The definitive feature of linux is being able to right click and remove a panel... good for it? That wouldn't even be a feature on windows, it would be a disaster,
It wouldn't?
From the first comment on the article's site:
And, I’ll tell you this right now – as great as it is, you don’t find a whole lot of “Right click, Remove Panel” in Windows 8.'
Start Page -> Right Click Panel to Remove -> Click Unpin From Start in the App Bar.
Sounds like it is a feature, which kind of invalidates both the original article and your following rant;) (well, actually I agree with your point that the article was a horribly written opinion piece all around).
Actually, no, it sounds like it WAS a completely useless question. Most people did NOT realize what the question being asked was about.
"54% of Americans do not know what the cloud is and claim to never have used it.... also, another alarming number is that 51% of the surveyed Americans think that stormy weather can interfere with the functionality of the cloud."
So, if 54% surveyed had never heard the term, and and almost identical 51% surveyed who don't know it refers to computing services over the Internet, then it doesn't mean people are stupid, just uninformed, and the second number means nothing (of course, the survey doesn't mention how these numbers overlap, which makes it all the more useless).
And honestly, I would bet over 50% of those who BUILD network-based services that could be considered "in the Cloud" think the whole "Cloud" terminology is one of the stupidest things pseudo-technology journalists and marketers have foisted on the public in years. Based on the over-saturation of "the Cloud", I'm surprised everyone isn't starting to call the Internet "the Tubes"...
This particular problem with the US is not with technology education, it's with antiquated power and communications grids. Though fortunate not to be exposed to any wars on home soil in the last century, it means many of these systems consist of 100 year old wires strung up on wooden poles rather than buried underground like much of Europe, etc. Weather thus *significantly* affects Cloud computing in many areas of the country...
Basically the ECU tuning required to pass EPA requirements was causing stalls, etc, so GM changed it to enrich the fuel ratio when the A/C was on (which caused illegal levels of pollution) - without telling the EPA. I suppose if the EPA testing was allowed to be done with A/C off it could have been an intentional dodge...
They don't even need to re-introduce the 55 MPH limit, they just need to test the vehicles at 55 MPH.
It's all very vague anyway - the current numbers are already a bizarre and unrealistic combination of "city" and "highway" driving that means little more than a rough estimate of the efficiency. Not to mention the automakers already do plenty of things to tweak their MPG numbers ("require" premium fuel when the engine doesn't need it, put on tires that focus on reduced friction rather than grip and all-weather handling, etc).
And not only that, calling this a "race car" is kind of a joke, too. If you look at it, it's not much bigger than a Kart and definitely not as fast (some of those things can get up to 250+ km/h!)
I am definitely pro-choice (and happen to have a BS in biology with focus on developmental neurobiology... but that was a while ago;)
But that doesn't mean I have to think it's a simple cut-and-dry issue or that ethics or morality should play no part in medicine and science.
A newborn infant can't survive on its own, of course - so do you believe it's ok to "terminate" an unwanted baby after birth (through either murder or neglect)? If an 8 month old could be just as viable after induced labor as a newborn, is there any difference there? And if a 7 month old is viable after a C-section and 1 month of intensive care, is there any difference there? For that matter, a 2 year old can walk and talk, but can't survive on its own. Any difference there?
I'm not saying these are easy moral questions, or that even the purely scientific questions of human neurological development can be answered with today's technology. But calling the lifelong continuous process of brain development "imaginary magic" is just as scientifically ignorant as someone calling the sunrise magic. Just because you (or even a collective "we") don't understand something yet, doesn't mean it's magical, just unexplained.
third trimester, a specific number of days into pregnancy), just a magic but arbitrary switch that has nothing to do with physical development;
Not necessarily arbitrary or magical. At some point the fetus has developed far enough to be more than a mass of barely differentiated cells into a viable organism on its own (possibly requiring intensive care but viable nonetheless). There can still be debate as to exactly when that period is, but at least those hypotheses are scientifically testable and not some religious mumbo-jumbo about immortal souls and holy spirits.
Agribusinesses and food manufacturers have donated a total of $13 million toward defeating the measure, bringing the total up to $25 million in the coffers of those proposing the proposition
Uh, I think that should have been "opposing" the proposition. Monsanto would have been kind of annoyed if they accidentally gave all of that money to those proposing the proposition...
Read my post. I said "once they shut down". There is no reason to think they will be any more successful after screwing over their original investors and employees with their accounting magic and new investment than they were with their last attempt. It's now even higher risk for potential investors and customers. Not a good (re)-start for the company.
