I buy damn near everything over the internet. I get exactly what I want from a competitive marketplace. Why can't I buy a car to my exact specifications direct from the manufacturer? If Amazon can deliver almost anything to my front door, why can't GM, Ford and Toyota deliver a car to my door?
In your scenario your going to hate it when you need warranty work and the dealers tell you that you need to take it to an authorized warranty repair center for directly purchased cars. BTW that service center is three states over.
You mean like how I can't get warranty repair on my Dell because I'm nowhere near Texas? Oh wait, I can. Hell, I can get the tech to come right out to my office and do it on-site, I don't have to take it anywhere. Funny what happens when there's a competitive marketplace, and the ease or difficulty of getting service and support is something consumers consider. Or were you imagining a scenario where car buyers worry less about server than computer buyers? Cars are so cheap, after all. Oh wait...
I didn't immediately think shill. The previous fourth console (OUYA) appears to have failed to take away any market share from the big three. What makes Steam Machine different?
Valve/Steam? And are we really comparing a kickstarter project to a powerhouse of the gaming industry? This is a bit like noting a number of minor manufacturers people never heard of failed to gain any marketshare in the early MP3-player market, therefore it was folly to expect Apple to succeed. Of course, Apple had the advantage of pairing their new devices with an online distribution service for content, whereas Valve... oh, wait...
Clue tip: If something appears to make little sense, you probably missed something. Your immediate response to that should be, "what am I missing?", not "okay, these professional scientists must be idiots who don't understand the topic they have Ph.D.s in as well as I do". Appeal to authority is bad, of course, but if you find yourself at odds with an expert, it should at least prompt a bit of self-critical examination to double-check where you might have missed something that, if you hadn't, would have made it all make sense. Like here, where the point of what they're doing is to determine a heck of a lot more than simply what the foreground process is, but rather, what the foreground process is doing.
In either case, it makes it more difficult for private citizens to do what they want with their money by either increasing the cost of borrowing or directly taking it from them.
For some specific individuals, yes. For "private citizens" in general, no. The citizens as a whole have the exact same amount of money either way. The government doesn't take the money from taxes and bury it in a hole somewhere, it spends it, usually on employees that are predominantly citizens, or companies that are usually located within the same country. Indeed, money spent by the government is more likely to be spent on in-country companies that money spent by non-governmental organizations. The idea that the people have less money when taxes are higher is absurd. They money is redistributed, not eliminated. The people as a whole have the same amount of money regardless of whether taxes go up or down.
The argument is that the government doesn't create wealth.
Yes. The argument is that if you call a large organization a government, it doesn't create wealth, whereas if you call it a corporation, it magically does... by acquiring money from some parties and redistributing it to further parties. Those first parties will have had their money stimulate other business, instead of having had it been taxed, where the government would have then spent it, usually by giving it to businesses to do whatever job that needs to be done. In the end, the same amount of money is in the economy, and the same amount is in the hands of other businesses, all that's changed is which specific businesses have it, what work is actually done, and who benefits from the work done.
Well, if you're going to go that route, the contractors don't build anything either, they just arrange/rearrange the materials they're given. By that standard, nothing's ever been built on Earth, we're just assembling stuff left over from the last local supernova.
By any reasonable definition, NASA builds a lot of stuff.
Unless there is some killer feature, or the distribution is tailored well to a specific niche, I am quite bored with the "yet another Linux distro" articles
If you weren't interested in the article, why did you click on it? You know you're not required to read the ones that don't interest you?
Even better, you commented on it. Comments count even more than clicks to the bean-counters who determine which articles are generating the most interest and thus should be focused on more by the site. Comments are more content for the site, creating even more for people to read, and ultimately, more ad-revenue for the bean-counters. Even if your comment is negative, it's presence and the debate that it engenders encourages sites to post more of exactly what you commented on.
If you want to see less of something, actually prove it by not looking at it in the first place. That is what sends the site a loud and clear message about what you'd like to see more or less of.
What really irked me was the human characters betraying their oath to Earth and going native after they had kicked Clark out of office.
They didn't betray their oath. Arguably they upheld their oath better than others. They did what was in Earth's best interest, even when Earth's government (and probably most of its people) would consider them traitors for it. Their oath was to Earth, not its government, and they chose the path of true loyalty rather than blind obedience. You seem to be confusing loyalty to your country with loyalty to your government. Sometimes the former requires defying the latter.
