Difficult to believe they committed so many dangerous crimes and are bragging about it
Care to name a few? Specifically?
Keep in mind they didn't physically disable the ship's controls, they just lied to it about its current location. The crew on board still had every possible means available to them to maneuver the ship away from any threats that may have appeared.
"permission from the owner" (who apparently was not even aboard) does nothing to mitigate this.
Of course it does! He, and only he, gets to decide where his boat should go next. And the very fact of his involvement mitigates most of your mythical "dangerous" argument, since presumably the owner wouldn't have let them redirect it over, say, a giant rock just below the surface. Or into pirate-filled Somalian waters. Or across national boundaries that might get them into a pissing contest with various countries over imaginary lines on the map.
Perhaps more to the point - You can't trust GPS to get you to your destination. Period. This story demonstrates an active attack on that, but the crew of any vehicle always needs to have a backup plan available at a moment's notice. If you really want to point fingers here, try the ship's navigator who somehow failed to notice that reality didn't match his charts.
I don't know what you think I've done to it, but I can assure you I haven't. Well, probably not.
The GP means that you've retconned her work into some modern narrative of suppressed female authors semi-secretly penning a body of deeply insightful social commentary, rather than letting it stand as the tripe bit of fluff Austen meant to (and did write.
Yes, it contains quite a lot of vaguely interesting trivia about pre-Victorian English society - In much the same way that "Dallas" contains quite a lot of vaguely interesting trivia about the geography of Texas.
Standing on her own, without the rosy tint of modern revisionism, Austen produced nothing but poorly-written cheesy romance novels, the era-equivalent of a Harlequin Romance (minus anything even remotely titillating, so as not to incense the sensibilities of her contemporaries).
I can think of at least a dozen really good female authors (and could probably come up with another hundred halfway decent ones) they could have selected instead of the Queen of Vapidity.
I mean, okay, technically she founded the modern "art" of the Soap Opera - Although she didn't quite advance it to the "interesting plot twist" level, preferring to keep it at the "nothing really happens but someone gets married in the end" level of complexity. But should we really celebrate someone for poisoning 200 years of young girls' minds into thinking their prince would come despite their complete absence of any redeeming qualities whatsoever (except frail "beauty", gotta love that oh-so-attactive dying-of-TB look).
That said, hurling abuse and threats at someone just because they actually did something about what they wanted, while the rest of us sat around and did nothing - Not even remotely cool.
And really, just about anyone must have more merit than the royal family, so... Good show, Caroline!:D
This seems to be specifically closing the 'not a reseller' hole.
To what "hole" do you refer? I already file schedules SE and C, via which I already get to pay that little extra "fuck you, small business guy!" self-employment tax.
If not reselling, then I have sold my time. A "sales tax" on my time equals an income tax - And not just an increase on my marginal rate, but right off my gross receipts. Way to gwow that economy, Patwick!
Okay, here's the deal. You have until your 30th birthday to fully fund a retirement account that must last until you turn 95. If you can't, you must declare bankruptcy and lose everything. Sound fair?
Why the hell did this get modded insightful?
Although the USPS pension mandate doesn't compare well to an individual's finances (for the simple reason that we can at least hold people accountable for their own failures to plan for retirement), you can still make a much, much better analogy than the drivel you posted.
As a better analogy, take someone who made damned good money all their life, and pissed away every penny of it without a single long-term asset to show for it (my generation calls them "boomers"). Now, ten years from retirement, the work doesn't come in as often as it used to, it pays a lower margin than back in the glory-days, and they honestly don't have the energy to work like a mule as in their youth anyway. And now, they suddenly look ahead and realize the need to seriously start saving or their retirement will consist of living in a cardboard box and eating cat-food.
Unfunded pension liabilities don't count as some BS government-imposed surprise expense; they build us as a basic cost of having employees, and very much count as "already spent" before-the-fact. The only "surprise" in this situation comes from the government finally realizing that all these parasitic businesses going under and passing that particular bill on to Uncle Sam, needs to stop ASAP.
Unfunded pensions mean that thousands of Detroit police and firemen, after putting in their 40 in a goddamned warzone and thinking they had planned appropriately for retirement - Will now get to eat cat food for the last 20-30 years of their lives.
