As I use NoScript, I couldn't help but find the amount of trackers on their site rather shocking: GAnalytics, Scorecard, Facebook, Newrelic AND Topsy, for good measure. It seems they are interpreting "freedom of information" rather liberally and include the freedom to fork their visitor's information over to PR/marketing droids wholesale.
It seems to me they are more likely an asset to DHS and their feeble social media monitoring scheme than they damage it by telling us about it.
We're comparing apples and oranges here. When you develop for Android in Eclipse, you're just making use of a bunch of plugins. Other projects you might be doing plain Java, or web development in HTML/CSS/JS, server side scripting in PHP, database stuff in SQL. All in Eclipse, if you find the right extensions.
Now for each of these you might point at some alternative that does that particular thing better, in some way. But I double dare you to name one platform which allows you to do all within the same IDE.
Perhaps without fingering individuals, it would be good to find about a bit more about what the hell happened here. This is not a guy who quits at the drop of a hat, right?
The deeper problem, of which all this is a direct consequence, is allowing short term economic considerations of a tiny minority to outweigh the mid to long term environmental and health consequences (with associated dollar cost, of course) for society at large.
FTFS:
The corn was planted in 1996. The first reports of rootworm resistance were officially documented in 2011, though agricultural scientists weren't allowed by seed companies to study the engineered corn until 2010.
Same thing is happening around fracking, companies are disallowing scientists to scrutinize the many chemicals they're squirting down into the earth, because trade secrets.
In a democracy, everyone is responsible and accountable when, decade after decade, private profits are allowed to trump public well being, time and time again.
The difference is that Limbaugh doesn't speak for a state-controlled news agency, and thus Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single man with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.
I would say that one of the major problems of having state-controlled media is having too few people determining the content. In that sense, at least, shows like Limbaugh's suffer from the same problem.
Of course the main problem is that in places with strong state-media there is typically no mainstream alternative, which makes dissent or even mild criticism of the regime very difficult to get across.
But actually, in that sense, most media outlets that are more or less partisan have a similar problem -- as long as their guys are in office, they seem typically incapable of criticism, and while the other guys' guys are in office their attacks are so obviously conditioned / reflexive that it renders them rather unconvincing and insincere.
Holy crap you must have had a really horrible time there for you to become this abusive over some guy's opinion of a city. Sucks to be you, I guess, because with that attitude you'll probably end up hating SF as well. Pro tip, if you're not a total twat (your words) and are willing to learn about the local history and people, you'd feel at home at almost any place.
But if you act like some people do (American and otherwise) expecting the locals to welcome you as their savior born anew, you will find many cities disappointing. Paris in particular.
For a man who puts himself on his own, almost personal, state tv to the extent Putin does, we can probably safely assume that articles with the phrase "Putin reportedly claims" are full of it.
I don't understand why you keep going back to Soviet days -- your "née Soviet Union" line is almost never missing, though it doesn't make any sense (born as Soviet Union?). It is almost as if you feel you need to arouse ancient Cold War anxiety among the older readers.
Really the present Russian antics are scary enough without revisionist historical fear mongering.
Same here. I joined soylent and pipe, for good measure. For the time being though I still read/. more regularly and I haven't posted to either soylent or pipe so far. Soylent has already witnessed quite some drama (an ousted leader has used the phrase "palace revolt", I kid you not).
Yeah, uh-huh. And to really throw people off, this was never mentioned. In stead they sent the only slightly credible they could find among their little junta and had him lie to the UN.
And actually, just before the invasion, Blix et al were reporting that compliance was materializing. But you know, "too little too late" because the generals already had their battle hardons on.
While I'm not disputing Russia should do more against its violent domestic extreme right wing fringes, nor that Putin and his cronies would think twice about cynically overstating the fascist element active in Ukraine in support of their own despicable handling of this affair, nor that Yanukovitch and his pals were highly corrupt and sycophantic toward Russia...
But that does not change the fact that far right hooligans did, as a matter of fact, make up a considerable part of the "revolutionary" forces on that square, or that they continue to enjoy material and moral support of our beloved West. That they have (or think they have) found a common enemy in Russia should not be sufficient grounds for arming and funding these lunatics. We might like post-revolution Ukraine even less than before, and minorities -- Russians and otherwise -- will pay the price.