I don't buy that argument. DLC also has a certification process. If they were able to complete the DLC and get it debugged and certified before the release, they should have put it in the original release.
The publisher's argument that "those players who complete the game quickly then complained that there was nothing more to play and asked for extra content" is even more absurd. So he practically admits many players consider the game too short and his solution was to charge MORE to fix it?
Once the service arrived for people to play the naysayers were wrong, it did work. Not without some technical issues, but OnLive was working hard to solve them (like wireless networks).... in my experience, really didn't seem to affect me -- the latency was something you just kinda got used to. All I hear is a bunch of bigots
And some people are happy with VHS tapes on a 19" TV, congratulations. But the majority of the PC gaming market are not those people. They are willing to pay for the best video quality and lowest latency, so no, the technology, while impressive for what it managed to accomplish, did not accomplish what it *needed to*, which is be a replacement, not a shadow, of high end PC gaming. Casual PC games are already largely server-based with no significant hardware requirements, and thus have no need for what they built. They tried to break into the high end 3D gaming market with a product few people wanted, and it failed. As the "naysayers" and "bigots" CORRECTLY predicted.
So in the end, those people saying it wouldn't succeed were right and YOU were wrong. Have fun with all of your useless OnLive game "purchases" once they shut down.
I'm going to have to agree with the AC... gamers and/or anyone with any reasonable technical knowledge clearly knew this was an F-ed company from the start. The only people who seemed clueless were the investors and various naive media pundits who habitually fall for unproven CES demos...
Yeah, ACT does all sorts of educational curriculum, testing, etc.
Though it would be kind of twisted but fun for them to use the exact same questions in the high school exams and the college entrance exams - just with different answer keys;)
Yeah, it all comes down to a literal vs. figurative interpretation of the Bible.
For some bizarre reason those religions who actually *wrote* the Bible (Jews and Catholics, more or less) interpret it figuratively, while those who came along later (Islam, Protestantism, Mormonism) tend to interpret it literally. But I guess maybe it makes sense... if you wrote a bunch of over-the-top morality tales of course you'd *know* they were over-the-top morality tales and not some crazy supernatural occurrences someone literally witnessed.
1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).
That would be the last story slashdot posted on this... 12 hours ago, and it was based on a BBC story mentioning the letter, and to quote directly from the Foreign Minister of Equador: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said."
A quote from an Equadorian minister is in no way the same thing as "the UK stating that", that's silly. As the GP already told you, read the actual letter! This is the relevant part:
We have to reiterate that we consider continued use of diplomatic premises in this way, to be incompatible with the VCDR (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) and not sustainable, and that we have already made clear to you the serious implications for our diplomatic relations.
You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.
We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us.
2) It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy or even expel all the diplomatic staff. Go read it. It's quite clear that the UK can do that "at any time, and for any reason". Assange isn't covered by that, no matter what.
It violates article 9 of the Vienna convention, a treaty signed by the UK which supercecedes national law.
See previous quote from their letter, if you had read it you'd see they already addressed that as well.
Rather than take Assange out of the embassy, they have threatened (indirectly and politely) to take the embassy away from Assange. Which is perfectly legitimate.
I dislike what the British government is doing, but I dislike arguments based on inaccurate information even more...
How do you know what the risks will be after the technology is commercialized? The Concorde only had one crash in its history, and that was on takeoff due to a blown tire and debris hitting the wing under the fuel tanks.
And yeah, I'm sure everyone agrees the future of intercontinental travel is undoubtedly in automated cars...
The types of people who can afford to fly on a hypersonic jet (ticket prices would make the Concorde look like a value airline) don't wait 2-3 hours with the cattle to get through security or catch a cab.
I've worked on dozens of embedded set-top platforms that use Linux/w GCC-based toolchain, and I don't remember a single one that had exception handling and RTTI enabled for any C++ code...
Why on earth do Americans still lionize a collection of individuals who had hundreds of slaves each? Why are these considered exemplary human beings? And it tends to be those most vocal about liberty who lionize them the most, which is quite hilarious when you consider said slave ownership.
First, your comment is an ad-hominem and is irrelevant to the discussion (and also an incorrect generalization - many of those at the Constitutional Convention had no slaves, and some were abolitionists).
And second, it was generally the opposite of my point, really. The real question is why do people try to interpret (or in your words, "lionize") a 230 year old document written by these individuals they seem to despise so *literally* without regard to societal and technological changes over time? You are somehow trying to attack me for pointing out the authors of the First Amendment would not consider this peaceable assembly while also trying to use their writing broadly to defend your point. It's inconsistent at best, and more like hypocritical.
