We get paid by the vendor to put it there, so that's money to us regardless of the price you pay for the machine. You'll buy the machine regardless of what we put on the desktop, so there is no economic reason to remove it.
You can remove it yourself using the normal software uninstallation process. You can remove the entire operating system if you like. People with opinions like yours have been doing that for decades, now, to put alternative operating systems on the machines. How did that affect our sales? It didn't. So don't expect it to now.
The only thing that could make us change our ways is if it actually starts costing us money, and since boot time is your time, not ours, it doesn't cost us a thing.
pinning a woman down and forcing your un-condomed penis into her against her wishes is just sex to you?
you also might want to look up "apology". i'm making an accusation against a barbarian. you're making his apology. poorly.
Sweden won't extradite assange to the US, either. that fact is the basis for his pretense that the women were a honeypot: it was supposed to be US intelligence's means of getting him incarcerated in Sweden, because they couldn't get him sent to the US from Sweden. but it's not a honeypot, it's a douchebag taking illegal advantage of women who thought he was going to be nice to them.
as for "who can't get laid," let me be unequivocal: i get laid quite often, and by the sort of women you can only dream of touching.
the pictures will be available on a site much like Google Maps but with a name you can't pronounce
the medical equipment is operated on the principle that god willing you will get well
their supercomputer is built using AMD microprocessors illegally smuggled into Iran in contravention of the ITAR
and if you're wondering if politics plays no role in this, it does, because everything iran does is directed by a central oligarchy of religious fascists who don't care if their people live or die as long as they get closer to the day they can vaporize Israel
What they did first is what the Iranians are finally doing, and it's causing the same reactions in the same reactionaries that the Russian version did.
I think it's the reactionaries who aren't progressing.
Since I'm not a judge, I'm allowed to judge the facts outside a courtroom. Not that it will mean anything under the law, but the facts are clear and I won't deny them simply because they haven't been vetted by a court. That's not prejudice, it's just judice.
As for who's lying, I still don't have any evidence that these officials said anything, just claims of what they said, using words that can be used to alter the meaning of what they said. To accept second-hand accounts from people who may be biased would be simply stupid.
i'm convinced someone in sweden is helping the US or there wouldn't be anything to report.
i'm not convinced that it was done secretly or is illegal.
the people making statements that it was secret and illegal are quoting second-hand descriptions that use words that create distortions. and even the source material, if accurately reported, uses language that does not imply actual secrecy or any illegality.
i am convinced that people are somewhat unhinged about assange, for no good reason. they're protecting him rather than wikileaks. he's a criminal and a douchebag, and wikileaks could do better work without him.
as for your arguments: when you talk about governments and secrets, laws come into play. saying something is a secret just because it's not publicly known is an amplification of the severity of the situation. and no, it's not "almost certainly illegal" for people in government to do things without being ordered to, and it's certainly not unheard of for them to be thrown under the bus by the person who told them to do it without issuing any official order.
"parliamentary hearing" is a political process, not a juridical one, and being "unable to pass" one is a reflection on popularity, not legality. and "could be unconstitutional" is not a clear indication of illegality.
as for the "secretly", unless it's stamped "secret" it's not secret it's just not being made public. bringing in all the connotative baggage of "secret" when it's not secret would be rhetoric, not reportage. it's also draws a false parallel to the illegally classified information that people use to self-justify the mass release of secrets to wikileaks.
"Factions of the Swedish government have been secretly and illegally collaborating with the United States intelligence agencies"
A politician in Sweden who agrees with the US' position applies his actual power as an elected official to get something done by the government in Sweden. His discussions and actions may have been done privately, but were not put under any sort of order of secrecy. And I don't see the secret or illegal about it.
Or are you talking about some other occurrence in which something actually Secret and illegal occurred?
It's not just you. It's his point. If he cared about the leaks more than the attention he'd have acceded to his Wikileaks' cohorts' requests and stepped down a long time ago.
Never gonna happen until it's simply impossible to find IPv4 subscriber hardware any more.
The end-user doesn't have to have an IPv6 address in his house. He can be on a 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x subnet and never know there's another protocol just the other side of the ISP's router.
However, any end-user with a computer bought in the last couple of years probably has IPv6-capable hardware and software installed and doesn't even know it. Fire up Wireshark on a Windows PC running Vista or 7 and see if it isn't already running some of its internal IPC on IPv6.