Oh and I know you like to point at those evil Russians whenever someone criticizes the US, but quite apart from the fact that calibrating ones moral compass to the worst excesses of ones adversaries will predictably lead to a race to the bottom with nothing but losers in the end... I can't help but notice that the practice of lying and fabrication to justify military action against a sovereign nation is not exactly a Russian invention, and the US have long since list the right to credibly accuse others of such antics.
Well, three Pullitzers take him seriously. But that might not be saying all that much. Ok, so we have Glenn Greenwald, I would love to find out who you're thinking of as today's Thompson!
Are you under the impression that in the last 2-300 years of journalism, Hunter S Thompson or Edward Murrow are representative of the vast majority of journalists?
Hell, even the supposedly famous "Did a great job on that one famous story" types are rarely as great as their reputations suggest. Look at Bob Woodward. Is he really the Bob Woodward of Woodward and Bernstein, or a hack who reports any old crap to sell newspapers (and books)?
Maybe not exactly representative, no. My point was that even types like Thompson, who I don't think was ever especially known for his classiness, had a certain respect for his subjects. In my opinion, but of course you're welcome to disagree, that is sorely lacking these days. I consider Murrow to be an exceptional journalist, but I somehow doubt that his qualities would count for much in todays news business. For one thing he didn't really have "the looks".
Of course there have always been trash journos, if that's what you were getting at, but at least there used to be exceptions. Now, I'm not so sure. For example Friedman, who is supposed to be carrying this torch, but I'm not a big fan. Too biased, especially regarding Israel.
Bernstein, BTW, does still (or has until recently) put out quite interesting stuff now and again, but had he not already been an established hack I would guess he would not easily find employment at any major news organisation.
No they didn't. It is just that today their lack of class is more apparent.
Come on, even Hunter S Thompson had more class than the vultures who are filling columns these days. And consider someone like Edward Murrow -- he would probably not even get a job at any major news outlet today.
The "illegal war" description doesn't fit Afghanistan at all, and not really Iraq either.
Really? So Iraq was a real threat to US national security? There were weapons of mass destruction after all? It has recently come to light that Powell's speech at the UN was less than 100% fabrication? A large majority of voters were in favour of it? No outlawed munitions were used?
I guess we're just living in too different universes to be able to get to any agreement here. No biggie, carry on.
I have no love for the Russian's handling of this, and said so clearly. But the post you originally replied to was emphatically not about Russian spying -- which, since the story as a whole is about that subject, made me wonder why you chose to post your old Cuckoo link specifically at that point in the thread.
Somewhere further down I replied to someone else what I consider "illegal war", hope you don't mind a bit of laziness (it's early where I am at) and let me just copy paste that:
Lacking a mandate from the relevant institutions of international law; in the absence of a credible threat to national security; based entirely on circumstantial evidence, cherry-picked intel and plain fabrication; against the wishes of a large fraction of voters...
Google image search "McCain Svoboda". Yes, physically side by side, and not like an executioner and a condemned man.
People seem to somehow have read my post as pro-Russia, but actually I just wanted to point out that at least some if the anti-Russia crowd is rather unsavory and, imho, should probably not be propped up by western officials. For the record, I think the Russian response is completely out of line.
There is nothing controversial about the fact that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with Oleg Tyahnybok, the leader of Svoboda, or the fact that the latter are a far right group occupying 37 seats. Or that their paramilitary outgrowth was prominently at the frontline on that square. I don't doubt the ousted leaders' corruption, by the way, but my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Slashdot Mirror
As I use NoScript, I couldn't help but find the amount of trackers on their site rather shocking: GAnalytics, Scorecard, Facebook, Newrelic AND Topsy, for good measure. It seems they are interpreting "freedom of information" rather liberally and include the freedom to fork their visitor's information over to PR/marketing droids wholesale.
It seems to me they are more likely an asset to DHS and their feeble social media monitoring scheme than they damage it by telling us about it.
You forgot one: more extreme weather.
Really this is no longer an actual dispute among scientists. Or anywhere else, actually, except for the popular media in (almost exclusively) the US.
Android Studio > Eclipse.
For Android development, perhaps.
