Agreed 40 years is too long. One AC posted that the current limit for cars is 10 years for safety recalls to be covered by the manufacturer. It looks like at some point the subject came up with regard to automobiles. It was discussed, points from different sides were examined, and a statute was laid down in law.
From what I can see with the software angle there has been no discussion where the rights and well being of the consumer are weighted against the edicts and whims of software companies. I mean we have the DMCA which says don't try to fix anything or we will jail you, but we don't seem to have any consumer protections laid down in law.
Nor has there been a robust and well examined discussion, as is obvious to me from the responses. I see a bunch of, "well you can't support software forever! You're crazy!" and little or no "Well, since forever is too long, and the whims and edicts of the supplier are too variable, what should the statutory/regulatory limits on support be, as determined by an impartial and well intentioned third party?"
For instance, what if the bug is known before the end of support, and the manufacturer decides not patch it? Is it a rational question to ask "is the company liable for the damage for distributing a known defective product and not repairing it?" I seem to think that many people and the software industry itself would reply, "nope, you're fucked." Frankly, I disagree and I think we should talk about it.
I get where you are coming from. Odd that it didn't occur to me, as the way I write is natural for me and requires less effort than trying to write another way. Still, I consider my statement an "endorsement from the other side" rather than an example of irony.
It works when other "professionals" are watching and the "professional" you are talking to has fears about their status and the ability of other "professionals" in their periphery to attack them and gain status.
Otherwise, familiarity and vernacular are the lingua franca that bridge the gaps between apparent status, position, privilege, race, creed, and sexual preference.
My take is if it is a graded exercise, feel free to grade their writing. If it is not a graded exercise and you are looking at a text or an email written in the spare time the student has available, be a human being and relax. As long as their message is decipherable with negligible effort, reply as you would to any eloquently worded prose. You might even want to pump it up a bit, choose some big words that challenge them. Make em bust out the ol' dictionary app to figure out what you just wrote. There is more than one way to educate. Example is one.
If the purpose is to educate the student, and the student is engaged enough to initiate conversation about that process, aborting the conversation by rejecting that interaction in the infant stages with complaints about their writing style might leave their embryonic relationship with you, the material, and your class, stillborn.
Once you have a relationship it is easier to correct, or let's call it what it is, influence the individual. Common ground, common purpose, reciprocation, and familiarity go much farther than authoritative edicts, accusations of ignorance, and pejorative pronouncements. If you are a professor and you haven't learned this you may be in the game for the wrong reason. You are a dick and no one is helped by your presence, least of all yourself.
If we change the rules by which a candidate wins, but don't ever tell anyone, Hillary wins.
Since this is true given the results, but completely divorced from reality or even possible reality, I would say that whatever you wrote after this assertion is complete bunk. You cannot apply a different set of rules post hoc and then use that juxtaposition of rules and results to determine what was meant by the voting public under the original set of rules. At that point it becomes clear that this is just an attempt to eek out some satisfaction from a situation that you were obviously emotionally connected to that didn't work out the way you wanted.
Look, it didn't work out the way I wanted either. Shitty campaign finance laws, beholden superdelegates, and sexist dumbfucks screwed me out of a walk-in-the-park Sanders landslide and a brand new era in American politics certain to forever transform the electorate and catapult the US into the 21st century. We all got problems man, but being illogical and irrational isn't helping.
Your attempts to use illogical and outright wrongheaded thought to support your point signal to rational people that you are willing to disregard not only what really happened, but also logic in general, as you attempt to assuage some emotional deficit you feel in regards to the last election.
Another way to think of this, properly, is this:
If you change the rules of the election process, expect a change in the way the electorate votes.
You cannot conclude from the available information what the majority of the US wanted, as not even a majority of eligible US voters voted. Nor can you determine what the vote would have been if we were using a direct democracy system to elect the president. With different rules candidates would have campaigned differently and the voters would have voted differently. I am sure that some that stayed home would have come out, and some that came out would have stayed home. Regardless, due to the electoral college's influence, you cannot use the vote in the last election to determine anything other than who got the most electoral votes. Attempting to piece together some kind of democratic mandate or squeeze out some kind of justification for candidate A over candidate B, other than the electoral college results, is rife with inaccuracy and unfounded conjecture.
