I agree that all devices should be repairable (by the end user, even!). But this should not be law.
It should be up to the customers to decide what devices they want and with what features or anti-features.
Because innovation is always a trade off: want a slim phone? Well you'll have to sacrifice some durability to get it etc..
So it should be up to the customers to decide what a good trade off is.
I am very happy to fund NASA heavily. But clarify the mission statement and fund according to that clear mission.
And this is exactly why we should not fund NASA. Not because the boys and girls at NASA are dumb or have failed at what they were told to do; but because NASA is being steered by drunks. It's not intelligent people who decide how much money NASA gets and what they should be spending their time on, you see.
For that reason I think it's best to start rooting for people like SpaceX-- those people who are actually succeeding at putting things into space cheaply and have an ambitious vision and are actually taking steps in that direction.
Everyone at NASA that actually wants us to get into space should be scrambling to get into SpaceX or other private sector space companies.
Those who just want to clock in and take tax payer money while doing something sort of intellectual can stay at NASA and waste everyone's time and money chasing whatever windmills the government points at next.
You retire something without having a replacement ready to go.
It's not actually critical that we have a manned presence in space at all times nor critical that NASA have some certified vehicle that can launch at a moment's notice.
NASA has turned into a pork barrel jobs program. If its budget allocation were decided by NASA itself, and put directly into basic research and advancing the state of the art in aerospace tech, they'd get much more interesting things accomplished.
It seems like the reason the US has fallen behind in innovation is that the retards are deciding what the money is spent on (and thus also deciding what the smart people spend their time on). It should be the other way around or it should be set up so that the smart people simply spend their time on what they find interesting.
(The above statement can be taken two different ways, but is still true in both ways)
I can protect myself and my data from an overreaching corporation
Using Linux is the actual solution to the problem of being abused by an operating system vendor. Suggesting that others should also use this solution isn't "screw you I got mine", it's actually helping by recommending a solution.
So it's you who is saying "screw you (normies) I got mine" because you continue to use the system that abuses others-- because you're ok with it.
The difference between us is that I actually recommended a solution while you pointed out how you're doing alright yet tried to claim the moral high ground by merely saying that you cared about those who cannot protect themselves. But if that were the case then why didn't you recommend or implement a solution yourself?
Does that mean I should not care about those that cannot protect themselves?
If you actually do care then you should be sending Microsoft a message by neither using nor participating in their abusive product ecosystem. By continuing to be on that platform you continue to be counted among its market share-- and so other software vendors assume that it's not worth their time to support other (i.e. free-er) platforms and so those other (free-er) platforms suffer. Thus you perpetuate the abuse that you claim you don't want others to suffer under.
You're using Linux, of course?
But if so, then why are you upset at Microsoft's spying?
But if you're not using Linux then... why not?
Are you taking this stuff seriously or not?
If you're not taking it seriously then why should Microsoft take your objections seriously?
Everyone complaining about Microsoft's data collection should switch immediately to Mac or Linux. Either that or you're proving that you don't actually care-- and so why should Microsoft care?
Give away the tools dirt cheap to students, when they graduate and take up jobs they would demand professional versions of the tools at work place, market share, brand ambassadors, etc etc, yada yada yada.
So a good filter to exclude idiots is to ask them what OS they use and why? I actually think there's something to that.
One taste like this, and the kids will actively hate microsoft and will go out of their way to avoid microsoft products when they become managers.
Let's suppose that your theory is correct and there are TLAs [Three Letter Agencies] requesting changes to product. How would they do that? Would they go to Microsoft and, despite not having access to the i.e. Windows 10 CVS, turn up and say, "We want you to patch this code into this file here?" Or is it more likely that they would go to Microsoft and say, "We'd like to modify this file to behave in this way?" [ Assuming, of course, that the NSA would ask in the first place. Not only do I expect that they could hack in if they wanted, I dare say they could have agents working there, if they'd want to].
With my hat on tight enough to massage my brain cells I would say that this is easy: the TLAs have full access to the source code and would merely inform the vendors "Hey, we're putting this thingy in here. Here's the headers and the libs. Make sure it's in the next build... or else."