We're comparing apples and oranges here. When you develop for Android in Eclipse, you're just making use of a bunch of plugins. Other projects you might be doing plain Java, or web development in HTML/CSS/JS, server side scripting in PHP, database stuff in SQL. All in Eclipse, if you find the right extensions.
Now for each of these you might point at some alternative that does that particular thing better, in some way. But I double dare you to name one platform which allows you to do all within the same IDE.
Perhaps without fingering individuals, it would be good to find about a bit more about what the hell happened here. This is not a guy who quits at the drop of a hat, right?
The deeper problem, of which all this is a direct consequence, is allowing short term economic considerations of a tiny minority to outweigh the mid to long term environmental and health consequences (with associated dollar cost, of course) for society at large.
FTFS:
The corn was planted in 1996. The first reports of rootworm resistance were officially documented in 2011, though agricultural scientists weren't allowed by seed companies to study the engineered corn until 2010.
Same thing is happening around fracking, companies are disallowing scientists to scrutinize the many chemicals they're squirting down into the earth, because trade secrets.
In a democracy, everyone is responsible and accountable when, decade after decade, private profits are allowed to trump public well being, time and time again.
The difference is that Limbaugh doesn't speak for a state-controlled news agency, and thus Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single man with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.
I would say that one of the major problems of having state-controlled media is having too few people determining the content. In that sense, at least, shows like Limbaugh's suffer from the same problem.
Of course the main problem is that in places with strong state-media there is typically no mainstream alternative, which makes dissent or even mild criticism of the regime very difficult to get across.
But actually, in that sense, most media outlets that are more or less partisan have a similar problem -- as long as their guys are in office, they seem typically incapable of criticism, and while the other guys' guys are in office their attacks are so obviously conditioned / reflexive that it renders them rather unconvincing and insincere.
Kind of like a Russian Sarah Palin then?
Exactly. Idiot says somthing stupid. State-controlled news at eleven.
Holy crap you must have had a really horrible time there for you to become this abusive over some guy's opinion of a city. Sucks to be you, I guess, because with that attitude you'll probably end up hating SF as well. Pro tip, if you're not a total twat (your words) and are willing to learn about the local history and people, you'd feel at home at almost any place.
But if you act like some people do (American and otherwise) expecting the locals to welcome you as their savior born anew, you will find many cities disappointing. Paris in particular.
For a man who puts himself on his own, almost personal, state tv to the extent Putin does, we can probably safely assume that articles with the phrase "Putin reportedly claims" are full of it.
I don't understand why you keep going back to Soviet days -- your "née Soviet Union" line is almost never missing, though it doesn't make any sense (born as Soviet Union?). It is almost as if you feel you need to arouse ancient Cold War anxiety among the older readers.
Really the present Russian antics are scary enough without revisionist historical fear mongering.
Same here. I joined soylent and pipe, for good measure. For the time being though I still read /. more regularly and I haven't posted to either soylent or pipe so far. Soylent has already witnessed quite some drama (an ousted leader has used the phrase "palace revolt", I kid you not).
Saying "it's just metadata" makes no sense at all, since the "meta-" part give you no information about the data's value.
Agreed. Yet that is precisely what Feinstein (et al) are saying.
Yeah, uh-huh. And to really throw people off, this was never mentioned. In stead they sent the only slightly credible they could find among their little junta and had him lie to the UN.
And actually, just before the invasion, Blix et al were reporting that compliance was materializing. But you know, "too little too late" because the generals already had their battle hardons on.
While I'm not disputing Russia should do more against its violent domestic extreme right wing fringes, nor that Putin and his cronies would think twice about cynically overstating the fascist element active in Ukraine in support of their own despicable handling of this affair, nor that Yanukovitch and his pals were highly corrupt and sycophantic toward Russia...
But that does not change the fact that far right hooligans did, as a matter of fact, make up a considerable part of the "revolutionary" forces on that square, or that they continue to enjoy material and moral support of our beloved West. That they have (or think they have) found a common enemy in Russia should not be sufficient grounds for arming and funding these lunatics. We might like post-revolution Ukraine even less than before, and minorities -- Russians and otherwise -- will pay the price.