By the standards of the time, eleven wasn't shockingly young - people didn't live as a long, so there was a lot of pressure to start breeding as soon and as many as possible.
This counts as half true.
Having a marriage arranged at that age - Not rare (though not common except for "important" people who couldn't leave things like the inheritance of titles and land holdings to chance).
As for reproduction, though, quality of diet directly affects that. In the 20th century, access to sufficient calories has brought the age of menarche down to 12-14 in most of the Western world (and food laced with hormones has dropped that to as low as 9ish today, but that simply didn't happen except as a freakish rarity prior to modern times); And in the absence of a proper diet, particularly among the poor, menarche could historically happen as late as 17.
So, Aisha, as the daughter of a Abu Bakr, Caliph of Rashidun, most likely had a sufficiently high quality diet that we could expect her to reasonably gone through puberty as early as 12.
Well, as long as you think that love money you certainly deserve what you get
Whoosh!
I'd have to guess you don't have English as your first language, right? Poor spelling, poor grammar, no grasp of subtle linguistic devices such as metaphor?
Psst - Reading comprehension: You can haz it, lolwtfbbq?
I outright said a car with a stuck gas petal and no brakes. Maybe read what you respond to next time?
I only mentioned the Prius because I have one, not out of some misguided crusade; and yes, the on/off button behaves in an incredibly annoying state-sensitive manner.
"Oh, what a cute little botfly larva! Sure, you can nom on my flesh for a few days, little guy!"
I suppose in the interests of accuracy, I probably shouldn't have said I don't care about your business model - More accurately, if your business model depends on people not noticing you parasitically extracting as much PII from them as you can, you can consider me openly hostile toward that.
It'd be like sitting at a restaurant, partaking of their free water and bread, and then when it comes time to order you say you're not interested and leave.
Yes, it would - If they stuck their bread-and-water table outside along a busy sidewalk with a huge sign reading "free bread and water", while a monkey hiding under the table did his best to steal change from your pocket.
then why would the site want you there?
I don't know, and don't particularly care. Put up a 100% paywall if you don't want me - I won't even bother trying BugMeNot to get in, I'll just consider you no longer part of the internet.
Which, flipness aside, actually answers your question, because so will the other 90% of visitors who may feel the same as I do but lack the technical skills to act on it. Which brings us back to botflies and monkeys.
The idea is that your history is used to generate a set of interests which you can then share voluntarily with websites, hopefully discouraging blanket tracking advertising systems love to do now.
You guys just really don't fucking get it, do you?
I don't want to make it easier for you to target me with ads. I don't want to share personal information with you. I don't want to give you yet another way to track me ("Oh, look, Mr. 18-25YO woodworking rugby-watching green-tea-drinking VI-using lesbian-fetishist on FireFox-17-with-Flash-11.101 has come back to the site!"). I don't want to "build a relationship" with you. I don't want to get your newsletter. I don't have the least interest in the viability of your business model outside the ad revenue you won't get from me. I will answer any obligatory signup questions with completely bogus info, though the throwaway email address I give you will at least work - Once.
I will find you through Google. I will visit the pages on your site that I searched for in the first place. If you have a site that appeals to me in general, I may casually browse around for a while (though if I visited with a specific goal, probably not). I will block ads, cookies, most scripts, and tracking bugs the whole time.
Downshift.
Does nothing on an automatic until your speed drops below an appropriate threshold. Even reverse won't engage until you come to a stop. Park theoretically jams the output shaft with a pawl, but even that can't "catch" above a certain (very low) speed.
Turn off the key
Many new cars (Priuses, for example) don't have mechanical keys, just a button that even under the best of conditions doesn't always do quite what you want it to - Hold it just a hair too long or too short, or have the car in the wrong gear for what you want to do, and it just laughs at you.
Spin the car.
At 80MPH, "spinning" the car means flipping the car, and will likely get you just as killed as the "brick wall" method of decelerating.
Even hard maneuvering will bleed speed off.
This one really will always work, but as with spinning, careful just how hard you maneuver at high speeds.
Overall, Sorry for the negative tone I have here, because I completely agree with you in spirit. If the driver doen't panic, he can do a lot to slow down a car with no brakes and/or a stuck accelerator. Most people don't expect that to happen, though, and simply go into a mental freeze, stomping uselessly on the brakes harder and harder rather than taking other corrective measures. As you say, "Significant user failure would seem to be present".