If we then put that into context with the fight we're seeing Microsoft put up over i.e. access to customer data held in Ireland, we're looking at [politely] a company with double standards...
Agreed. An alternate hypothesis is that M$ is protesting loudly in a case where they'll be seen to "stand up for the rights of customers" so that less pressure is put on them to actually stand up for the rights of their customers and so that they garner more trust. The TLAs would like this, too, because M$ is already bridled and broken in and has a very near monopoly. If you had a super model for a wife who makes millions and also absolutely worships you why would you spurn her and take a chance hunting around to see if you could do better?
On the other hand, we do know that Microsoft have made wholesale changes to Windows 10 under the hood, so that the OS now reports much more of its activities back to Redmond than ever before. This is going to require all sorts of hooks into code that TLAs might not care about. Would a TLA want to know if you launched Excel or LibreOffice Calc? Probably not. Redmond would, though...
The TLAs are probably just sifting through the data once it gets back server-side and only going into someone's machine if they get flagged by the general sifting. On that note, the TLAs do want to establish "normal" usage patterns so that their sifter knows when something stands out. Even further: having data on all this means they will know $interesting_file is opened and by who and in what patterns.
I would be willing to concede that there is something unpleasant at the heart of this. For my money, however, it's much more likely to be the way that Redmond have turned Windows 10 into a monitoring and advertising platform. They want to know what you're doing with their technology because they want to be able to sell that to other companies for profit. Judging by their quarterly returns, the strategy is paying off. [Or, I concede, they are taking a *lot* of money from Uncle Sam].
It could be all of the above. Something like this would be a bombshell if the public caught on that M$ had their grubby hands in the cookie jar of their customers' privacy. M$ would no doubt love to get those delicious cookies anyway, but if the TLAs also insist on it then M$ would decide to just get in there up to their elbows because they might as well.
Can we get to the right answer? Maybe. But I think it would take someone sitting on the network between you and MS who is willing and able to intercept all that traffic and reverse-engineer it. Short of that, I don't see how we'd find out...
Agreed. But there is one way: a Snowden equivalent working at M$ who could gather real actual proof would blow this thing wide open.
I honestly don't know what the source is, but I do know that I am seeing "existing" functionality break with much greater frequency on core platforms like this. It just smacks of carelessness...
Got your tinfoil hats on tight? Get ready for a flight of fantasy:
Now what if... what if, hypothetically, the NSA is increasing their efforts and pushing more and more code out the door and forcing it down vendors' throats? All this magic code from the boys at the NSA is bound to have bugs and do all kinds of kooky crazy stuff in comparison to what the actual vendors put out. Furthermore, it sounds like the talent pool at the NSA has been a little drained lately...
Give it a couple minutes to simmer and then you can take your tinfoil hats off and go back to business as normal.
The problem is that if they increased supply now then the demand for their new product later would plummet as all the crypto coin crashes and the minders try to ditch their gpus to recoup costs.
Nvidia doesn't mind selling tons of GPUs to whoever has money.
But what they don't want is for all the $popular_crypto_coin to suddenly crash (and it looks like they're about to) and then flood the market with dirt cheap used GPUs and leave Nvidia in the lurch unable to sell $Gpu->filter('this_year')->get_newest()
By doing this they can continue the high demand for their products and try to smooth out the coming bumps and dips.
1. Some cultures are better than others. Keeping the cultural peas separated from the carrots is kind of the point of having this thing called a "country" and "borders".
Careful, your white supremacy is showing. Are you intentionally trying to promote a return to segregation, or is that just a coincidence?
The US is home to many racial groups, not just white Americans. Don't put words in my mouth you lying little rat.
I'm done with you. Liar. Slanderer.
I think this isn't a complete understanding of the trumpists position. I believe their position is more along these lines:
1. Liking the culture of their own country more than the culture of some other countries. Yes, American democracy is better than literal cannibalism. Yes, American democracy is better than Sharia Law. Yes, American democracy is better than the lawlessness and corruption of South America.
If my house is a mess who can I blame but myself? If our country is a mess who can we blame but ourselves? If someone else's country is a mess who can we blame but the people who live there (in aggregate)?