Keep in mind that a recent airbag recall affected millions of vehicles in the US and the manufacturers of those cars paid for those airbags to be replaced regardless of whether the car was in warranty or not.
Analogies are only useful if you take into consideration the cases that are similar. This appears to be one.
If you own a Chevy, Dodge, or Ford and the airbag is defective and recalled it won't matter if you are out of warranty. The device will be fixed free of charge by your local dealer. Any safety recall would be handled the same way. The retailer's service facility will repair it free of charge.
With the news of how medical records and devices were affected, one might begin to wonder if software should be subject to the same kind of recall system. Personally I think it feels a little one sided for software companies to create buggy and easily penetrated software that results in loss on the user's end and all the company has to say in return is "You need to buy this new (equally buggy and easily penetrated!) software that is more intrusive and gives us access to more of your marketable metadata."
Is this yet another example of how dollars equal speech, leading to a loopback fucking, where our own money is used by large corporations to buy lawmakers and make sure protections for customers are never passed?
I would like to hear dissenting opinions as well as corroborating ones.
I am wondering about the connections of the olfactory centers in the brain and how they relate to conscious processing and accessibility. Basically, when the impulses from olfactory sensation are percolating up from the nose and through the olfactory center of the brain how much of that information is then passed and accessible to the conscious part of the brain?
Also, how many of those 1000 genes related to olfactory sensation are actually activated and involved in proteosynthesis in your average western culture arcology dweller? Compare that group to your average Amazon Basin dwelling individuals from a pristine society of hunters and gatherers and you have a PhD paper on your hands I'll wager.
Investors do their own research you numbskull. They should not, and do not, rely solely on the words and evaluations of the seller of a property. As one with half a brain might imagine, an investor of millions of dollars has their own staff of professionals in the real estate business that can compare similar properties. Kind of like Zillow, but with big buildings instead of houses. (I can't believe I just had to write something so incredibly obvious.)
I really don't know how to dumb this down any more than I already am, though I am struck by the peculiar sensation that for you to understand it I would have to do just that.
Also, caveat emptor. Look it up. I can't speak idiot anymore today.
Did you just quote the 4th amendment as some kind of authoritative source? You are aware that the Constitution is a "living document" which means that the amendment you are referring to isn't worth the parchment it was written on, right? That was part of the whole "secret interpretations" of the constitution that Obama and his justice department and intelligence agencies operated under.
You gotta keep up man! There are way too many things that our government wants, nay deserves, to know about every single one of its citizens for some silly words written hundreds of years ago to stop them.
After the politicization of other federal entities under the previous administration I think you are being too lenient.
Also, I find it hard to believe that the media or any democrat would be opposing the firing of Comey if Hillary were the president.
So it can be perfectly consistent to say someone should resign, and object when someone fires them. However, it is the height of inconsistency when you would accept one person firing someone but not another. That is not consistent. That is blatant misinformation and politicking.
Again, if Hillary was in office and the FBI was still investigating her for whatever reason and she fired Comey, are you completely sure that the press and democrats would be grilling her the same way they are the Trump administration? If you answer this question honestly, I will be surprised.
Besides, why would any democrat want a hardcore failure like Comey investigating the president? He would have failed to protect the interests of the people as he had done so many, many times before and Trump would be exonerated. Jesus you people are dense.
Well that lessened my opinion of Snowden. Its the first thing that has so far.
Let's face it, Comey is a class A shitbag any way you want to look at him. The things he didn't do are even worse than the things he did do while he was at the FBI, and those things he did that make him unpopular are pretty heinous. If people can't agree on this now because they hate Trump that is just more thoughtless emotional partisan insanity.
Don't fall for it. Don't participate in it. Don't be a fool.
Comey needed to go. Hillary would have fired him months ago, Trump should have done the same, but better late than never.