Have I got this right? Well! I'm glad I live in a free country! USA! USA!
You left out the part where most of the people who would actually care about what Snowden has revealed so far, already suspected the NSA of far more than this.
Making me wonder - Exactly what does his insurance policy contain??? At this point, Joe Mouthbreather will already gleefully bend over and spread 'em for the long-finger-of-the-TSA, so you have to suspect something pretty damned impressive.
Of course, as always, we can't rule out the possibility that Snowden has pretty much nothing, hell, he might even still work faithfully for the NSA, and our asshats-in-power have staged most of this to distract from their core incompetence.
Every time I read these stories I wonder if I'm doing the right thing by not investing in the continued stupidity of other people. It seems a more reliable investment than any others I've made recently.
Unfortunately, virtually every practical means of investing in stupidity break the law; and the ones that don't (the lottery, for example), the government itself runs.
If you can find a new way they haven't yet banned to extract money from the stupid (eg. "payday loans", but those look near the end of their glory days), you will find yourself very, very wealthy.
Not nearly as well as all the critters roaming around in the dark that have a tapetum lucidum just for that purpose.
Most of those critters (at least in my area) won't kill a human, but I'd hate to stub my toe on a porcupine, startle a skunk, or piss off a badger... And don't forget that rabid animals don't just lose that visual advantage over us.
Okay, the earthquake may have liquified the clay layer. No problem there.
Where, exactly, did that liquified clay layer decide to spurt out of the ground? Hint: Not any of the nearly infinite number of other places nearby that still had a few thousand feet of un-drilled rock covering them.
As full disclosure, I support drilling for natural gas. But we need much, much better quality control (which yes, will raise the price slightly), both during the initial drilling and in upkeep of the well-heads to prevent them wastefully leaking methane into the atmosphere (and ground water); and, we need criminal liability for the oil companies when the planet decides to liquify the mud layer they have chosen to disturb.
Not their fault? BS. They didn't make the mud, but they sure as hell made the tube it used to get above-ground.
In the end, there is nothing new here. Some designs have licenses.
The underlying issue, yes, long resolved (we've had CNCs for decades, does all of Slashdot think these issues haven't already come up to some degree?).
The specifics here interest me more than the general score-vs-performance principle - In this case, we have an otherwise-permissive noncommercial use license on the designs. Even CC's website refuses to make a concrete stand as to what that really means.
If Stratasys had sold the models they produced, we'd have a much clearer situation here... But they didn't. They simply used them as not-for-sale examples of what their printers can do. Does that count as commercial use or not?
As the closest analogy I can think of, do you need to own the rights to Beethoven to demo your for-sale audio system playing his 5th? But even that falls short, because while any particular performance of that work most likely has a straight-up copyright on it, in this case we have an intentionally less restrictive license involved.
Then again, personally, I just don't care. Stereotypical or not, I very much fall into the Slashdot standard of "rule however you want, we'll still just copy it anyway".:D
Could someone briefly explain why *any* of those movies would be compelling, even if done well?
I actually had high hopes for Lone Ranger redone in the "sidekick as the real hero" trope, even with all the "noble savage" BS revisionism that would necessitate for that particular story.
You mean a sleep-inducing walk, talk, walk some more, talk, walk some more, talk, walk even more, talk more movie?
Simple fact - Good books (novels in particular) do not necessarily make good movies. Most of the best "based on a story by..." movies came from short stories of 15-20 pages.
Slashdot Mirror
Difficult to believe they committed so many dangerous crimes and are bragging about it
Care to name a few? Specifically?
Keep in mind they didn't physically disable the ship's controls, they just lied to it about its current location. The crew on board still had every possible means available to them to maneuver the ship away from any threats that may have appeared.
"permission from the owner" (who apparently was not even aboard) does nothing to mitigate this.
Of course it does! He, and only he, gets to decide where his boat should go next. And the very fact of his involvement mitigates most of your mythical "dangerous" argument, since presumably the owner wouldn't have let them redirect it over, say, a giant rock just below the surface. Or into pirate-filled Somalian waters. Or across national boundaries that might get them into a pissing contest with various countries over imaginary lines on the map.