The point here is that cultures are not the same. Some cultures are better than others. Keeping the cultural peas separated from the carrots is kind of the point of having this thing called a "country" and "borders".
2. The straight statistics all say that immigrants commit more crime. That's not me saying that. That's Obama's justice department's stats.
3. Illegal immigrants are taking resources from this country without having, as Obama would say, any "skin in the game". That's not fair.
4. Also, did you notice the part where illegal immigration is illegal? Nobody is above the law. Nobody. It's not racist to insist that the law be obeyed. This shouldn't be controversial.
This is an interesting idea.
But it seems complex to me in comparison to something like this:
1. 10% income tax for all citizens. (If you really want to wangle, then maybe make a second, higher, bracket for the 1%).
2. No corporate income tax (because that's just an inefficient, indirect, individual tax). (There's some wangle room here for me, but you'd have to make your case)
3. Citizens making less than a certain amount (poor people) don't pay taxes. (Much more straight forward than government hand-outs)
4. Cut all entitlements. (We won't need them because the poor are already keeping what they earn... and yes, if you don't work you don't eat)
5. Cut "defense" spending heavily until it fits inside the budget. (This shouldn't be controversial)
6. Cut all other government functions to fit within the budget. (Considering how well private companies like SpaceX are doing where government stuff is sucking this should also be uncontroversial)
Obviously such a simplistic plan would fall apart once it hits reality. But isn't it sort of the right direction? Where am I going wrong here?
Because the alternative is to actually start cutting entitlements and military spending and that would be political suicide because every voter in this country is all in favor of getting theirs at the expense of all the other tax payers (yes, they're so stupid that they don't realize they themselves are also paying and are about to pay even more once the whole thing collapses).
Short of an actual violent revolution or a sub-violent overthrow of the political caste in this country we're heading directly for bankruptcy and a failed state just like the USSR and Venezuela and every other socialist or socialist-lite country. The only question is "when will it happen?"
For 90% of the things in the world, common sense is enough to grasp them.
Agreed.
If one asks [citation needed] or "scientific proof" then I challenge his IQ.
This, of course, is where we disagree. I think it's appropriate to provide evidence in this situation or engage an argument on its merits rather than the merits of the person speaking.
If you want to call that an "ad hominem", fine for me.
I called it an ad hominem because that's what it is. So I guess we agree here too.
If your argument is that "common sense" is enough reason to treat something as proof then the counter argument is that "common sense" isn't evidence, nor proof: that's the entire point of science.
If your argument was more along the lines of "come on, be reasonable and stop being obtuse" then I'm inclined to agree with your side, but I think you are ignoring GP's point: he's simply unwilling to believe without evidence. Your statement is nothing more than a veiled begging of the question with an ad hominem tacked onto the end.
My feeling is that it would be unlikely to change their policy, at least by those in power.
I agree, I think you're right here.
Many people tended to view subjugation or even extermination of "lesser" peoples as their divine right. That attitude is pervasive even in relatively modern times, as with WW2-era Nazis or Japanese and their attitudes about races they viewed as inferior to their own. And I shouldn't give the Allied powers a pass either, such as with the British subjugation of India and the middle east, or the French and Dutch colonies in the Far East.
Sadly, empathy for tribes outside of one's own has not historically been one of humanity's bright points.
True. And that's why Jesus and Christianity have lasted for thousands of years. The irony is that those who try to teach such things are hated the most, especially by those who (again, ironically) think they are so smart.
In fairness, contact between long separated peoples was basically inevitable once global exploration and trade became a thing. There's really no way to effectively quarantine a large population like that, at least in the long term. A single shipwrecked sailor is probably all it takes to trigger an epidemic.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that all devices should be repairable (by the end user, even!).
But this should not be law.
It should be up to the customers to decide what devices they want and with what features or anti-features.
Because innovation is always a trade off: want a slim phone? Well you'll have to sacrifice some durability to get it etc..
So it should be up to the customers to decide what a good trade off is.
It's an LTS right? So isn't it the right move to keep it in stable territory for now?
I am very happy to fund NASA heavily. But clarify the mission statement and fund according to that clear mission.