Oh and I know you like to point at those evil Russians whenever someone criticizes the US, but quite apart from the fact that calibrating ones moral compass to the worst excesses of ones adversaries will predictably lead to a race to the bottom with nothing but losers in the end... I can't help but notice that the practice of lying and fabrication to justify military action against a sovereign nation is not exactly a Russian invention, and the US have long since list the right to credibly accuse others of such antics.
... this is another echo of the importance of [Hoyle's] thinking.
Of course a bad idea doesn't cancel out a good one... But Fred Hoyle was also known for his spectacular misunderstanding of evolution.
Well, three Pullitzers take him seriously. But that might not be saying all that much. Ok, so we have Glenn Greenwald, I would love to find out who you're thinking of as today's Thompson!
Are you under the impression that in the last 2-300 years of journalism, Hunter S Thompson or Edward Murrow are representative of the vast majority of journalists?
Hell, even the supposedly famous "Did a great job on that one famous story" types are rarely as great as their reputations suggest. Look at Bob Woodward. Is he really the Bob Woodward of Woodward and Bernstein, or a hack who reports any old crap to sell newspapers (and books)?
Maybe not exactly representative, no. My point was that even types like Thompson, who I don't think was ever especially known for his classiness, had a certain respect for his subjects. In my opinion, but of course you're welcome to disagree, that is sorely lacking these days. I consider Murrow to be an exceptional journalist, but I somehow doubt that his qualities would count for much in todays news business. For one thing he didn't really have "the looks".
Of course there have always been trash journos, if that's what you were getting at, but at least there used to be exceptions. Now, I'm not so sure. For example Friedman, who is supposed to be carrying this torch, but I'm not a big fan. Too biased, especially regarding Israel.
Bernstein, BTW, does still (or has until recently) put out quite interesting stuff now and again, but had he not already been an established hack I would guess he would not easily find employment at any major news organisation.
Journalists used to have a little class.
No they didn't. It is just that today their lack of class is more apparent.
Come on, even Hunter S Thompson had more class than the vultures who are filling columns these days. And consider someone like Edward Murrow -- he would probably not even get a job at any major news outlet today.
Is that still around? I remember reading a few articles there a couple years ago. Hilarious and depressing at the same time.
Ha, that reminds me of Feynman's response to folks who thought QED was too complicated to be true:
"You don't like it? Tough! Go to another universe, where the rules are simpler and more philosophically pleasing!"
Or something to that effect, see the whole show here.
The "illegal war" description doesn't fit Afghanistan at all, and not really Iraq either.
Really? So Iraq was a real threat to US national security? There were weapons of mass destruction after all? It has recently come to light that Powell's speech at the UN was less than 100% fabrication? A large majority of voters were in favour of it? No outlawed munitions were used?
I guess we're just living in too different universes to be able to get to any agreement here. No biggie, carry on.
I have no love for the Russian's handling of this, and said so clearly. But the post you originally replied to was emphatically not about Russian spying -- which, since the story as a whole is about that subject, made me wonder why you chose to post your old Cuckoo link specifically at that point in the thread.
Somewhere further down I replied to someone else what I consider "illegal war", hope you don't mind a bit of laziness (it's early where I am at) and let me just copy paste that:
Lacking a mandate from the relevant institutions of international law; in the absence of a credible threat to national security; based entirely on circumstantial evidence, cherry-picked intel and plain fabrication; against the wishes of a large fraction of voters...
Google image search "McCain Svoboda". Yes, physically side by side, and not like an executioner and a condemned man.
People seem to somehow have read my post as pro-Russia, but actually I just wanted to point out that at least some if the anti-Russia crowd is rather unsavory and, imho, should probably not be propped up by western officials. For the record, I think the Russian response is completely out of line.
Yeah, I hope they nail them to the wall over this. Somehow though I doubt that will happen.
Well we can hope that was the contractually stipulated penalty for disclosure..
Damn, that came out wrong. Of course McCain standing there is (or should be) highly controversial, but the observation that he did so is not.
There is nothing controversial about the fact that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with Oleg Tyahnybok, the leader of Svoboda, or the fact that the latter are a far right group occupying 37 seats. Or that their paramilitary outgrowth was prominently at the frontline on that square. I don't doubt the ousted leaders' corruption, by the way, but my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend.