When asked about people who he has known for years and even been seen with, he feigns ignorance and says he "can't remember". Really? Someone with a self-professed "perfect memory" and "genius level IQ" can't remember someone they have had dinner with a half dozen times?
Really? So people can't make their own mind up? Or is every one of the supposed 40% of Republicans polled that supports him a member of the media?
I agree the amount of media coverage Trump gets is absurd, but by saying his success is due to that, you are basically saying even in politics "there is no such thing as bad publicity." The media has been pretty clear in reporting all of the lies, personal attacks, contradictions, and horrible, racist things he's said, and it has actually ENERGIZED his racist Republican base. Hence, they just don't care about the crap.
What's even more amazing is how, even though it has also been covered repeatedly, none of the "pro Trump" people seem to acknowledge or care that in the past - and sometimes even in the past couple years - he has stated he is absolutely pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-universal healthcare, pro-immigration, and pro-Clinton. Now after declaring himself a Republican candidate, somehow his believe on all of these things changed 180 degrees? Really??
Because liberals want to restrict economic freedom (for reasons they believe are good, obviously).
I would say the "restriction of economic freedom" is more a result than a goal. The goal that's most incompatible with libertarianism is that liberals believe the government should have a central role in providing for social welfare, health, etc of its citizens, while libertarians believe it's none of the government's business.
If you want to make a difference - find crap on Trump and Cruz to counter with.
Really? Why even bother? There is already so much public crap on Trump he should be buried 15' deep, but apparently his Republican base just doesn't care. They have taken said crap and just stuffed it in their ears so they don't have to acknowledge it.
Wait, CLINTON is UNELECTABLE because she may or may not have sent emails from a personal server that though not top secret secure has no evidence anything was leaked - and have proven through the non-redacted bits that her means were ignorant of technology but her intent was just to get shit done.
But TRUMP, who has openly contradicted almost every stance he has previously held, has insulted almost every class of citizen except "straight white Christian male" (debatable, since he has even made veiled references that anyone supporting him is a moron), and has even literally praised and kowtowed to the US's greatest rival, Vladimir Putin, is somehow ELECTABLE (let alone not a real traitor)?
Yeah, you kind of proved my point by point out one potentially precise term ("broadband") with one that is useless and inaccurate ("fast"). In fact this is the reason ISPs should not be allowed to make up arbitrary definitions of what "broadband" and "fast" mean - it should be based on standard metrics (ie. the percentage of users in the US and worldwide that can get it, what you can do with it, etc), regulated by an organization (FCC) that already oversees Internet commerce, not the marketing department of a cable company...
Thanks for the pedagogy, though. You are at least accurate. You sure you're not new here?;)
Wait - you are calling out a/. poster for being pedantic about technical terminology? You sure YOU are not new here??;)
Also, to be serious, I was just replying to a poster who said "but changing what terms mean isn't an honest way to go about it" when the very use of "broadband" in this sense was about changing what a term mean, and "technically, broadband is..." when in fact TECHNICALLY it was not that at all. I think it was fair game in any case...
It's not irrelevant, it's totally relevant. He is pointing out that certain senators are trying to hold back definitions of "broadband" (silly term) Internet to suit the companies lobbying them. Is it right? Clearly not. But clearly relevant.
You may want people to have faster speeds, but changing what terms mean isn't an honest way to go about it.
Bullshit. "Energy efficient" has definitely changed. As has "VLSI" semiconductors, "high speed" rail, etc. Technology advances, and standards will follow.
Anything over dial-up or ISDN speeds is technically broadband.
No, if you want to be technical, bandwidth (NOT "speed", of course, that's silly) does not directly have anything to do with broadband communications.
Broadband means "using a wide band of frequencies" for communication. In practice, no one gives a shit about frequencies used in the raw physical layer, net IP data bandwidth is all that matters. And even if people did care, most of the advances in data bandwidth are not actually just using "larger bands", they are using the existing bands more efficiently. DWDM, 256-QAM, VDSL, etc. As the technology gets better, OBVIOUSLY the standards for average bandwidth to the home will change...
I would consider myself foremost a C/C++ programmer. But in the 90's I wrote software that interfaced with custom built ECL-based muon detectors in Turbo Pascal for Fermilab's D0. C is not the only language that can easily access memory mapped IO, and certainly not the first.
Geek card, nothing. He's right. I HATE Javascript but these days ridiculous things - from 3D game programming to MP4 video parsing/demuxing - are being implemented in it. And that's just the *client* side. If you are scared of Javascript don't even start looking into Node.js. Yesterday's geek is today's useless graybeard...
C and C++ are only the foundation because the happened to become popular due to a bunch of misc. factors, not because they are inherently great inventions in themselves. Also, they (and their standard libraries) evolved over time to their current state.
It's like saying English and Spanish are the most important languages because they are fundamentally the "best-invented" ones, not because of the accidents of fate that were colonial expansion, WWII, and the Internet.
I was gong to say that what is really needed is quieter engine, but I suspect that rechargeable technology is the way to go. No reason that they can't be made as durable as backpack models (for a commercial price), and consider the idea of a handheld motor, plugged into a backpack mounted battery pack.
Look for me on Kickstarter . ..
You'd think if Tesla can make an electric car with 400+ HP motor, someone could do it with a leaf blower (question of strapping a large lithium batter to your back notwithstanding). And given all of these upcoming ordinances, if someone *can* make a high quality electric blower with similar HP to a gas blower, they could have the next Dyson (actually - maybe someone should suggest it to Dyson...)
Yes, I have, and I own an electric. But I will admit it's a toy compared to commercial gas blowers.
To be honest, as much as I hate them, I 100% agree that gas blowers are much simpler and faster to operate for professionals. Battery powered ones just don't have nearly as much power; plug-ins can approach the power of the lowest-end backpack gas blowers, but are impractical when they are using it all around a large home, through gates, in the front yard/street, etc (assuming the location even has accessible outdoor plugs). And electric blowers that match the durability of a commercial backpack gas blower just don't exist. These guys aren't weekend warriors, they work at this 8 hours a day, 5-6 days a week. Efficiency and reliability is everything.
Sounds almost like I am pro-gas blowers - I am definitely not, I can't stand them. I am pro-paying gardeners more so they can afford commercial electric blowers with extra batteries, higher turnover from their inferior durability, etc. But it doesn't do me much good to pay mine more unless they actually use that money for that purpose, AND all of my neighbors and/or their gardening services do the same...
Isn't your infringement of my freedom the same? I mean if I am not free to do something because it annoys you, aren't you infringing on my freedom?
No, it's absolutely not, that's so obviously a false equivalence you can't be seriously suggesting it. It's like the argument that "calling me bigoted makes you bigoted for being against bigots". You are welcome to do anything that only affects you. You are often not welcome to do something that affects other people negatively (of course you may be legally allowed to do it until it's made illegal).
Shoot yourself, I couldn't care less (IMO making suicide illegal is idiotic). Shoot someone else, not so much. OD on drugs, fine, sell them to a kid who ODs, you'll go to jail. Same with smoking in a restaurant vs just fucking going outside.
CA already has "spare the air" days where you can't burn wood fireplaces, etc because the air quality is so bad. I see no difference between that and using a leaf blower that emits literally visible clouds of pollutants into the air. That said, if you'd like to close your flue and light your fireplace, or run your leaf blower inside your closed garage, you are welcome to do that. If that doesn't sound safe to you, why the hell would any of your neighbors want to breathe it, either?
And if they are using leaf blowers 5 days a week, they are doing something wrong.
Eh - you do realize it's possible to have more than one neighbor, right? I have 5 bordering my house and another 3-4 across the street who all use different gardening services on different days.
Honestly if it were 30 minutes a week (especially when I'm not home) it's still annoying, but tolerable/ But when it's every morning, for 1-2 hours, it's not. That's why we have regulations like this (hell, that's why we have civilization with police forces), some people are just selfish and won't considerate to others unless forced to.
One or two days a year? Try 5 days a week year round. 2-stroke gas leaf blowers running almost every morning are pretty fucking annoying - both their noise and the dirty combustion fumes they emit.
That said, if people want to get rid of them, as mentioned in the article, they need to pay for it. Electric blowers are more expensive and less convenient, so if gardeners are forced to use them homeowners should expect to pay more and not complain.
As they say, your freedom ends where it infringes on someone else's. That's what noise, pollution, and safety ordinances are for.
I'd totally agree about Youtube, but I don't think "Full HD Netflix streaming only requires 3Mbps, so even 802.11b is fine for streaming HD Netflix" is particularly ambigious about the streaming source...
No, that's just silly. First, 802.11b can barely sustain 3-4Mbps, up to maybe 5-6 in a perfect 2.4Ghz clean environment (almost nowhere is these days)
Second, "Full HD" (aka 1080p) is really crappy at 3Mbps. You need 4.5Mbps to be remotely reasonable, and 6-8Mbps to be "good".
"Basic HD" (aka 720p) can be decent at 2-3Mbps, and pretty good at ~4.
This is assuming H.264, which is what Netflix is using for their HD. H.265 can do about 30% better, but has limited support so is mostly used for new 4K-capable devices.
Leave it up to/. to assume it's about some giant conspiracy. In reality it's almost definitely about an elliptical curve patent troll. Aka most companies don't care about politics, they care about money.
Tons of companies have been sued over this in the last few months. Given the perfectly good alternatives, why would any company not remove EC from their products?
Cisco would be better suing the ISP for the sites details, and then suing the site owners in the court.
In Russian courts. Good luck with that. The hackers are probably protected and/or financed by the Russian mafia, which means they are effectively protected by the Russian government.
They are better off convincing US or EU organizations the ISP is refusing to shut down known criminals, and getting the ISP blocked from Western countries/ISPs. Like most things of this nature, morality and politics are useless, it's only going to be fixed when it affects their wallet...
I'd add: he's good at telling other people to build things with other people's money, so if the first other people screw up, the second other people are the ones losing their shirts, not him.
That's the key to getting ultra-rich these days, especially in Wall Street - take a profit/bonus when things are good, let someone else take the loss when they are bad. Building something tangible along the way is incidental, and in fact usually just a distraction.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for just one example, it's pretty obvious Trump has had repeated dealings with the mafia. Even the conservative sites are calling him out on it:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/...
When asked about people who he has known for years and even been seen with, he feigns ignorance and says he "can't remember". Really? Someone with a self-professed "perfect memory" and "genius level IQ" can't remember someone they have had dinner with a half dozen times?
Really? So people can't make their own mind up? Or is every one of the supposed 40% of Republicans polled that supports him a member of the media?
I agree the amount of media coverage Trump gets is absurd, but by saying his success is due to that, you are basically saying even in politics "there is no such thing as bad publicity." The media has been pretty clear in reporting all of the lies, personal attacks, contradictions, and horrible, racist things he's said, and it has actually ENERGIZED his racist Republican base. Hence, they just don't care about the crap.
What's even more amazing is how, even though it has also been covered repeatedly, none of the "pro Trump" people seem to acknowledge or care that in the past - and sometimes even in the past couple years - he has stated he is absolutely pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-universal healthcare, pro-immigration, and pro-Clinton. Now after declaring himself a Republican candidate, somehow his believe on all of these things changed 180 degrees? Really??
Because liberals want to restrict economic freedom (for reasons they believe are good, obviously).
I would say the "restriction of economic freedom" is more a result than a goal. The goal that's most incompatible with libertarianism is that liberals believe the government should have a central role in providing for social welfare, health, etc of its citizens, while libertarians believe it's none of the government's business.
If you want to make a difference - find crap on Trump and Cruz to counter with.
Really? Why even bother? There is already so much public crap on Trump he should be buried 15' deep, but apparently his Republican base just doesn't care. They have taken said crap and just stuffed it in their ears so they don't have to acknowledge it.
Wait, CLINTON is UNELECTABLE because she may or may not have sent emails from a personal server that though not top secret secure has no evidence anything was leaked - and have proven through the non-redacted bits that her means were ignorant of technology but her intent was just to get shit done.
But TRUMP, who has openly contradicted almost every stance he has previously held, has insulted almost every class of citizen except "straight white Christian male" (debatable, since he has even made veiled references that anyone supporting him is a moron), and has even literally praised and kowtowed to the US's greatest rival, Vladimir Putin, is somehow ELECTABLE (let alone not a real traitor)?
If you have no idea what the definition of bandwidth or broadband, is, I guess. Otherwise I didn't agree with him at all...
Yeah, you kind of proved my point by point out one potentially precise term ("broadband") with one that is useless and inaccurate ("fast"). In fact this is the reason ISPs should not be allowed to make up arbitrary definitions of what "broadband" and "fast" mean - it should be based on standard metrics (ie. the percentage of users in the US and worldwide that can get it, what you can do with it, etc), regulated by an organization (FCC) that already oversees Internet commerce, not the marketing department of a cable company...
Thanks for the pedagogy, though. You are at least accurate. You sure you're not new here? ;)
Wait - you are calling out a /. poster for being pedantic about technical terminology? You sure YOU are not new here?? ;)
Also, to be serious, I was just replying to a poster who said "but changing what terms mean isn't an honest way to go about it" when the very use of "broadband" in this sense was about changing what a term mean, and "technically, broadband is..." when in fact TECHNICALLY it was not that at all. I think it was fair game in any case...
It's not irrelevant, it's totally relevant. He is pointing out that certain senators are trying to hold back definitions of "broadband" (silly term) Internet to suit the companies lobbying them. Is it right? Clearly not. But clearly relevant.
You may want people to have faster speeds, but changing what terms mean isn't an honest way to go about it.
Bullshit. "Energy efficient" has definitely changed. As has "VLSI" semiconductors, "high speed" rail, etc. Technology advances, and standards will follow.
Anything over dial-up or ISDN speeds is technically broadband.
No, if you want to be technical, bandwidth (NOT "speed", of course, that's silly) does not directly have anything to do with broadband communications.
Broadband means "using a wide band of frequencies" for communication. In practice, no one gives a shit about frequencies used in the raw physical layer, net IP data bandwidth is all that matters. And even if people did care, most of the advances in data bandwidth are not actually just using "larger bands", they are using the existing bands more efficiently. DWDM, 256-QAM, VDSL, etc. As the technology gets better, OBVIOUSLY the standards for average bandwidth to the home will change...
I would consider myself foremost a C/C++ programmer. But in the 90's I wrote software that interfaced with custom built ECL-based muon detectors in Turbo Pascal for Fermilab's D0. C is not the only language that can easily access memory mapped IO, and certainly not the first.
Geek card, nothing. He's right. I HATE Javascript but these days ridiculous things - from 3D game programming to MP4 video parsing/demuxing - are being implemented in it. And that's just the *client* side. If you are scared of Javascript don't even start looking into Node.js. Yesterday's geek is today's useless graybeard...
C and C++ are only the foundation because the happened to become popular due to a bunch of misc. factors, not because they are inherently great inventions in themselves. Also, they (and their standard libraries) evolved over time to their current state.
It's like saying English and Spanish are the most important languages because they are fundamentally the "best-invented" ones, not because of the accidents of fate that were colonial expansion, WWII, and the Internet.
Blockchain != bitcoin. Currency is just one use of it. RTFA, it makes this exact point...
I was gong to say that what is really needed is quieter engine, but I suspect that rechargeable technology is the way to go. No reason that they can't be made as durable as backpack models (for a commercial price), and consider the idea of a handheld motor, plugged into a backpack mounted battery pack.
Look for me on Kickstarter . . .
You'd think if Tesla can make an electric car with 400+ HP motor, someone could do it with a leaf blower (question of strapping a large lithium batter to your back notwithstanding). And given all of these upcoming ordinances, if someone *can* make a high quality electric blower with similar HP to a gas blower, they could have the next Dyson (actually - maybe someone should suggest it to Dyson...)
Yes, I have, and I own an electric. But I will admit it's a toy compared to commercial gas blowers.
To be honest, as much as I hate them, I 100% agree that gas blowers are much simpler and faster to operate for professionals. Battery powered ones just don't have nearly as much power; plug-ins can approach the power of the lowest-end backpack gas blowers, but are impractical when they are using it all around a large home, through gates, in the front yard/street, etc (assuming the location even has accessible outdoor plugs). And electric blowers that match the durability of a commercial backpack gas blower just don't exist. These guys aren't weekend warriors, they work at this 8 hours a day, 5-6 days a week. Efficiency and reliability is everything.