And this is exactly why we should not fund NASA. Not because the boys and girls at NASA are dumb or have failed at what they were told to do; but because NASA is being steered by drunks. It's not intelligent people who decide how much money NASA gets and what they should be spending their time on, you see.
For that reason I think it's best to start rooting for people like SpaceX-- those people who are actually succeeding at putting things into space cheaply and have an ambitious vision and are actually taking steps in that direction.
Everyone at NASA that actually wants us to get into space should be scrambling to get into SpaceX or other private sector space companies.
Those who just want to clock in and take tax payer money while doing something sort of intellectual can stay at NASA and waste everyone's time and money chasing whatever windmills the government points at next.
You retire something without having a replacement ready to go.
It's not actually critical that we have a manned presence in space at all times nor critical that NASA have some certified vehicle that can launch at a moment's notice.
NASA has turned into a pork barrel jobs program. If its budget allocation were decided by NASA itself, and put directly into basic research and advancing the state of the art in aerospace tech, they'd get much more interesting things accomplished.
It seems like the reason the US has fallen behind in innovation is that the retards are deciding what the money is spent on (and thus also deciding what the smart people spend their time on). It should be the other way around or it should be set up so that the smart people simply spend their time on what they find interesting.
(The above statement can be taken two different ways, but is still true in both ways)
I can protect myself and my data from an overreaching corporation
Using Linux is the actual solution to the problem of being abused by an operating system vendor. Suggesting that others should also use this solution isn't "screw you I got mine", it's actually helping by recommending a solution.
So it's you who is saying "screw you (normies) I got mine" because you continue to use the system that abuses others-- because you're ok with it.
The difference between us is that I actually recommended a solution while you pointed out how you're doing alright yet tried to claim the moral high ground by merely saying that you cared about those who cannot protect themselves. But if that were the case then why didn't you recommend or implement a solution yourself?
Does that mean I should not care about those that cannot protect themselves?
If you actually do care then you should be sending Microsoft a message by neither using nor participating in their abusive product ecosystem. By continuing to be on that platform you continue to be counted among its market share-- and so other software vendors assume that it's not worth their time to support other (i.e. free-er) platforms and so those other (free-er) platforms suffer. Thus you perpetuate the abuse that you claim you don't want others to suffer under.
You're using Linux, of course? But if so, then why are you upset at Microsoft's spying? But if you're not using Linux then... why not?
Are you taking this stuff seriously or not? If you're not taking it seriously then why should Microsoft take your objections seriously?
Everyone complaining about Microsoft's data collection should switch immediately to Mac or Linux. Either that or you're proving that you don't actually care-- and so why should Microsoft care?
Give away the tools dirt cheap to students, when they graduate and take up jobs they would demand professional versions of the tools at work place, market share, brand ambassadors, etc etc, yada yada yada.
So a good filter to exclude idiots is to ask them what OS they use and why? I actually think there's something to that.
One taste like this, and the kids will actively hate microsoft and will go out of their way to avoid microsoft products when they become managers.
I hope so. But I don't have faith.
Let's suppose that your theory is correct and there are TLAs [Three Letter Agencies] requesting changes to product. How would they do that? Would they go to Microsoft and, despite not having access to the i.e. Windows 10 CVS, turn up and say, "We want you to patch this code into this file here?" Or is it more likely that they would go to Microsoft and say, "We'd like to modify this file to behave in this way?" [ Assuming, of course, that the NSA would ask in the first place. Not only do I expect that they could hack in if they wanted, I dare say they could have agents working there, if they'd want to].
With my hat on tight enough to massage my brain cells I would say that this is easy: the TLAs have full access to the source code and would merely inform the vendors "Hey, we're putting this thingy in here. Here's the headers and the libs. Make sure it's in the next build... or else."
If we then put that into context with the fight we're seeing Microsoft put up over i.e. access to customer data held in Ireland, we're looking at [politely] a company with double standards...