Now one can only hope that the next head of the FBI will do things like instruct their officers to listen and follow up relentlessly when they have explicitly specific leads about stateside terrorist threats passed to them by other countries and other three letter agencies. If the person doesn't meet that standard, fire them too.
Because the things that the "parties" tell you to think, the messages that they frame in every utterance, are inconsistency incarnate. They can't make sense on close inspection, otherwise they would not be able to fracture the population into warring ideologies. Irrationality is a prerequisite for partisanship. Same for compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance. Logic is strictly forbidden.
Just remember, whenever someone says there are two sides to an issue they have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they can only see what they have been programmed to see and the inverse image of that programming. They can never acknowledge something outside of their own programmed presuppositions, other than the inevitable antithesis of their position. They exist, intellectually, on a single line with every thought of their own balanced by "the other side" with equal but opposite positions. That something could approach from a different angle, or that there is a way to encompass both positions in another one, or that you could think around or above the current impasse is completely alien to them.
This is just another reason why partisanship is a manufactured mental handicap. Don't expect it to make sense unless you reject it first. Once you are outside the system things become much clearer.
Questions are powerful things. They induce thought into new directions, if properly phrased. They can reveal bias, unearth deep ignorance, strip the ego, and propel creativity. If used as part of a tautology, as your was, they merely propagate and perpetuate ignorance of the truth. The assumptions inherent in the question invalidate the usefulness of the answer.
The reason why is not the right question. Why is irrelevant. "What is the purpose" is much closer to the mark. "What is there to gain in taking this particular set of actions and publicizing them in this certain way" is even closer to the mark. Me, I just ask "why would anyone willingly participate in such a crazy, destructive, divisive, disempowering sham as the two party system?"
It's not that he's that smart. It's just that some groups of people are incredibly easy to predict because of how they have designed their rules of interaction with "offensive" subjects.
There were so many examples of what they had done to white men, Christians, and republicans that it was easy to perform a gedankenerfahrung and determine the results of a targeted meme injection.
They called their shot and it worked. This says very little about those that designed the meme and speaks volumes about the group they were targeting.
In the context of speech, no one can make you feel bad. You have to do that to yourself. The entire world as you perceive it exists only in your mind. Your subjective experience, your meta thought analysis of the sensory perceptions you receive, is mutable primarily by your own thought and analysis.
If you read something and are offended, you take the responsibility of that offense. You did it to yourself. You, ion your infinite ignorance, created the offense.
So, in a very roundabout way, you just said that you are a bad person. I think we can agree on this.
So every single person elected to high office in Washington by the American public is a millionaire and you are suddenly struck by the possibility that rich people will make policy that helps rich people?
Guess what? This "change" will not be a change. Americans will still elect rich people, and in turn, those rich people will appoint more rich people to protect, nay enhance, their interests. It's the same thing, the same thing, the same thing that has been going on for a looooong time, sir.
They just got to a part of the system you told yourself was free from the usual human politics and power economy that exists everywhere else where control without question is exercised. You thought the EPA was pure and untainted and now they are sullying it with this degrading display of blatant capitalism.
Sigh, the world is ever jaded, the only innocence is in the minds of the ignorant.
Keep in mind, I guarantee you that none of the "scientists" that lost their jobs at the EPA will worry a single bit about making their car payment next month. None of them are without deep rooted connections to fabulously wealthy and powerful people. How did you think they got that job in the first place? A lottery? A contest of who has the bigger heart?
By lowering the corporate tax rate the US becomes a tax haven where companies will put their global corporate offices, employ locals, and ultimately pay their corporate taxes.
This is the theory. It remains to be seen what actually will happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but men cost twice as much so you won't be able to compete with all of those companies that employ only women to keep salaries down.
Agreed 40 years is too long. One AC posted that the current limit for cars is 10 years for safety recalls to be covered by the manufacturer. It looks like at some point the subject came up with regard to automobiles. It was discussed, points from different sides were examined, and a statute was laid down in law.
