problems.
It's not free if they are tracking and selling your browsing habits.
going to the park is not free because they count the visitors
The park visitors aren't identified and their habits put into a database.
... because they don't need no more steenkin' tests.
Actually because the mountain has collapsed upon their underground testing facilities, they can't test anymore.
The fact that any company sold anything to Iran at all under sanctions was basically a "let's see you stop me" move, and they got rightly called on that.
True they didn't have the sophistication to create a cutout company. A Czech company created a non-EU cutout company to sell goods to, who would in turn sell goods to Iran. Different ownership, a friend of a friend owned the cutout. The Czech company got its extra sales at a good price, the cutout got a good markup and basically reshipped unopened boxes. The Iranian buyers paid noticeably more for the goods but it understood the complications and workaround.
Now this was possible since the goods were consumer luxury items. Not tightly controlled and tracked military grade type stuff. YMMV depending on the goods.
ZTE is a publicly traded company, and a massive one at that. What you're proposing is that every single ZTE shareholder would have to somehow invest in this new company, every single employee would have to resign from the original and join the new, and every single asset would have to be transferred to the new company tax free.
No, most shareholders are irrelevant. However the new company will have the same major shareholders (founders, early investors, communist party officials, etc ... the pre-public and government folks) and possibly the same executives. As for assets they will get the good valuable and important stuff and the old shareholders will get to keep the legacy and unimportant stuff, and the mistakes.
I've seen this in the US. A company goes bankrupt. The previous owners/management contact the company that was supposed to do the asset auction and they make a pre-auction bulk purchase of the good stuff necessary to reboot under a new name.
By "hardening" I was referring to the U remaining contained after an explosion and/or crash (launch failure, etc). Basically that keeping a specialized U container from leaking seemed a simpler problem than keeping a fueled reactor from leaking.
No need to harden the reactor. Ship it without the U installed. The U can be in a separate hardened container and installed in the reactor at the destination if the transit is trouble free.