Agreed. An alternate hypothesis is that M$ is protesting loudly in a case where they'll be seen to "stand up for the rights of customers" so that less pressure is put on them to actually stand up for the rights of their customers and so that they garner more trust. The TLAs would like this, too, because M$ is already bridled and broken in and has a very near monopoly. If you had a super model for a wife who makes millions and also absolutely worships you why would you spurn her and take a chance hunting around to see if you could do better?
On the other hand, we do know that Microsoft have made wholesale changes to Windows 10 under the hood, so that the OS now reports much more of its activities back to Redmond than ever before. This is going to require all sorts of hooks into code that TLAs might not care about. Would a TLA want to know if you launched Excel or LibreOffice Calc? Probably not. Redmond would, though...
The TLAs are probably just sifting through the data once it gets back server-side and only going into someone's machine if they get flagged by the general sifting. On that note, the TLAs do want to establish "normal" usage patterns so that their sifter knows when something stands out. Even further: having data on all this means they will know $interesting_file is opened and by who and in what patterns.
I would be willing to concede that there is something unpleasant at the heart of this. For my money, however, it's much more likely to be the way that Redmond have turned Windows 10 into a monitoring and advertising platform. They want to know what you're doing with their technology because they want to be able to sell that to other companies for profit. Judging by their quarterly returns, the strategy is paying off. [Or, I concede, they are taking a *lot* of money from Uncle Sam].
It could be all of the above. Something like this would be a bombshell if the public caught on that M$ had their grubby hands in the cookie jar of their customers' privacy. M$ would no doubt love to get those delicious cookies anyway, but if the TLAs also insist on it then M$ would decide to just get in there up to their elbows because they might as well.
Can we get to the right answer? Maybe. But I think it would take someone sitting on the network between you and MS who is willing and able to intercept all that traffic and reverse-engineer it. Short of that, I don't see how we'd find out...
Agreed. But there is one way: a Snowden equivalent working at M$ who could gather real actual proof would blow this thing wide open.
I honestly don't know what the source is, but I do know that I am seeing "existing" functionality break with much greater frequency on core platforms like this. It just smacks of carelessness...
Got your tinfoil hats on tight? Get ready for a flight of fantasy:
Now what if... what if, hypothetically, the NSA is increasing their efforts and pushing more and more code out the door and forcing it down vendors' throats? All this magic code from the boys at the NSA is bound to have bugs and do all kinds of kooky crazy stuff in comparison to what the actual vendors put out. Furthermore, it sounds like the talent pool at the NSA has been a little drained lately...
Give it a couple minutes to simmer and then you can take your tinfoil hats off and go back to business as normal.
The patches are taking up much more than 3% depending on the workload.
The problem is that if they increased supply now then the demand for their new product later would plummet as all the crypto coin crashes and the minders try to ditch their gpus to recoup costs.
Nvidia doesn't mind selling tons of GPUs to whoever has money.
But what they don't want is for all the $popular_crypto_coin to suddenly crash (and it looks like they're about to) and then flood the market with dirt cheap used GPUs and leave Nvidia in the lurch unable to sell $Gpu->filter('this_year')->get_newest()
By doing this they can continue the high demand for their products and try to smooth out the coming bumps and dips.
What is it that you need Windows to run, exactly?
Perhaps we could find a Linux alternative for you.
1. Some cultures are better than others. Keeping the cultural peas separated from the carrots is kind of the point of having this thing called a "country" and "borders".
Careful, your white supremacy is showing. Are you intentionally trying to promote a return to segregation, or is that just a coincidence?
The US is home to many racial groups, not just white Americans. Don't put words in my mouth you lying little rat.
I'm done with you. Liar. Slanderer.
I'll just leave this here...
Well no shit, Sherlock.
fearing "tribes outside of one's own"
I think this isn't a complete understanding of the trumpists position. I believe their position is more along these lines:
1. Liking the culture of their own country more than the culture of some other countries. Yes, American democracy is better than literal cannibalism. Yes, American democracy is better than Sharia Law. Yes, American democracy is better than the lawlessness and corruption of South America.
If my house is a mess who can I blame but myself? If our country is a mess who can we blame but ourselves? If someone else's country is a mess who can we blame but the people who live there (in aggregate)?
The point here is that cultures are not the same. Some cultures are better than others. Keeping the cultural peas separated from the carrots is kind of the point of having this thing called a "country" and "borders".