From what I can see with the software angle there has been no discussion where the rights and well being of the consumer are weighted against the edicts and whims of software companies. I mean we have the DMCA which says don't try to fix anything or we will jail you, but we don't seem to have any consumer protections laid down in law.
Nor has there been a robust and well examined discussion, as is obvious to me from the responses. I see a bunch of, "well you can't support software forever! You're crazy!" and little or no "Well, since forever is too long, and the whims and edicts of the supplier are too variable, what should the statutory/regulatory limits on support be, as determined by an impartial and well intentioned third party?"
For instance, what if the bug is known before the end of support, and the manufacturer decides not patch it? Is it a rational question to ask "is the company liable for the damage for distributing a known defective product and not repairing it?" I seem to think that many people and the software industry itself would reply, "nope, you're fucked." Frankly, I disagree and I think we should talk about it.
I get where you are coming from. Odd that it didn't occur to me, as the way I write is natural for me and requires less effort than trying to write another way. Still, I consider my statement an "endorsement from the other side" rather than an example of irony.
It works when other "professionals" are watching and the "professional" you are talking to has fears about their status and the ability of other "professionals" in their periphery to attack them and gain status.
Otherwise, familiarity and vernacular are the lingua franca that bridge the gaps between apparent status, position, privilege, race, creed, and sexual preference.
My take is if it is a graded exercise, feel free to grade their writing. If it is not a graded exercise and you are looking at a text or an email written in the spare time the student has available, be a human being and relax. As long as their message is decipherable with negligible effort, reply as you would to any eloquently worded prose. You might even want to pump it up a bit, choose some big words that challenge them. Make em bust out the ol' dictionary app to figure out what you just wrote. There is more than one way to educate. Example is one.
If the purpose is to educate the student, and the student is engaged enough to initiate conversation about that process, aborting the conversation by rejecting that interaction in the infant stages with complaints about their writing style might leave their embryonic relationship with you, the material, and your class, stillborn.
Once you have a relationship it is easier to correct, or let's call it what it is, influence the individual. Common ground, common purpose, reciprocation, and familiarity go much farther than authoritative edicts, accusations of ignorance, and pejorative pronouncements. If you are a professor and you haven't learned this you may be in the game for the wrong reason. You are a dick and no one is helped by your presence, least of all yourself.
What you are saying is this:
If we change the rules by which a candidate wins, but don't ever tell anyone, Hillary wins.
Since this is true given the results, but completely divorced from reality or even possible reality, I would say that whatever you wrote after this assertion is complete bunk. You cannot apply a different set of rules post hoc and then use that juxtaposition of rules and results to determine what was meant by the voting public under the original set of rules. At that point it becomes clear that this is just an attempt to eek out some satisfaction from a situation that you were obviously emotionally connected to that didn't work out the way you wanted.
Look, it didn't work out the way I wanted either. Shitty campaign finance laws, beholden superdelegates, and sexist dumbfucks screwed me out of a walk-in-the-park Sanders landslide and a brand new era in American politics certain to forever transform the electorate and catapult the US into the 21st century. We all got problems man, but being illogical and irrational isn't helping.
Your attempts to use illogical and outright wrongheaded thought to support your point signal to rational people that you are willing to disregard not only what really happened, but also logic in general, as you attempt to assuage some emotional deficit you feel in regards to the last election.
Another way to think of this, properly, is this:
If you change the rules of the election process, expect a change in the way the electorate votes.
You cannot conclude from the available information what the majority of the US wanted, as not even a majority of eligible US voters voted. Nor can you determine what the vote would have been if we were using a direct democracy system to elect the president. With different rules candidates would have campaigned differently and the voters would have voted differently. I am sure that some that stayed home would have come out, and some that came out would have stayed home. Regardless, due to the electoral college's influence, you cannot use the vote in the last election to determine anything other than who got the most electoral votes. Attempting to piece together some kind of democratic mandate or squeeze out some kind of justification for candidate A over candidate B, other than the electoral college results, is rife with inaccuracy and unfounded conjecture.