Perhaps more to the point - You can't trust GPS to get you to your destination. Period. This story demonstrates an active attack on that, but the crew of any vehicle always needs to have a backup plan available at a moment's notice. If you really want to point fingers here, try the ship's navigator who somehow failed to notice that reality didn't match his charts.
I don't know what you think I've done to it, but I can assure you I haven't. Well, probably not.
The GP means that you've retconned her work into some modern narrative of suppressed female authors semi-secretly penning a body of deeply insightful social commentary, rather than letting it stand as the tripe bit of fluff Austen meant to (and did write.
Yes, it contains quite a lot of vaguely interesting trivia about pre-Victorian English society - In much the same way that "Dallas" contains quite a lot of vaguely interesting trivia about the geography of Texas.
Standing on her own, without the rosy tint of modern revisionism, Austen produced nothing but poorly-written cheesy romance novels, the era-equivalent of a Harlequin Romance (minus anything even remotely titillating, so as not to incense the sensibilities of her contemporaries).
I can think of at least a dozen really good female authors (and could probably come up with another hundred halfway decent ones) they could have selected instead of the Queen of Vapidity.
:D
I mean, okay, technically she founded the modern "art" of the Soap Opera - Although she didn't quite advance it to the "interesting plot twist" level, preferring to keep it at the "nothing really happens but someone gets married in the end" level of complexity. But should we really celebrate someone for poisoning 200 years of young girls' minds into thinking their prince would come despite their complete absence of any redeeming qualities whatsoever (except frail "beauty", gotta love that oh-so-attactive dying-of-TB look).
That said, hurling abuse and threats at someone just because they actually did something about what they wanted, while the rest of us sat around and did nothing - Not even remotely cool.
And really, just about anyone must have more merit than the royal family, so... Good show, Caroline!
This seems to be specifically closing the 'not a reseller' hole.
To what "hole" do you refer? I already file schedules SE and C, via which I already get to pay that little extra "fuck you, small business guy!" self-employment tax.
If not reselling, then I have sold my time. A "sales tax" on my time equals an income tax - And not just an increase on my marginal rate, but right off my gross receipts. Way to gwow that economy, Patwick!
Okay, here's the deal. You have until your 30th birthday to fully fund a retirement account that must last until you turn 95. If you can't, you must declare bankruptcy and lose everything. Sound fair?
Why the hell did this get modded insightful?
Although the USPS pension mandate doesn't compare well to an individual's finances (for the simple reason that we can at least hold people accountable for their own failures to plan for retirement), you can still make a much, much better analogy than the drivel you posted.
As a better analogy, take someone who made damned good money all their life, and pissed away every penny of it without a single long-term asset to show for it (my generation calls them "boomers"). Now, ten years from retirement, the work doesn't come in as often as it used to, it pays a lower margin than back in the glory-days, and they honestly don't have the energy to work like a mule as in their youth anyway. And now, they suddenly look ahead and realize the need to seriously start saving or their retirement will consist of living in a cardboard box and eating cat-food.
Unfunded pension liabilities don't count as some BS government-imposed surprise expense; they build us as a basic cost of having employees, and very much count as "already spent" before-the-fact. The only "surprise" in this situation comes from the government finally realizing that all these parasitic businesses going under and passing that particular bill on to Uncle Sam, needs to stop ASAP.
Unfunded pensions mean that thousands of Detroit police and firemen, after putting in their 40 in a goddamned warzone and thinking they had planned appropriately for retirement - Will now get to eat cat food for the last 20-30 years of their lives.
By the standards of the time, eleven wasn't shockingly young - people didn't live as a long, so there was a lot of pressure to start breeding as soon and as many as possible.
This counts as half true.
Having a marriage arranged at that age - Not rare (though not common except for "important" people who couldn't leave things like the inheritance of titles and land holdings to chance).
As for reproduction, though, quality of diet directly affects that. In the 20th century, access to sufficient calories has brought the age of menarche down to 12-14 in most of the Western world (and food laced with hormones has dropped that to as low as 9ish today, but that simply didn't happen except as a freakish rarity prior to modern times); And in the absence of a proper diet, particularly among the poor, menarche could historically happen as late as 17.
So, Aisha, as the daughter of a Abu Bakr, Caliph of Rashidun, most likely had a sufficiently high quality diet that we could expect her to reasonably gone through puberty as early as 12.
9 < 12. Take that as you will.