No, it really doesn't, but it does take one to know what data are significant and how they should be measured to meet the criteria for reliability of the data.
In specific cases such as counting cars passing a point on the road it's pretty hard to screw up, but in other cases such as the slump rate of wet concrete there's a distinct procedure that requires training to know you're doing it right. But the government can't go around predicting all the specific cases and making exceptions for them, so it makes one PE certification and relies on that. A PE's data is assumed to be correct, and a non-PE's data is not allowed to be used in building things, whether it's easy to get right or not.
It doesn't prove the PE is right and the non-PE is wrong. In fact, in this case, the non-PE is rather proving that the PEs got it wrong. But that's a rarity, which is why it's news.
And in the end, when the lines get painted and the light-pole footings get poured and the poles get bolted to them, it will be a PE's data that tell the contractor where to put the lines and the footing and how tall the pole is and what size nuts and bolts to use on the pole. And before that, the PEs will have to look at the non-PE's data, determine that it's impossible for him to have screwed it up, supervise the duplication of his data collection if it's possible he screwed it up, and, literally, put their stamp of approval or rejection on the results.
What we want is for a human being to care about us when we're sick. The methodology of the medicine is beside the point. We'd be only too happy to be hooked up to a box that took the samplesand calculated the dosage and pumped the drugs. But when you're stuck in a hospital, knowing that your chance of dying today is much higher than yesterday, and the only "caregiver" you see from your bed is a meter-tall animatron who shambles in every few hours to pat your mattress, your emotional state suffers.
My personal favorite is hot nurses with a little happy-hour on their breath. But that's anecdotal so it might not be true for everyone.
It has everything to do with the question of "Why would the data being used by a professional engineer be more likely to be correct than that used by anyone else?"
A PE will know the processes to produce the correct data for the decision being made. I think the fact that we have this special case of one non-PE producing competent data being so outlandishly unexpected by the PEs that they launched an investigation should suggest to you that the number of non-PEs producing competent data is typically rather small.
I don't know about you, but I get truths. It's called "data." From that I develop explanations, called "theories." And then I vet the theories by asking for more truths and seeing if they fit. And if they don't fit, then I have a truth called "falsification of a hypothesis". Which is data to be used to further develop the theory.
PEs have passed a certification proving they have the competence to do the work properly.
Without that, you don't have legal status as a competent engineer.
100% of PEs are legally determined to be competent. While some non-PEs may be competent, some may not. Therefore, there is more likelihood of a non-PE being incompetent.
Not for ordinary technical phone work, but if you were siting and erecting cell towers or telephone poles, or supervising digging to lay underground lines, a PE would have to be involved.
Although the 911-number stuff may be a special case, but I doubt it requires a PE, just some specialized paperwork to certify the system before it's put into operation, though I wouldn't be surprised if many jurisdictions fumbled that and have iffy setups.
And not all safety-critical engineering requires a PE. FAA DERs, who are independent contractors who do the FAA's quality-assurance inspections, aren't PEs, but they have their own certification process that amounts to the same legal enfranchisement.
If your subnet is shared between several subscribers and you use wireshark to sniff it, you could be liable for illegal wiretapping.
But that's a digression.
"Professional Engineer" is a license to design and build things involved in public safety. It has a legal meaning.
Certifications to be a network engineer are merely indications of your education and skill level, and the law says nothing about them.
You can't be prevented from counting people at a crosswalk, nor for submitting your data to the DOT, but if they don't send a PE out to repeat your efforts they can't use your data to design the crosswalk. That isn't to say they couldn't use it to justify a crosswalk, but they may take the view that they can't use it, period, since they can't trust data of unknown reliability when making decisions about public safety. But there's no way they can justify intimidating you for doing it. Instead of wasting their time, money, and political capital doing that, they should send a PE out to validate your findings.
Slashdot Mirror
We get paid by the vendor to put it there, so that's money to us regardless of the price you pay for the machine. You'll buy the machine regardless of what we put on the desktop, so there is no economic reason to remove it.
You can remove it yourself using the normal software uninstallation process. You can remove the entire operating system if you like. People with opinions like yours have been doing that for decades, now, to put alternative operating systems on the machines. How did that affect our sales? It didn't. So don't expect it to now.
The only thing that could make us change our ways is if it actually starts costing us money, and since boot time is your time, not ours, it doesn't cost us a thing.
pinning a woman down and forcing your un-condomed penis into her against her wishes is just sex to you?
you also might want to look up "apology". i'm making an accusation against a barbarian. you're making his apology. poorly.
Sweden won't extradite assange to the US, either. that fact is the basis for his pretense that the women were a honeypot: it was supposed to be US intelligence's means of getting him incarcerated in Sweden, because they couldn't get him sent to the US from Sweden. but it's not a honeypot, it's a douchebag taking illegal advantage of women who thought he was going to be nice to them.
as for "who can't get laid," let me be unequivocal: i get laid quite often, and by the sort of women you can only dream of touching.
the pictures will be available on a site much like Google Maps but with a name you can't pronounce
the medical equipment is operated on the principle that god willing you will get well
their supercomputer is built using AMD microprocessors illegally smuggled into Iran in contravention of the ITAR
and if you're wondering if politics plays no role in this, it does, because everything iran does is directed by a central oligarchy of religious fascists who don't care if their people live or die as long as they get closer to the day they can vaporize Israel
What they did first is what the Iranians are finally doing, and it's causing the same reactions in the same reactionaries that the Russian version did.
I think it's the reactionaries who aren't progressing.
See, that is prejudice.
Since I'm not a judge, I'm allowed to judge the facts outside a courtroom. Not that it will mean anything under the law, but the facts are clear and I won't deny them simply because they haven't been vetted by a court. That's not prejudice, it's just judice.
As for who's lying, I still don't have any evidence that these officials said anything, just claims of what they said, using words that can be used to alter the meaning of what they said. To accept second-hand accounts from people who may be biased would be simply stupid.
i'm convinced someone in sweden is helping the US or there wouldn't be anything to report.
i'm not convinced that it was done secretly or is illegal.
the people making statements that it was secret and illegal are quoting second-hand descriptions that use words that create distortions. and even the source material, if accurately reported, uses language that does not imply actual secrecy or any illegality.
i am convinced that people are somewhat unhinged about assange, for no good reason. they're protecting him rather than wikileaks. he's a criminal and a douchebag, and wikileaks could do better work without him.
as for your arguments: when you talk about governments and secrets, laws come into play. saying something is a secret just because it's not publicly known is an amplification of the severity of the situation. and no, it's not "almost certainly illegal" for people in government to do things without being ordered to, and it's certainly not unheard of for them to be thrown under the bus by the person who told them to do it without issuing any official order.
"parliamentary hearing" is a political process, not a juridical one, and being "unable to pass" one is a reflection on popularity, not legality. and "could be unconstitutional" is not a clear indication of illegality.
as for the "secretly", unless it's stamped "secret" it's not secret it's just not being made public. bringing in all the connotative baggage of "secret" when it's not secret would be rhetoric, not reportage. it's also draws a false parallel to the illegally classified information that people use to self-justify the mass release of secrets to wikileaks.
count me not convinced by what's being said.
The fact that the entire opposition party spent 6 years trying to get that done is pretty much proof that Bubba was running the actual government.
"Factions of the Swedish government have been secretly and illegally collaborating with the United States intelligence agencies"
A politician in Sweden who agrees with the US' position applies his actual power as an elected official to get something done by the government in Sweden. His discussions and actions may have been done privately, but were not put under any sort of order of secrecy. And I don't see the secret or illegal about it.
Or are you talking about some other occurrence in which something actually Secret and illegal occurred?
He went to Sweden to avoid being extradited to the US.
The legal system as yet has not even begun to deal with his crimes re the leaks.
This is about his barbaric treatment of women. And it's apparent he's very afraid of having to answer any more questions about it.
It's not just you. It's his point. If he cared about the leaks more than the attention he'd have acceded to his Wikileaks' cohorts' requests and stepped down a long time ago.
Never gonna happen until it's simply impossible to find IPv4 subscriber hardware any more.
The end-user doesn't have to have an IPv6 address in his house. He can be on a 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x subnet and never know there's another protocol just the other side of the ISP's router.
However, any end-user with a computer bought in the last couple of years probably has IPv6-capable hardware and software installed and doesn't even know it. Fire up Wireshark on a Windows PC running Vista or 7 and see if it isn't already running some of its internal IPC on IPv6.
Conversely, what's the significance of not learning all we can about them and their culture?
Well, no, it's not content-free.
It just doesn't have the eye candy you were looking for.
For that, you'll have to pay the publishers who organized the peer-reviewing and put the paper in context for its scientify community.