Well apparently the DNC wanted it, because they caused it, by every conceivable metric.
Why so redundant?
The military doesn't write policy, politicians do.
Keep in mind that a recent airbag recall affected millions of vehicles in the US and the manufacturers of those cars paid for those airbags to be replaced regardless of whether the car was in warranty or not.
Analogies are only useful if you take into consideration the cases that are similar. This appears to be one.
Not as long as they have an army of lobbyists and our dollars to buy the politicians with.
If you own a Chevy, Dodge, or Ford and the airbag is defective and recalled it won't matter if you are out of warranty. The device will be fixed free of charge by your local dealer. Any safety recall would be handled the same way. The retailer's service facility will repair it free of charge.
With the news of how medical records and devices were affected, one might begin to wonder if software should be subject to the same kind of recall system. Personally I think it feels a little one sided for software companies to create buggy and easily penetrated software that results in loss on the user's end and all the company has to say in return is "You need to buy this new (equally buggy and easily penetrated!) software that is more intrusive and gives us access to more of your marketable metadata."
Is this yet another example of how dollars equal speech, leading to a loopback fucking, where our own money is used by large corporations to buy lawmakers and make sure protections for customers are never passed?
I would like to hear dissenting opinions as well as corroborating ones.
I am wondering about the connections of the olfactory centers in the brain and how they relate to conscious processing and accessibility. Basically, when the impulses from olfactory sensation are percolating up from the nose and through the olfactory center of the brain how much of that information is then passed and accessible to the conscious part of the brain?
Also, how many of those 1000 genes related to olfactory sensation are actually activated and involved in proteosynthesis in your average western culture arcology dweller? Compare that group to your average Amazon Basin dwelling individuals from a pristine society of hunters and gatherers and you have a PhD paper on your hands I'll wager.
Rome is burning and all anyone can do is comment on how good it looks in 4k.
This guy. Well said.
Bernie 2018!
Investors do their own research you numbskull. They should not, and do not, rely solely on the words and evaluations of the seller of a property. As one with half a brain might imagine, an investor of millions of dollars has their own staff of professionals in the real estate business that can compare similar properties. Kind of like Zillow, but with big buildings instead of houses. (I can't believe I just had to write something so incredibly obvious.)
I really don't know how to dumb this down any more than I already am, though I am struck by the peculiar sensation that for you to understand it I would have to do just that.
Also, caveat emptor. Look it up. I can't speak idiot anymore today.
Cthulhu fhtagn! You humans are a dim lot.
Did you just quote the 4th amendment as some kind of authoritative source? You are aware that the Constitution is a "living document" which means that the amendment you are referring to isn't worth the parchment it was written on, right? That was part of the whole "secret interpretations" of the constitution that Obama and his justice department and intelligence agencies operated under.
You gotta keep up man! There are way too many things that our government wants, nay deserves, to know about every single one of its citizens for some silly words written hundreds of years ago to stop them.
After the politicization of other federal entities under the previous administration I think you are being too lenient.
Also, I find it hard to believe that the media or any democrat would be opposing the firing of Comey if Hillary were the president.
So it can be perfectly consistent to say someone should resign, and object when someone fires them. However, it is the height of inconsistency when you would accept one person firing someone but not another. That is not consistent. That is blatant misinformation and politicking.
Again, if Hillary was in office and the FBI was still investigating her for whatever reason and she fired Comey, are you completely sure that the press and democrats would be grilling her the same way they are the Trump administration? If you answer this question honestly, I will be surprised.
Besides, why would any democrat want a hardcore failure like Comey investigating the president? He would have failed to protect the interests of the people as he had done so many, many times before and Trump would be exonerated. Jesus you people are dense.
Yes, the notorious rapist Assange, who is called a rapist by everyone except the people he is accused of raping.
Well that lessened my opinion of Snowden. Its the first thing that has so far.
Let's face it, Comey is a class A shitbag any way you want to look at him. The things he didn't do are even worse than the things he did do while he was at the FBI, and those things he did that make him unpopular are pretty heinous. If people can't agree on this now because they hate Trump that is just more thoughtless emotional partisan insanity.