Thirdly, refusing to leave someone's PRIVATE property (especially inside their building or residence) is not and has never been considered "peaceful assembly" by the Federal government. It's called trespassing. If you disagree, cite examples if you can...
I'm moderately pro-OWS in their general goals (as hard to figure out as they are) but "peaceably assemble" != "camp out on public or private property for weeks at a time". If you think the founding fathers intended squatting or trespassing to be part of the First Amendment you are deluding yourself.
I'm sure there were plenty of cases of people being unjustly arrested (the occasional journalist was even detained for being at the wrong place at the wrong time) but Jill Stein in particular was NOT one of those. She was arrested after refusing to leave a bank lobby during a sit in. Again, not that I necessarily disagree with her message, but I do disagree with her expression of it. She had no more Constitutional right to "assemble" and then refuse to leave a private bank lobby than she would sitting down and refusing to leave your living room.
Sorry, but honestly I don't even see a connection between either of your posts and the posts you responded to...
1. trolling post says the male hackers are just as much victims of the groupies
2. next post responds sarcastically saying conferences need new rules protecting the poor hackers from women at the conference
3. you reply with seeming non-sequiter about motherhood and career, and then surmise that the majority of women at these conferences are prostitutes (wha??)
4. I point out your comment was pretty much right in line with the sexism the article brings up. As you say you are not even a hacker... and yet you feel the need to guess that most of the women at hacker conferences are fangirls and hookers? You don't see the inherent sexism in that? Of *course* if you are going to make the initial assumption that a woman you meet is more likely than not to want to stalk you or take money for sex you will be more likely to have inappropriate social interactions with them. That's the PROBLEM.
5. You make another non-sequiter about lack of overlap between hackers and groupies and describe a bizarre scenario seemingly based on Hollywood depictions, neither of which had the slightest to do with my post... are you reading a different thread from the rest of us?
Slashdot Mirror
The definitive feature of linux is being able to right click and remove a panel... good for it? That wouldn't even be a feature on windows, it would be a disaster,
It wouldn't?
From the first comment on the article's site:
And, I’ll tell you this right now – as great as it is, you don’t find a whole lot of “Right click, Remove Panel” in Windows 8.'
Start Page -> Right Click Panel to Remove -> Click Unpin From Start in the App Bar.
Sounds like it is a feature, which kind of invalidates both the original article and your following rant ;)
(well, actually I agree with your point that the article was a horribly written opinion piece all around).
Actually, no, it sounds like it WAS a completely useless question. Most people did NOT realize what the question being asked was about.
"54% of Americans do not know what the cloud is and claim to never have used it. ... also, another alarming number is that 51% of the surveyed Americans think that stormy weather can interfere with the functionality of the cloud."
So, if 54% surveyed had never heard the term, and and almost identical 51% surveyed who don't know it refers to computing services over the Internet, then it doesn't mean people are stupid, just uninformed, and the second number means nothing (of course, the survey doesn't mention how these numbers overlap, which makes it all the more useless).
And honestly, I would bet over 50% of those who BUILD network-based services that could be considered "in the Cloud" think the whole "Cloud" terminology is one of the stupidest things pseudo-technology journalists and marketers have foisted on the public in years. Based on the over-saturation of "the Cloud", I'm surprised everyone isn't starting to call the Internet "the Tubes"...
This particular problem with the US is not with technology education, it's with antiquated power and communications grids. Though fortunate not to be exposed to any wars on home soil in the last century, it means many of these systems consist of 100 year old wires strung up on wooden poles rather than buried underground like much of Europe, etc. Weather thus *significantly* affects Cloud computing in many areas of the country...
It wasn't *quite* that bad (but almost!)
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/November95/596.txt.html
Basically the ECU tuning required to pass EPA requirements was causing stalls, etc, so GM changed it to enrich the fuel ratio when the A/C was on (which caused illegal levels of pollution) - without telling the EPA. I suppose if the EPA testing was allowed to be done with A/C off it could have been an intentional dodge...
They don't even need to re-introduce the 55 MPH limit, they just need to test the vehicles at 55 MPH.
It's all very vague anyway - the current numbers are already a bizarre and unrealistic combination of "city" and "highway" driving that means little more than a rough estimate of the efficiency. Not to mention the automakers already do plenty of things to tweak their MPG numbers ("require" premium fuel when the engine doesn't need it, put on tires that focus on reduced friction rather than grip and all-weather handling, etc).