No metric is adequate for all purposes. This one is adequate for the task it was designed for, and is adequate for some other purposes as well. That's the best that can be expected of any tool. Always use the appropriate tools for the task at hand, of course.
Yeah, I already figured Google knows who I am and what all my aliases are anyhow. It's not Google I'm trying to keep from putting the pieces together, it's J. Random HR twerp who doesn't need to know my hobbies and kinks to determine if I'm qualified for the job.
In America, most stores won't take your card unless you plan to spend less than a pittance. Most stores will deny you if your transaction isn't 5-10$
Not sure what backwards part of America that post came from, but I can tell you for certain that it's absolutely false in every part of America that I'm aware of. I use my debit card everywhere, for everything, including buying a single item at a dollar store if that's all I want to buy. No one has ever once even blinked. $1 at the Dollar Store, $3 at the fast-food joint, whatever, everyone's happy to take my business. I stopped using cash for anything at all over a decade ago, and the only people who don't want my card are the government -- they would rather I write a check for my driver's license renewal or whatever (which is funny, no one else will accept a check anymore around here).
It's not a convenient option. I live in an essentially horseless society, but I don't mind, and it's not really limiting my freedom -- I could get a horse if I wanted, but why would I want it when it's so less convenient?
Personally, I haven't used cash in over a decade. The cashless society arrives the same way as the horseless society, not by limiting freedom but by providing better options, and letting people choose what's most convenient for them. Unless you want to force people to keep using cash, the cashless society is probably inevitable, precisely because people are free to choose other options, and will.
The summary doesn't mention extra terrestrials. Is this because they don't want to jump to conclusions or is it because the nature of the pulses doesn't appear to be organic?
When astronomers point a telescope at the sky and see a large bright object, they tend to assume it's a star, not a giant alien lighthouse. If they see a bright flash of light, they assume it's due to some natural process and not an alien strobe-light. Is there some reason they would jump to an "it's aliens" conclusion in this case? You do understand that light is light, right? Even if the wavelength puts it in the radio-frequencies instead of the visible-spectrum? There's no particular reason light in one part of the spectrum is more likely to be made by aliens than natural phenomena.
The simulator is effectively WINE for iOS: it reimplements the iOS APIs under Mac OS X, and the toolchain compiles an x86 binary instead of an ARM binary. No one should have to explain why that's entirely useless for trying to build an ARM app on iOS.
They would if they want to make the ludicrous assertion that that's "entirely useless". Over 95% of the testing you do during development of a non-trivial application is stuff that could be tested perfectly fine under WINE or an even less complete API mimic, indeed could be tested by compiling natively to whatever platform you're developing on. The vast majority of code in a non-trivial application is completely platform/OS agnostic.
Once again demonstrating the principle: the less you understand a problem, the more obvious the answer seems. (Related to the old programming adage: Confidence is the feeling you have before you understand the problem.) No actual problem has an obvious solution. If it did, it wouldn't be a problem to begin with. Whenever you feel something is obvious, it's a dead-giveaway that you're missing something important...
Yes, but that's often where many aspiring software engineers first learn of her, or Ada Lovelace. Ask how many aeronautical engineers first heard of the Wright Brothers from a college textbook on aeronautical engineering.
I don't doubt that mdsolar has a point of view that could be characterized as an "agenda", but your conclusion about his intent being obfuscation rather than to inform sounds like a bit of propaganda to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. Frankly, it seems like you're the one attempting to obfuscate things by bringing up irrelevancies to distract from the actual, informative content of the article (which is, as noted, a factual report written in neutral terms and quite newsworthy). Simply put, you don't like the truth, so you attempt to discredit it by deflecting attention away from it and instead to the person who brought it to our attention. The truth is what it is, regardless of who brought it forth and what their motivations were for bringing it to our attention.
Your agenda is no less clear to the folks who really do pay attention.
Well, you can either take advantage of the PosReady thing or not. If you do, yes, it may be that only some rather than all your security vulnerabilities will be patched. If you don't, it will be the case that none rather than some are patched.
Slashdot Mirror
I buy damn near everything over the internet. I get exactly what I want from a competitive marketplace. Why can't I buy a car to my exact specifications direct from the manufacturer? If Amazon can deliver almost anything to my front door, why can't GM, Ford and Toyota deliver a car to my door?
In your scenario your going to hate it when you need warranty work and the dealers tell you that you need to take it to an authorized warranty repair center for directly purchased cars. BTW that service center is three states over.