Don't fall for it. Don't participate in it. Don't be a fool.
Comey needed to go. Hillary would have fired him months ago, Trump should have done the same, but better late than never.
Now one can only hope that the next head of the FBI will do things like instruct their officers to listen and follow up relentlessly when they have explicitly specific leads about stateside terrorist threats passed to them by other countries and other three letter agencies. If the person doesn't meet that standard, fire them too.
Because the things that the "parties" tell you to think, the messages that they frame in every utterance, are inconsistency incarnate. They can't make sense on close inspection, otherwise they would not be able to fracture the population into warring ideologies. Irrationality is a prerequisite for partisanship. Same for compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance. Logic is strictly forbidden.
Just remember, whenever someone says there are two sides to an issue they have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they can only see what they have been programmed to see and the inverse image of that programming. They can never acknowledge something outside of their own programmed presuppositions, other than the inevitable antithesis of their position. They exist, intellectually, on a single line with every thought of their own balanced by "the other side" with equal but opposite positions. That something could approach from a different angle, or that there is a way to encompass both positions in another one, or that you could think around or above the current impasse is completely alien to them.
This is just another reason why partisanship is a manufactured mental handicap. Don't expect it to make sense unless you reject it first. Once you are outside the system things become much clearer.
Questions are powerful things. They induce thought into new directions, if properly phrased. They can reveal bias, unearth deep ignorance, strip the ego, and propel creativity. If used as part of a tautology, as your was, they merely propagate and perpetuate ignorance of the truth. The assumptions inherent in the question invalidate the usefulness of the answer.
The reason why is not the right question. Why is irrelevant. "What is the purpose" is much closer to the mark. "What is there to gain in taking this particular set of actions and publicizing them in this certain way" is even closer to the mark. Me, I just ask "why would anyone willingly participate in such a crazy, destructive, divisive, disempowering sham as the two party system?"
It's not that he's that smart. It's just that some groups of people are incredibly easy to predict because of how they have designed their rules of interaction with "offensive" subjects.
There were so many examples of what they had done to white men, Christians, and republicans that it was easy to perform a gedankenerfahrung and determine the results of a targeted meme injection.
They called their shot and it worked. This says very little about those that designed the meme and speaks volumes about the group they were targeting.
In the context of speech, no one can make you feel bad. You have to do that to yourself. The entire world as you perceive it exists only in your mind. Your subjective experience, your meta thought analysis of the sensory perceptions you receive, is mutable primarily by your own thought and analysis.
If you read something and are offended, you take the responsibility of that offense. You did it to yourself. You, ion your infinite ignorance, created the offense.
So, in a very roundabout way, you just said that you are a bad person. I think we can agree on this.
So every single person elected to high office in Washington by the American public is a millionaire and you are suddenly struck by the possibility that rich people will make policy that helps rich people?
Guess what? This "change" will not be a change. Americans will still elect rich people, and in turn, those rich people will appoint more rich people to protect, nay enhance, their interests. It's the same thing, the same thing, the same thing that has been going on for a looooong time, sir.
They just got to a part of the system you told yourself was free from the usual human politics and power economy that exists everywhere else where control without question is exercised. You thought the EPA was pure and untainted and now they are sullying it with this degrading display of blatant capitalism.
Sigh, the world is ever jaded, the only innocence is in the minds of the ignorant.
Keep in mind, I guarantee you that none of the "scientists" that lost their jobs at the EPA will worry a single bit about making their car payment next month. None of them are without deep rooted connections to fabulously wealthy and powerful people. How did you think they got that job in the first place? A lottery? A contest of who has the bigger heart?
By lowering the corporate tax rate the US becomes a tax haven where companies will put their global corporate offices, employ locals, and ultimately pay their corporate taxes.
This is the theory. It remains to be seen what actually will happen.
Funny that when people wrote this same thing during Obama's presidency they were flamed and trashed, modded down and ridiculed.
Thank you for stating the truth.