And not only that, calling this a "race car" is kind of a joke, too. If you look at it, it's not much bigger than a Kart and definitely not as fast (some of those things can get up to 250+ km/h!)
I guess the one thing they just cannot tolerate is intolerance...
I am definitely pro-choice (and happen to have a BS in biology with focus on developmental neurobiology... but that was a while ago ;)
But that doesn't mean I have to think it's a simple cut-and-dry issue or that ethics or morality should play no part in medicine and science.
A newborn infant can't survive on its own, of course - so do you believe it's ok to "terminate" an unwanted baby after birth (through either murder or neglect)? If an 8 month old could be just as viable after induced labor as a newborn, is there any difference there? And if a 7 month old is viable after a C-section and 1 month of intensive care, is there any difference there? For that matter, a 2 year old can walk and talk, but can't survive on its own. Any difference there?
I'm not saying these are easy moral questions, or that even the purely scientific questions of human neurological development can be answered with today's technology. But calling the lifelong continuous process of brain development "imaginary magic" is just as scientifically ignorant as someone calling the sunrise magic. Just because you (or even a collective "we") don't understand something yet, doesn't mean it's magical, just unexplained.
third trimester, a specific number of days into pregnancy), just a magic but arbitrary switch that has nothing to do with physical development;
Not necessarily arbitrary or magical. At some point the fetus has developed far enough to be more than a mass of barely differentiated cells into a viable organism on its own (possibly requiring intensive care but viable nonetheless). There can still be debate as to exactly when that period is, but at least those hypotheses are scientifically testable and not some religious mumbo-jumbo about immortal souls and holy spirits.
Agribusinesses and food manufacturers have donated a total of $13 million toward defeating the measure, bringing the total up to $25 million in the coffers of those proposing the proposition
Uh, I think that should have been "opposing" the proposition. Monsanto would have been kind of annoyed if they accidentally gave all of that money to those proposing the proposition...
Read my post. I said "once they shut down". There is no reason to think they will be any more successful after screwing over their original investors and employees with their accounting magic and new investment than they were with their last attempt. It's now even higher risk for potential investors and customers. Not a good (re)-start for the company.
I don't buy that argument. DLC also has a certification process. If they were able to complete the DLC and get it debugged and certified before the release, they should have put it in the original release.
The publisher's argument that "those players who complete the game quickly then complained that there was nothing more to play and asked for extra content" is even more absurd. So he practically admits many players consider the game too short and his solution was to charge MORE to fix it?
Once the service arrived for people to play the naysayers were wrong, it did work. Not without some technical issues, but OnLive was working hard to solve them (like wireless networks). ... in my experience, really didn't seem to affect me -- the latency was something you just kinda got used to. All I hear is a bunch of bigots
And some people are happy with VHS tapes on a 19" TV, congratulations. But the majority of the PC gaming market are not those people. They are willing to pay for the best video quality and lowest latency, so no, the technology, while impressive for what it managed to accomplish, did not accomplish what it *needed to*, which is be a replacement, not a shadow, of high end PC gaming. Casual PC games are already largely server-based with no significant hardware requirements, and thus have no need for what they built. They tried to break into the high end 3D gaming market with a product few people wanted, and it failed. As the "naysayers" and "bigots" CORRECTLY predicted.
So in the end, those people saying it wouldn't succeed were right and YOU were wrong. Have fun with all of your useless OnLive game "purchases" once they shut down.
I'm going to have to agree with the AC... gamers and/or anyone with any reasonable technical knowledge clearly knew this was an F-ed company from the start. The only people who seemed clueless were the investors and various naive media pundits who habitually fall for unproven CES demos...
The shipping and handling on these items is dangerous! You ever try to bubble wrap a vorpal blade?
Yeah, ACT does all sorts of educational curriculum, testing, etc.
Though it would be kind of twisted but fun for them to use the exact same questions in the high school exams and the college entrance exams - just with different answer keys ;)
Yeah, it all comes down to a literal vs. figurative interpretation of the Bible.
For some bizarre reason those religions who actually *wrote* the Bible (Jews and Catholics, more or less) interpret it figuratively, while those who came along later (Islam, Protestantism, Mormonism) tend to interpret it literally. But I guess maybe it makes sense... if you wrote a bunch of over-the-top morality tales of course you'd *know* they were over-the-top morality tales and not some crazy supernatural occurrences someone literally witnessed.
