2) Mini USB doesn't satisfy requirements for a mobile charger, but Micro USB does - it's like complaining that a highway speed limit will stop manufacturers building cars which perform better at faster speeds;
If I were writing a malicious RDRAND instruction, it would correlate with the bits being XORed with, in order to reduce entropy.
The whole assumption that a new source of entropy can't reduce randomness is based on the idea that a new sequence is independent of other sequences. It doesn't need to be.
Degenerate case: old sequence = new sequence; output: stream of 0s.
Controlling the means of production as a result of a track record of successfully controlling the means of production just sound like the right approach to me
That's not how capitalism works in practice at all.
Then there are a lot of people who are immoral, because anyone who has a 401k is probably invested in mutual funds, and those funds are usually invested in at least Walmart or McDonalds.
Yup. Pay attention to your behaviour, and take responsibility for it.
Also, morality is not black and white. There are degrees of good and bad behaviour.
Morals aren't real, their just things created to keep us in line.
I can't think of any resonable justification for a "right" to act like a dickhead.
In particular, a society would have to be absurd to protect people's means to be a dickhead.
So, if you want to try to maximise your profit with intrusive, targeted advertising, go ahead. But don't expect me to pay for the justice system to protect you when someone comes along and disables the equipment you use to do this.
Eh, to quote myself, porn "in which people die horribly" (simulated) is illegal in the UK. But if it's not sold as porn, it isn't illegal. This is absurd.
That's weird, I used another browser. Maybe I had cookies left over from ages ago. I stand corrected - thank you!
Also I agree, yes, it's a good enough method to stop the whiners, and the kids can just disable it with a couple of clicks anyway, for people who think parenting involving leaving a kid unsupervised and expecting tech to do their work for them.
I approach it with the view that a government TLA doesn't care what excuse you have for disturbing them with your marketing bullshit, only that you disturbed them with your marketing bullshit.
Same applies to the whole of capitalism, really: lazy people trying to convince you that if they can just take some of the fruits of your labour, everyone'll be better off. Somehow.
No, you're a towel. And two people having a spat because someone said something nasty (not even about doing science) is not to do with science just because at least one person involved is a scientist. Just humans being their usual lame selves.
I'm not saying trust them because they're scientists. I'm saying that in the world of science publishing, trusting that someone didn't fake something is the default.
So, don't trust them because they're a scientist, but trust them because they're publishing to a blog related to a popular science magazine? That's even weirderer.
A screenshot is acceptable as evidence by everyone in the discussion.
If that's all it takes, remind me never to work with any of these people.
I see the point you're trying to make, but it still involves a lot of perhapses. If DM were to ever follow through on a threat to withdraw from some chain, it would open itself up to a potential consortium of "fuck you" from its major resellers, which the DM needs a lot more than its resellers need the DM. No retailer wants to have to put up with that sort of power game.
Shitty journalism is all very well, even if it attacks one of your business parters, but at the end of the day what Rothermere wants is money and power. He won't cut his nose off to spite his face.
At one point I wanted to self-republish the Old Testament, but with a cover which made it look like a filthy, violent hardcore porn novel, spattered with choice quotes about rape, incest, torture, etc.
I quite like the idea of being thrown in jail for sex offences for merely distributing a copy of the well-known book which can now be judged by its cover.
Britain's weird. You're allowed to watch any amount of Hollywood fiction in which people die horribly, as long as it's not designed to sexually arouse you.
See also that South Park Informative Murder Porn episode.
We're bastions of hypocrisy, we are.
And I approve "revenge porn" being illegal to distribute (though not to possess), since it comes without the consent of the subject. It's an obvious Data Protection matter.
It is not outside of the realms of possibility that...
You're engaging in the sort of scaremongering that the DM so loves. Lots of things are not outside the realms of possibility.
They presumably decided that nothing was soon enough
It's more likely that they panicked because they saw themselves on the front page of the DM, which too many people are unreasonably frightened of.
They made far from the worst business decision - the worst thing would have been to do nothing, because there clearly is an issue - but something which falls far short of the best. They're now just another entity to offer its balls on a platter to this joke of a news outlet.
Would I personally? IDK, I've only ever had an article written about me in the DM once - a positive one, indeed - and I dressed up for the photoshoot as if a devout Muslim (even though I'm nothing of the sort) to challenge their usual prejudices. Still got a nice big pic in the centre pages. So, that's my personal anecdote - they're used to getting their way, but they're run by a bunch of mediocre, highly overworked journalists who simply don't expect anyone to try to play them. Indeed, they end up looking awful when properly challenged (see also: Miliband).
The DM just jumps on bandwagons and fuels fires which favour its worldview. It couldn't really destroy any well-established anything overnight.
As to what I'd do: I'd say, "Good point - we'll improve the search algorithm", then disable as little as is necessary to fix the issue. If they went beyond accusing me of a technically inadequate implementation of a search engine, I'd stand my ground loudly.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that
1) Adapters are permissible;
2) Mini USB doesn't satisfy requirements for a mobile charger, but Micro USB does - it's like complaining that a highway speed limit will stop manufacturers building cars which perform better at faster speeds;
3) Laws can be changed.
If I were writing a malicious RDRAND instruction, it would correlate with the bits being XORed with, in order to reduce entropy.
The whole assumption that a new source of entropy can't reduce randomness is based on the idea that a new sequence is independent of other sequences. It doesn't need to be.
Degenerate case: old sequence = new sequence; output: stream of 0s.
Yeah, but there's nothing wrong with vandalism per se.
Controlling the means of production as a result of a track record of successfully controlling the means of production just sound like the right approach to me
That's not how capitalism works in practice at all.