You mean like how I can't get warranty repair on my Dell because I'm nowhere near Texas? Oh wait, I can. Hell, I can get the tech to come right out to my office and do it on-site, I don't have to take it anywhere. Funny what happens when there's a competitive marketplace, and the ease or difficulty of getting service and support is something consumers consider. Or were you imagining a scenario where car buyers worry less about server than computer buyers? Cars are so cheap, after all. Oh wait...
One wonders how long it will be until it's entirely represented in Elite: Dangerous. :)
I didn't immediately think shill. The previous fourth console (OUYA) appears to have failed to take away any market share from the big three. What makes Steam Machine different?
Valve/Steam? And are we really comparing a kickstarter project to a powerhouse of the gaming industry? This is a bit like noting a number of minor manufacturers people never heard of failed to gain any marketshare in the early MP3-player market, therefore it was folly to expect Apple to succeed. Of course, Apple had the advantage of pairing their new devices with an online distribution service for content, whereas Valve... oh, wait...
Ah, the No True Scotsman logical fallacy...
what they are doing makes little sense
Clue tip: If something appears to make little sense, you probably missed something. Your immediate response to that should be, "what am I missing?", not "okay, these professional scientists must be idiots who don't understand the topic they have Ph.D.s in as well as I do". Appeal to authority is bad, of course, but if you find yourself at odds with an expert, it should at least prompt a bit of self-critical examination to double-check where you might have missed something that, if you hadn't, would have made it all make sense. Like here, where the point of what they're doing is to determine a heck of a lot more than simply what the foreground process is, but rather, what the foreground process is doing.
In either case, it makes it more difficult for private citizens to do what they want with their money by either increasing the cost of borrowing or directly taking it from them.
For some specific individuals, yes. For "private citizens" in general, no. The citizens as a whole have the exact same amount of money either way. The government doesn't take the money from taxes and bury it in a hole somewhere, it spends it, usually on employees that are predominantly citizens, or companies that are usually located within the same country. Indeed, money spent by the government is more likely to be spent on in-country companies that money spent by non-governmental organizations. The idea that the people have less money when taxes are higher is absurd. They money is redistributed, not eliminated. The people as a whole have the same amount of money regardless of whether taxes go up or down.
The argument is that the government doesn't create wealth.
Yes. The argument is that if you call a large organization a government, it doesn't create wealth, whereas if you call it a corporation, it magically does... by acquiring money from some parties and redistributing it to further parties. Those first parties will have had their money stimulate other business, instead of having had it been taxed, where the government would have then spent it, usually by giving it to businesses to do whatever job that needs to be done. In the end, the same amount of money is in the economy, and the same amount is in the hands of other businesses, all that's changed is which specific businesses have it, what work is actually done, and who benefits from the work done.
Well, if you're going to go that route, the contractors don't build anything either, they just arrange/rearrange the materials they're given. By that standard, nothing's ever been built on Earth, we're just assembling stuff left over from the last local supernova.
By any reasonable definition, NASA builds a lot of stuff.
Unless there is some killer feature, or the distribution is tailored well to a specific niche, I am quite bored with the "yet another Linux distro" articles
If you weren't interested in the article, why did you click on it? You know you're not required to read the ones that don't interest you?
Even better, you commented on it. Comments count even more than clicks to the bean-counters who determine which articles are generating the most interest and thus should be focused on more by the site. Comments are more content for the site, creating even more for people to read, and ultimately, more ad-revenue for the bean-counters. Even if your comment is negative, it's presence and the debate that it engenders encourages sites to post more of exactly what you commented on.
If you want to see less of something, actually prove it by not looking at it in the first place. That is what sends the site a loud and clear message about what you'd like to see more or less of.
What really irked me was the human characters betraying their oath to Earth and going native after they had kicked Clark out of office.
They didn't betray their oath. Arguably they upheld their oath better than others. They did what was in Earth's best interest, even when Earth's government (and probably most of its people) would consider them traitors for it. Their oath was to Earth, not its government, and they chose the path of true loyalty rather than blind obedience. You seem to be confusing loyalty to your country with loyalty to your government. Sometimes the former requires defying the latter.
Old languages never die, they just stop being hyped.
That is dead to this crowd. 1/2 of them were probably in diapers in 2002!
Really? My impression is that Slashdot is mostly geezers.
Being geezers and wearing diapers are not mutually exclusive.