1) Where did the UK state that? (i.e. you HAVEN'T read the letter, which was published in the same newspaper linked to above - there is no mention of storming or even entering ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the entire letter).
That would be the last story slashdot posted on this... 12 hours ago, and it was based on a BBC story mentioning the letter, and to quote directly from the Foreign Minister of Equador: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said."
A quote from an Equadorian minister is in no way the same thing as "the UK stating that", that's silly. As the GP already told you, read the actual letter! This is the relevant part:
We have to reiterate that we consider continued use of diplomatic premises in this way, to be incompatible with the VCDR (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) and not sustainable, and that we have already made clear to you the serious implications for our diplomatic relations.
You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.
We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us.
2) It doesn't violate the Vienna convention to dissolve the embassy or even expel all the diplomatic staff. Go read it. It's quite clear that the UK can do that "at any time, and for any reason". Assange isn't covered by that, no matter what.
It violates article 9 of the Vienna convention, a treaty signed by the UK which supercecedes national law.
See previous quote from their letter, if you had read it you'd see they already addressed that as well.
Rather than take Assange out of the embassy, they have threatened (indirectly and politely) to take the embassy away from Assange. Which is perfectly legitimate.
I dislike what the British government is doing, but I dislike arguments based on inaccurate information even more...
How do you know what the risks will be after the technology is commercialized? The Concorde only had one crash in its history, and that was on takeoff due to a blown tire and debris hitting the wing under the fuel tanks.
And yeah, I'm sure everyone agrees the future of intercontinental travel is undoubtedly in automated cars...
The types of people who can afford to fly on a hypersonic jet (ticket prices would make the Concorde look like a value airline) don't wait 2-3 hours with the cattle to get through security or catch a cab.
I've worked on dozens of embedded set-top platforms that use Linux /w GCC-based toolchain, and I don't remember a single one that had exception handling and RTTI enabled for any C++ code...
Why on earth do Americans still lionize a collection of individuals who had hundreds of slaves each? Why are these considered exemplary human beings? And it tends to be those most vocal about liberty who lionize them the most, which is quite hilarious when you consider said slave ownership.
First, your comment is an ad-hominem and is irrelevant to the discussion (and also an incorrect generalization - many of those at the Constitutional Convention had no slaves, and some were abolitionists).
And second, it was generally the opposite of my point, really. The real question is why do people try to interpret (or in your words, "lionize") a 230 year old document written by these individuals they seem to despise so *literally* without regard to societal and technological changes over time? You are somehow trying to attack me for pointing out the authors of the First Amendment would not consider this peaceable assembly while also trying to use their writing broadly to defend your point. It's inconsistent at best, and more like hypocritical.
Thirdly, refusing to leave someone's PRIVATE property (especially inside their building or residence) is not and has never been considered "peaceful assembly" by the Federal government. It's called trespassing. If you disagree, cite examples if you can...
It most definitely does not mean what Soulskill thinks it means.
I'm moderately pro-OWS in their general goals (as hard to figure out as they are) but "peaceably assemble" != "camp out on public or private property for weeks at a time". If you think the founding fathers intended squatting or trespassing to be part of the First Amendment you are deluding yourself.
I'm sure there were plenty of cases of people being unjustly arrested (the occasional journalist was even detained for being at the wrong place at the wrong time) but Jill Stein in particular was NOT one of those. She was arrested after refusing to leave a bank lobby during a sit in. Again, not that I necessarily disagree with her message, but I do disagree with her expression of it. She had no more Constitutional right to "assemble" and then refuse to leave a private bank lobby than she would sitting down and refusing to leave your living room.
Sorry, but honestly I don't even see a connection between either of your posts and the posts you responded to...
1. trolling post says the male hackers are just as much victims of the groupies
2. next post responds sarcastically saying conferences need new rules protecting the poor hackers from women at the conference
3. you reply with seeming non-sequiter about motherhood and career, and then surmise that the majority of women at these conferences are prostitutes (wha??)
4. I point out your comment was pretty much right in line with the sexism the article brings up. As you say you are not even a hacker... and yet you feel the need to guess that most of the women at hacker conferences are fangirls and hookers? You don't see the inherent sexism in that? Of *course* if you are going to make the initial assumption that a woman you meet is more likely than not to want to stalk you or take money for sex you will be more likely to have inappropriate social interactions with them. That's the PROBLEM.
5. You make another non-sequiter about lack of overlap between hackers and groupies and describe a bizarre scenario seemingly based on Hollywood depictions, neither of which had the slightest to do with my post... are you reading a different thread from the rest of us?