Well, as long as you think that love money you certainly deserve what you get
Whoosh!
I'd have to guess you don't have English as your first language, right? Poor spelling, poor grammar, no grasp of subtle linguistic devices such as metaphor?
No offense intended, sucker. ;)
Why did this get modded down?
Single most insightful comment in the whole damned thread.
You get what you pay for - And I prefer labors of love over cheap (or in this case, not so cheap) whores.
Psst - Reading comprehension: You can haz it, lolwtfbbq?
I outright said a car with a stuck gas petal and no brakes. Maybe read what you respond to next time?
I only mentioned the Prius because I have one, not out of some misguided crusade; and yes, the on/off button behaves in an incredibly annoying state-sensitive manner.
so feel safe next time you charge up your precious chintek android using a wall wart you bought for 99 cents off of ebay
Wow, racist and hipster douche at the same time.
I haven't seen that combo before - Kudos!
Not that I particularly like the cable, but some reasons are: It predates USB being a standard for charging devices.
Well golly, that excuses Apple products more than a decade old. And everything since then?
Note that Asafa Powell and Sherone Simpson, two top Jamaican sprinters, both recently tested positive for banned stimulants.
Stimulants != steriods, Doctor.
And for reference, caffeine counts as a stimulant banned by the IOC.
There needs to be some financial incentive.
No, really, there doesn't.
"Oh, what a cute little botfly larva! Sure, you can nom on my flesh for a few days, little guy!"
I suppose in the interests of accuracy, I probably shouldn't have said I don't care about your business model - More accurately, if your business model depends on people not noticing you parasitically extracting as much PII from them as you can, you can consider me openly hostile toward that.
It'd be like sitting at a restaurant, partaking of their free water and bread, and then when it comes time to order you say you're not interested and leave.
Yes, it would - If they stuck their bread-and-water table outside along a busy sidewalk with a huge sign reading "free bread and water", while a monkey hiding under the table did his best to steal change from your pocket.
then why would the site want you there?
I don't know, and don't particularly care. Put up a 100% paywall if you don't want me - I won't even bother trying BugMeNot to get in, I'll just consider you no longer part of the internet.
Which, flipness aside, actually answers your question, because so will the other 90% of visitors who may feel the same as I do but lack the technical skills to act on it. Which brings us back to botflies and monkeys.
The idea is that your history is used to generate a set of interests which you can then share voluntarily with websites, hopefully discouraging blanket tracking advertising systems love to do now.
You guys just really don't fucking get it, do you?
I don't want to make it easier for you to target me with ads. I don't want to share personal information with you. I don't want to give you yet another way to track me ("Oh, look, Mr. 18-25YO woodworking rugby-watching green-tea-drinking VI-using lesbian-fetishist on FireFox-17-with-Flash-11.101 has come back to the site!"). I don't want to "build a relationship" with you. I don't want to get your newsletter. I don't have the least interest in the viability of your business model outside the ad revenue you won't get from me. I will answer any obligatory signup questions with completely bogus info, though the throwaway email address I give you will at least work - Once.
I will find you through Google. I will visit the pages on your site that I searched for in the first place. If you have a site that appeals to me in general, I may casually browse around for a while (though if I visited with a specific goal, probably not). I will block ads, cookies, most scripts, and tracking bugs the whole time.
Have a nice day.
Downshift.
Does nothing on an automatic until your speed drops below an appropriate threshold. Even reverse won't engage until you come to a stop. Park theoretically jams the output shaft with a pawl, but even that can't "catch" above a certain (very low) speed.
Turn off the key
Many new cars (Priuses, for example) don't have mechanical keys, just a button that even under the best of conditions doesn't always do quite what you want it to - Hold it just a hair too long or too short, or have the car in the wrong gear for what you want to do, and it just laughs at you.
Spin the car.
At 80MPH, "spinning" the car means flipping the car, and will likely get you just as killed as the "brick wall" method of decelerating.
Even hard maneuvering will bleed speed off.
This one really will always work, but as with spinning, careful just how hard you maneuver at high speeds.
Overall, Sorry for the negative tone I have here, because I completely agree with you in spirit. If the driver doen't panic, he can do a lot to slow down a car with no brakes and/or a stuck accelerator. Most people don't expect that to happen, though, and simply go into a mental freeze, stomping uselessly on the brakes harder and harder rather than taking other corrective measures. As you say, "Significant user failure would seem to be present".