No metric is adequate for all purposes. This one is adequate for the task it was designed for, and is adequate for some other purposes as well. That's the best that can be expected of any tool. Always use the appropriate tools for the task at hand, of course.
Yeah, I already figured Google knows who I am and what all my aliases are anyhow. It's not Google I'm trying to keep from putting the pieces together, it's J. Random HR twerp who doesn't need to know my hobbies and kinks to determine if I'm qualified for the job.
In America, most stores won't take your card unless you plan to spend less than a pittance. Most stores will deny you if your transaction isn't 5-10$
Not sure what backwards part of America that post came from, but I can tell you for certain that it's absolutely false in every part of America that I'm aware of. I use my debit card everywhere, for everything, including buying a single item at a dollar store if that's all I want to buy. No one has ever once even blinked. $1 at the Dollar Store, $3 at the fast-food joint, whatever, everyone's happy to take my business. I stopped using cash for anything at all over a decade ago, and the only people who don't want my card are the government -- they would rather I write a check for my driver's license renewal or whatever (which is funny, no one else will accept a check anymore around here).
It's not a convenient option. I live in an essentially horseless society, but I don't mind, and it's not really limiting my freedom -- I could get a horse if I wanted, but why would I want it when it's so less convenient?
Personally, I haven't used cash in over a decade. The cashless society arrives the same way as the horseless society, not by limiting freedom but by providing better options, and letting people choose what's most convenient for them. Unless you want to force people to keep using cash, the cashless society is probably inevitable, precisely because people are free to choose other options, and will.
The summary doesn't mention extra terrestrials. Is this because they don't want to jump to conclusions or is it because the nature of the pulses doesn't appear to be organic?
When astronomers point a telescope at the sky and see a large bright object, they tend to assume it's a star, not a giant alien lighthouse. If they see a bright flash of light, they assume it's due to some natural process and not an alien strobe-light. Is there some reason they would jump to an "it's aliens" conclusion in this case? You do understand that light is light, right? Even if the wavelength puts it in the radio-frequencies instead of the visible-spectrum? There's no particular reason light in one part of the spectrum is more likely to be made by aliens than natural phenomena.
Actually, only about 2500 at the current (FY2014) fly-away price ($35 million) of a new build current model (AH-64E).
Wait for a 2-for-1 sale. ;)
First off, we do have Streisand effect, I never heard of this guy until today.
That would imply the opposite, then. People had heard of Barbara Streisand.
They've found a number of human pheromones. However, the effects are not dramatic.
The simulator is effectively WINE for iOS: it reimplements the iOS APIs under Mac OS X, and the toolchain compiles an x86 binary instead of an ARM binary. No one should have to explain why that's entirely useless for trying to build an ARM app on iOS.
They would if they want to make the ludicrous assertion that that's "entirely useless". Over 95% of the testing you do during development of a non-trivial application is stuff that could be tested perfectly fine under WINE or an even less complete API mimic, indeed could be tested by compiling natively to whatever platform you're developing on. The vast majority of code in a non-trivial application is completely platform/OS agnostic.
So it doesn't seem that mysterious.
Once again demonstrating the principle: the less you understand a problem, the more obvious the answer seems. (Related to the old programming adage: Confidence is the feeling you have before you understand the problem.) No actual problem has an obvious solution. If it did, it wouldn't be a problem to begin with. Whenever you feel something is obvious, it's a dead-giveaway that you're missing something important...
She's mentioned in nearly every CS textbook...
Yes, but that's often where many aspiring software engineers first learn of her, or Ada Lovelace. Ask how many aeronautical engineers first heard of the Wright Brothers from a college textbook on aeronautical engineering.
Don't take my word for it, look at who submitted this article...
"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
I don't doubt that mdsolar has a point of view that could be characterized as an "agenda", but your conclusion about his intent being obfuscation rather than to inform sounds like a bit of propaganda to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. Frankly, it seems like you're the one attempting to obfuscate things by bringing up irrelevancies to distract from the actual, informative content of the article (which is, as noted, a factual report written in neutral terms and quite newsworthy). Simply put, you don't like the truth, so you attempt to discredit it by deflecting attention away from it and instead to the person who brought it to our attention. The truth is what it is, regardless of who brought it forth and what their motivations were for bringing it to our attention.
Your agenda is no less clear to the folks who really do pay attention.
Well, you can either take advantage of the PosReady thing or not. If you do, yes, it may be that only some rather than all your security vulnerabilities will be patched. If you don't, it will be the case that none rather than some are patched.