Sounds almost like I am pro-gas blowers - I am definitely not, I can't stand them. I am pro-paying gardeners more so they can afford commercial electric blowers with extra batteries, higher turnover from their inferior durability, etc. But it doesn't do me much good to pay mine more unless they actually use that money for that purpose, AND all of my neighbors and/or their gardening services do the same...
Isn't your infringement of my freedom the same? I mean if I am not free to do something because it annoys you, aren't you infringing on my freedom?
No, it's absolutely not, that's so obviously a false equivalence you can't be seriously suggesting it. It's like the argument that "calling me bigoted makes you bigoted for being against bigots". You are welcome to do anything that only affects you. You are often not welcome to do something that affects other people negatively (of course you may be legally allowed to do it until it's made illegal).
Shoot yourself, I couldn't care less (IMO making suicide illegal is idiotic). Shoot someone else, not so much. OD on drugs, fine, sell them to a kid who ODs, you'll go to jail. Same with smoking in a restaurant vs just fucking going outside.
CA already has "spare the air" days where you can't burn wood fireplaces, etc because the air quality is so bad. I see no difference between that and using a leaf blower that emits literally visible clouds of pollutants into the air. That said, if you'd like to close your flue and light your fireplace, or run your leaf blower inside your closed garage, you are welcome to do that. If that doesn't sound safe to you, why the hell would any of your neighbors want to breathe it, either?
And if they are using leaf blowers 5 days a week, they are doing something wrong.
Eh - you do realize it's possible to have more than one neighbor, right? I have 5 bordering my house and another 3-4 across the street who all use different gardening services on different days.
Honestly if it were 30 minutes a week (especially when I'm not home) it's still annoying, but tolerable/ But when it's every morning, for 1-2 hours, it's not. That's why we have regulations like this (hell, that's why we have civilization with police forces), some people are just selfish and won't considerate to others unless forced to.
One or two days a year? Try 5 days a week year round. 2-stroke gas leaf blowers running almost every morning are pretty fucking annoying - both their noise and the dirty combustion fumes they emit.
That said, if people want to get rid of them, as mentioned in the article, they need to pay for it. Electric blowers are more expensive and less convenient, so if gardeners are forced to use them homeowners should expect to pay more and not complain.
As they say, your freedom ends where it infringes on someone else's. That's what noise, pollution, and safety ordinances are for.
I'd totally agree about Youtube, but I don't think "Full HD Netflix streaming only requires 3Mbps, so even 802.11b is fine for streaming HD Netflix" is particularly ambigious about the streaming source...
No, that's just silly. First, 802.11b can barely sustain 3-4Mbps, up to maybe 5-6 in a perfect 2.4Ghz clean environment (almost nowhere is these days)
Second, "Full HD" (aka 1080p) is really crappy at 3Mbps. You need 4.5Mbps to be remotely reasonable, and 6-8Mbps to be "good".
"Basic HD" (aka 720p) can be decent at 2-3Mbps, and pretty good at ~4.
This is assuming H.264, which is what Netflix is using for their HD. H.265 can do about 30% better, but has limited support so is mostly used for new 4K-capable devices.
No NO NOO! It's not a penny, it's a CENT!!
This is the stupidest post I have read on slashdot this week.
Leave it up to /. to assume it's about some giant conspiracy. In reality it's almost definitely about an elliptical curve patent troll. Aka most companies don't care about politics, they care about money.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Tons of companies have been sued over this in the last few months. Given the perfectly good alternatives, why would any company not remove EC from their products?
Cisco would be better suing the ISP for the sites details, and then suing the site owners in the court.
In Russian courts. Good luck with that. The hackers are probably protected and/or financed by the Russian mafia, which means they are effectively protected by the Russian government.
They are better off convincing US or EU organizations the ISP is refusing to shut down known criminals, and getting the ISP blocked from Western countries/ISPs. Like most things of this nature, morality and politics are useless, it's only going to be fixed when it affects their wallet...
Eh, they are all hosted on Youtube, anyway. Let Google be your proxy...
I'd add: he's good at telling other people to build things with other people's money, so if the first other people screw up, the second other people are the ones losing their shirts, not him.
That's the key to getting ultra-rich these days, especially in Wall Street - take a profit/bonus when things are good, let someone else take the loss when they are bad. Building something tangible along the way is incidental, and in fact usually just a distraction.