Have I got this right? Well! I'm glad I live in a free country! USA! USA!
You left out the part where most of the people who would actually care about what Snowden has revealed so far, already suspected the NSA of far more than this.
Making me wonder - Exactly what does his insurance policy contain??? At this point, Joe Mouthbreather will already gleefully bend over and spread 'em for the long-finger-of-the-TSA, so you have to suspect something pretty damned impressive.
Of course, as always, we can't rule out the possibility that Snowden has pretty much nothing, hell, he might even still work faithfully for the NSA, and our asshats-in-power have staged most of this to distract from their core incompetence.
What, next to the row of little blue Pac-Man ghosts?
Every time I read these stories I wonder if I'm doing the right thing by not investing in the continued stupidity of other people. It seems a more reliable investment than any others I've made recently.
Unfortunately, virtually every practical means of investing in stupidity break the law; and the ones that don't (the lottery, for example), the government itself runs.
If you can find a new way they haven't yet banned to extract money from the stupid (eg. "payday loans", but those look near the end of their glory days), you will find yourself very, very wealthy.
Humans can see quite well in low light.
Not nearly as well as all the critters roaming around in the dark that have a tapetum lucidum just for that purpose.
Most of those critters (at least in my area) won't kill a human, but I'd hate to stub my toe on a porcupine, startle a skunk, or piss off a badger... And don't forget that rabid animals don't just lose that visual advantage over us.
I would buy pallets (as in, the big wooden kind, not the little one-dozen-seedling kind) of those in a frickin' heartbeat...
Except, at present it looks like complete vaporware. Lots of neat pictures, and you can buy swag with those same pictures on it, but no actual plants.
If I've missed the link to the real product, please call me a moron and send me to the right spot!
Okay, the earthquake may have liquified the clay layer. No problem there.
Where, exactly, did that liquified clay layer decide to spurt out of the ground? Hint: Not any of the nearly infinite number of other places nearby that still had a few thousand feet of un-drilled rock covering them.
As full disclosure, I support drilling for natural gas. But we need much, much better quality control (which yes, will raise the price slightly), both during the initial drilling and in upkeep of the well-heads to prevent them wastefully leaking methane into the atmosphere (and ground water); and, we need criminal liability for the oil companies when the planet decides to liquify the mud layer they have chosen to disturb.
Not their fault? BS. They didn't make the mud, but they sure as hell made the tube it used to get above-ground.
In the end, there is nothing new here. Some designs have licenses.
:D
The underlying issue, yes, long resolved (we've had CNCs for decades, does all of Slashdot think these issues haven't already come up to some degree?).
The specifics here interest me more than the general score-vs-performance principle - In this case, we have an otherwise-permissive noncommercial use license on the designs. Even CC's website refuses to make a concrete stand as to what that really means.
If Stratasys had sold the models they produced, we'd have a much clearer situation here... But they didn't. They simply used them as not-for-sale examples of what their printers can do. Does that count as commercial use or not?
As the closest analogy I can think of, do you need to own the rights to Beethoven to demo your for-sale audio system playing his 5th? But even that falls short, because while any particular performance of that work most likely has a straight-up copyright on it, in this case we have an intentionally less restrictive license involved.
Then again, personally, I just don't care. Stereotypical or not, I very much fall into the Slashdot standard of "rule however you want, we'll still just copy it anyway".
My act of pointing this out and suggesting that people not support him and his work is not intolerance. It is an act of survival!
Don't kid yourself, kid. No one seeing that cares in the least about Card's - Or your - Personal politics.
They want 90+ minutes of numbness that doesn't involve breaking any controlled substance laws. Nothing more, nothing less.
Could someone briefly explain why *any* of those movies would be compelling, even if done well?
I actually had high hopes for Lone Ranger redone in the "sidekick as the real hero" trope, even with all the "noble savage" BS revisionism that would necessitate for that particular story.
It still managed to disappoint in its mediocrity.
You mean a sleep-inducing walk, talk, walk some more, talk, walk some more, talk, walk even more, talk more movie?
Simple fact - Good books (novels in particular) do not necessarily make good movies. Most of the best "based on a story by..." movies came from short stories of 15-20 pages.