But maybe if you try real hard you can Google it from space...
so what do you want us to do? ban grave-googling?
No, it really doesn't, but it does take one to know what data are significant and how they should be measured to meet the criteria for reliability of the data.
In specific cases such as counting cars passing a point on the road it's pretty hard to screw up, but in other cases such as the slump rate of wet concrete there's a distinct procedure that requires training to know you're doing it right. But the government can't go around predicting all the specific cases and making exceptions for them, so it makes one PE certification and relies on that. A PE's data is assumed to be correct, and a non-PE's data is not allowed to be used in building things, whether it's easy to get right or not.
It doesn't prove the PE is right and the non-PE is wrong. In fact, in this case, the non-PE is rather proving that the PEs got it wrong. But that's a rarity, which is why it's news.
And in the end, when the lines get painted and the light-pole footings get poured and the poles get bolted to them, it will be a PE's data that tell the contractor where to put the lines and the footing and how tall the pole is and what size nuts and bolts to use on the pole. And before that, the PEs will have to look at the non-PE's data, determine that it's impossible for him to have screwed it up, supervise the duplication of his data collection if it's possible he screwed it up, and, literally, put their stamp of approval or rejection on the results.
What we want is for a human being to care about us when we're sick. The methodology of the medicine is beside the point. We'd be only too happy to be hooked up to a box that took the samplesand calculated the dosage and pumped the drugs. But when you're stuck in a hospital, knowing that your chance of dying today is much higher than yesterday, and the only "caregiver" you see from your bed is a meter-tall animatron who shambles in every few hours to pat your mattress, your emotional state suffers.
My personal favorite is hot nurses with a little happy-hour on their breath. But that's anecdotal so it might not be true for everyone.
Whoa. I did not know that about poured concrete. 0.08? Is that even possible? Explains the popularity of cinderblock...
It has everything to do with the question of "Why would the data being used by a professional engineer be more likely to be correct than that used by anyone else?"
A PE will know the processes to produce the correct data for the decision being made. I think the fact that we have this special case of one non-PE producing competent data being so outlandishly unexpected by the PEs that they launched an investigation should suggest to you that the number of non-PEs producing competent data is typically rather small.
I don't much care what you cannot stand, as it's clear your insults are mere projection.
As for science, if you wish to actually try to disprove my hypothesis, you know where the Apple store is.
I don't know about you, but I get truths. It's called "data." From that I develop explanations, called "theories." And then I vet the theories by asking for more truths and seeing if they fit. And if they don't fit, then I have a truth called "falsification of a hypothesis". Which is data to be used to further develop the theory.
Try out the "walking" option in Google Maps some time. But if you're going to use it, bring crampons and a kayak
There's such a thing as taking "be prepared" too far.
That's why I left out the hang-glider.
PEs have passed a certification proving they have the competence to do the work properly.
Without that, you don't have legal status as a competent engineer.
100% of PEs are legally determined to be competent. While some non-PEs may be competent, some may not. Therefore, there is more likelihood of a non-PE being incompetent.
QED.
Not for ordinary technical phone work, but if you were siting and erecting cell towers or telephone poles, or supervising digging to lay underground lines, a PE would have to be involved.
Although the 911-number stuff may be a special case, but I doubt it requires a PE, just some specialized paperwork to certify the system before it's put into operation, though I wouldn't be surprised if many jurisdictions fumbled that and have iffy setups.
And not all safety-critical engineering requires a PE. FAA DERs, who are independent contractors who do the FAA's quality-assurance inspections, aren't PEs, but they have their own certification process that amounts to the same legal enfranchisement.
If your subnet is shared between several subscribers and you use wireshark to sniff it, you could be liable for illegal wiretapping.
But that's a digression.
"Professional Engineer" is a license to design and build things involved in public safety. It has a legal meaning.
Certifications to be a network engineer are merely indications of your education and skill level, and the law says nothing about them.
You can't be prevented from counting people at a crosswalk, nor for submitting your data to the DOT, but if they don't send a PE out to repeat your efforts they can't use your data to design the crosswalk. That isn't to say they couldn't use it to justify a crosswalk, but they may take the view that they can't use it, period, since they can't trust data of unknown reliability when making decisions about public safety. But there's no way they can justify intimidating you for doing it. Instead of wasting their time, money, and political capital doing that, they should send a PE out to validate your findings.