Or will they instead just ask uncomfortable questions about human sexuality that you'd rather not have to deal with?
We have a winner.
Then there are a lot of people who are immoral, because anyone who has a 401k is probably invested in mutual funds, and those funds are usually invested in at least Walmart or McDonalds.
Yup. Pay attention to your behaviour, and take responsibility for it.
Also, morality is not black and white. There are degrees of good and bad behaviour.
Morals aren't real, their just things created to keep us in line.
So, morals aren't real, they're just real. OK.
Ah yes, that universally hated crowd OL and IRL: "The set of people who disagree with me on anything."
Companies aren't moral agents - their owners are, however, and are responsible for all the company's actions.
McD+Walmart owners are immoral for not giving their employees a living wage, and their directors are immoral for their voluntary complicity.
The workers are the job creators. The owners hoard the means of production, meaning people who could work cannot work.
Capitalist zealots flip this round.
Bingo.
I'd never put any real effort into work for a private employer, except in a country where my employment was heavily protected.
I don't know what possesses people to think any differently, but I think it's some variant of chasing a dragon.
I can't think of any resonable justification for a "right" to act like a dickhead.
In particular, a society would have to be absurd to protect people's means to be a dickhead.
So, if you want to try to maximise your profit with intrusive, targeted advertising, go ahead. But don't expect me to pay for the justice system to protect you when someone comes along and disables the equipment you use to do this.
Eh, to quote myself, porn "in which people die horribly" (simulated) is illegal in the UK. But if it's not sold as porn, it isn't illegal. This is absurd.
That's weird, I used another browser. Maybe I had cookies left over from ages ago. I stand corrected - thank you!
Also I agree, yes, it's a good enough method to stop the whiners, and the kids can just disable it with a couple of clicks anyway, for people who think parenting involving leaving a kid unsupervised and expecting tech to do their work for them.
Let's see what Google has to offer for "doggy".
Well, top link for me is the Wikipedia article on "doggy style", but that was almost too easy.
What else on the first page... ah, an animation of a woman ripping the head off a man during sex.
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooOOOooOooOoooo.
Yeah, you're right, tasering is OTT. Spray-painting, OTOH, would be reasonable.
I approach it with the view that a government TLA doesn't care what excuse you have for disturbing them with your marketing bullshit, only that you disturbed them with your marketing bullshit.
Property exists because the concept benefits society, not to give business owners free reign to act like dickheads.
May I suggest that anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask gets bombarded with adverts for t-shirts with "TWAT" written on them?
Same applies to the whole of capitalism, really: lazy people trying to convince you that if they can just take some of the fruits of your labour, everyone'll be better off. Somehow.
No, you're a towel. And two people having a spat because someone said something nasty (not even about doing science) is not to do with science just because at least one person involved is a scientist. Just humans being their usual lame selves.
I'm not saying trust them because they're scientists. I'm saying that in the world of science publishing, trusting that someone didn't fake something is the default.
So, don't trust them because they're a scientist, but trust them because they're publishing to a blog related to a popular science magazine? That's even weirderer.
A screenshot is acceptable as evidence by everyone in the discussion.
If that's all it takes, remind me never to work with any of these people.
I see the point you're trying to make, but it still involves a lot of perhapses. If DM were to ever follow through on a threat to withdraw from some chain, it would open itself up to a potential consortium of "fuck you" from its major resellers, which the DM needs a lot more than its resellers need the DM. No retailer wants to have to put up with that sort of power game.
Shitty journalism is all very well, even if it attacks one of your business parters, but at the end of the day what Rothermere wants is money and power. He won't cut his nose off to spite his face.
At one point I wanted to self-republish the Old Testament, but with a cover which made it look like a filthy, violent hardcore porn novel, spattered with choice quotes about rape, incest, torture, etc.
I quite like the idea of being thrown in jail for sex offences for merely distributing a copy of the well-known book which can now be judged by its cover.
Britain's weird. You're allowed to watch any amount of Hollywood fiction in which people die horribly, as long as it's not designed to sexually arouse you.
See also that South Park Informative Murder Porn episode.
We're bastions of hypocrisy, we are.
And I approve "revenge porn" being illegal to distribute (though not to possess), since it comes without the consent of the subject. It's an obvious Data Protection matter.
It is not outside of the realms of possibility that...
You're engaging in the sort of scaremongering that the DM so loves. Lots of things are not outside the realms of possibility.
They presumably decided that nothing was soon enough
It's more likely that they panicked because they saw themselves on the front page of the DM, which too many people are unreasonably frightened of.
They made far from the worst business decision - the worst thing would have been to do nothing, because there clearly is an issue - but something which falls far short of the best. They're now just another entity to offer its balls on a platter to this joke of a news outlet.
Would I personally? IDK, I've only ever had an article written about me in the DM once - a positive one, indeed - and I dressed up for the photoshoot as if a devout Muslim (even though I'm nothing of the sort) to challenge their usual prejudices. Still got a nice big pic in the centre pages. So, that's my personal anecdote - they're used to getting their way, but they're run by a bunch of mediocre, highly overworked journalists who simply don't expect anyone to try to play them. Indeed, they end up looking awful when properly challenged (see also: Miliband).
The DM just jumps on bandwagons and fuels fires which favour its worldview. It couldn't really destroy any well-established anything overnight.
As to what I'd do: I'd say, "Good point - we'll improve the search algorithm", then disable as little as is necessary to fix the issue. If they went beyond accusing me of a technically inadequate implementation of a search engine, I'd stand my ground loudly.