2. The straight statistics all say that immigrants commit more crime. That's not me saying that. That's Obama's justice department's stats.
3. Illegal immigrants are taking resources from this country without having, as Obama would say, any "skin in the game". That's not fair.
4. Also, did you notice the part where illegal immigration is illegal? Nobody is above the law. Nobody. It's not racist to insist that the law be obeyed. This shouldn't be controversial.
This is an interesting idea.
But it seems complex to me in comparison to something like this:
1. 10% income tax for all citizens. (If you really want to wangle, then maybe make a second, higher, bracket for the 1%).
2. No corporate income tax (because that's just an inefficient, indirect, individual tax). (There's some wangle room here for me, but you'd have to make your case)
3. Citizens making less than a certain amount (poor people) don't pay taxes. (Much more straight forward than government hand-outs)
4. Cut all entitlements. (We won't need them because the poor are already keeping what they earn... and yes, if you don't work you don't eat)
5. Cut "defense" spending heavily until it fits inside the budget. (This shouldn't be controversial)
6. Cut all other government functions to fit within the budget. (Considering how well private companies like SpaceX are doing where government stuff is sucking this should also be uncontroversial)
Obviously such a simplistic plan would fall apart once it hits reality. But isn't it sort of the right direction? Where am I going wrong here?
Because the alternative is to actually start cutting entitlements and military spending and that would be political suicide because every voter in this country is all in favor of getting theirs at the expense of all the other tax payers (yes, they're so stupid that they don't realize they themselves are also paying and are about to pay even more once the whole thing collapses).
Short of an actual violent revolution or a sub-violent overthrow of the political caste in this country we're heading directly for bankruptcy and a failed state just like the USSR and Venezuela and every other socialist or socialist-lite country. The only question is "when will it happen?"
For 90% of the things in the world, common sense is enough to grasp them.
Agreed.
If one asks [citation needed] or "scientific proof" then I challenge his IQ.
This, of course, is where we disagree. I think it's appropriate to provide evidence in this situation or engage an argument on its merits rather than the merits of the person speaking.
If you want to call that an "ad hominem", fine for me.
I called it an ad hominem because that's what it is. So I guess we agree here too.
If your argument is that "common sense" is enough reason to treat something as proof then the counter argument is that "common sense" isn't evidence, nor proof: that's the entire point of science.
If your argument was more along the lines of "come on, be reasonable and stop being obtuse" then I'm inclined to agree with your side, but I think you are ignoring GP's point: he's simply unwilling to believe without evidence. Your statement is nothing more than a veiled begging of the question with an ad hominem tacked onto the end.
My feeling is that it would be unlikely to change their policy, at least by those in power.
I agree, I think you're right here.
Many people tended to view subjugation or even extermination of "lesser" peoples as their divine right. That attitude is pervasive even in relatively modern times, as with WW2-era Nazis or Japanese and their attitudes about races they viewed as inferior to their own. And I shouldn't give the Allied powers a pass either, such as with the British subjugation of India and the middle east, or the French and Dutch colonies in the Far East.
Don't let the Arabs off the hook either
... NOR ANY RACE OR TRIBE OR COUNTRY.
Nor the Aztecs themselves
Nor the Native Americans
Slavery, mass murder, rape, war, and just plain assholery is an area where literally all have sinned.
And I believe there is historical evidence the US army deliberately used germ warfare against Native Americans in one case.
If you're talking about the army blankets then you heard wrong. It's bullshit made up by Ward Churchill.
Sadly, empathy for tribes outside of one's own has not historically been one of humanity's bright points.
True. And that's why Jesus and Christianity have lasted for thousands of years. The irony is that those who try to teach such things are hated the most, especially by those who (again, ironically) think they are so smart.
In fairness, contact between long separated peoples was basically inevitable once global exploration and trade became a thing. There's really no way to effectively quarantine a large population like that, at least in the long term. A single shipwrecked sailor is probably all it takes to trigger an epidemic.
I agree with this; I think you're right.
So yes, the word gorilla was in use before 1847.
But was it used as a racist term for black humans?