It makes me wince to come across as defending Facebook, but regarding the "scammy ad" reader pcjunky is talking about.... Facebook is not Amazon. It is not reasonable to expect Facebook to vet the products being sold by some business that has bought advertising on their platform. If something seems too good to be true.... then it probably is. Lots of individuals sell products on Facebook too, and it's no better than Craiglist in that regard. You should at least bother to research the website selling a product before buying. You can't blame that one on Facebook.
True, I didn't hear skyjacking used to describe the 9/11 flights either. The normal connotations of "skyjacking" are actually relatively peaceful, in that the motive isn't to kill everyone on board or weaponize the plane. Usually skyjackers wanted one of two things - to be flown to some other country, and / or money. They typically aren't suicidal, and typically do not actually intend on killing everyone on the plane or people on the ground. Many skyjackings were made with the mere threat of a bomb, or with something inert that looked similar to a bomb. I believe towards the end of that era the skyjackings did start to become more violent and innocent people started dying as officials began to crack down and upped the ante.
Skyjacking is a specific term that came into use in the 1960s to describe the rash of airplane hijackings that occurred in the late 60s and 70s. I count 20 skyjackings that involved the United States in just the decade of 1970. It is a specific type of hijacking that involves airplanes, and which typically takes place while the plane is in the sky during flight. Thus the plane is redirected to some other destination because the risk of the threat being real must be taken seriously.
I presume you are in your 20s to have not encountered this word, which is defined in pretty much every English dictionary there is. If you prefer "A hijacking that occurs on an airplane while the plane is in flight" over "skyjacking" then feel free to use the longer phrase in your writings and conversation. However your lack of exposure to this word hardly makes it "tabloid-headline made-up".
There were 209 million people in the US in 1972. Finding one of them who circumstantially could conceivably within the realm of possibility have known someone who circumstantially could conceivably have been D.B. Cooper is not a hard thing to do. There needs to be direct evidence connecting them for this to be newsworthy. Also, saying that the rare earth metals ending up on his tie because he was a rail yard manager is a huge stretch. In that case, assuming he left his office and went frolicking around inside of rail cars, he might have had one kind of rare earth metal. However the tie had multiple rare earths (cerium, strontium sulfide, pure titanium, etc) that indicate more of a production type facility (Boeing has been mentioned) where numerous rare earths are collected together in a single place.
That's a lot better than the interim workaround they sent out, which was to never eat sticky honey buns before unlocking your phone.
I did think the fix of sending out cell phone cases with a wet wipe dispenser built into the back was clever. But then what do you do with the dirty wipes? That was starting cause litter problems.
Another recommendation to lick off the touch sensor area of the screen regularly was highly effective, but it increased the chance of catching the flu by 37%.
I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.
There is a lot of irony in the history of Sears. Sears was the original Amazon. Sears aggressively made use of a new technology as it was rolled out throughout the country to reach a massive customer base and flourish - modern transportation. As roads, and especially rail, began to be built and improved across the country Sears capitalized on it to create a massive mail order business. Rural areas might only have a few small stores, but if they had a train depot, then they had access to the entire Sears catalog. You could buy any part for your tractor from Sears, or even an entire set of materials needed to build a house (literally).
Then Sears began to roll out brick and mortar stores - a natural progression for a large retail business with lots of money. Store fronts are like bragging rights - a tangible, physical way to show off the power and size of your business. Eventually mail order declined significantly, and their catalogs were primary an advertising tool to get people into stores.
Then came the internet, and Sears did not capitalize on it as they could have. That opened the door for Amazon to beat Sears at its original game. It's so ironic that one of the things forcing Sears out of business is being undercut by mail-order shopping.
Less than two months ago Amazon opened its first brick and mortar store in New York - Amazon 4-Star. Bragging rights.
What will be the demise of Amazon? Maybe 3D printing purchases regionally and then using drones to handle last-mile delivery? It will be some technology that Amazon fails to embrace, letting a new competitor get a leg up on them.
The answer is no, and here is why. Art must be created by an artist. An artist is a being which has consciously labeled something as "art". Every beautiful sunset perpetually occurring as the earth rotates is not producing an infinite number of art pieces. However, when a conscious being labels a sunset as art - through photography, painting, or even through some performance art or other means that allows other conscious beings to also consider it in that context - it is then "art".
A formula which plots fractal equations in colors to a grid producing an image is not an artist, thus what it produced is not art. However when a person then takes some instance of that output and declares it is art, then it is art. That formula can produce an infinite number of images, but it has not the consciousness to declare which of those images are art.
Thus, AI, which is set of formulas that can be executed on a Turing complete device, has no consciousness to declare its output as art, thus it cannot produce art. However if a conscious being takes some specific output generated by the AI and declares that it is art, then it is art. Just like an image produced by a fractal algorithm.
And much less seriously, this entire question is just to draw attention to the developers / software that is producing those images.
The headline makes it sound like Google had a brief outage and that caused some traffic to be routed through Russia and China. What actually happened is Some Google Traffic Routed Through Russia and China Causing Brief Outage.
But since we're all used to awful headlines here at Slashdot, and we know we can't expect much better from the original source cnet, that's perfectly fine.
The headline is misleading. It is not the transactions by chip that are being compromised. The fact that a card swiped the old fashioned way happened to have a chip is moot - it is the same attack vector on the legacy magnetic strip.
There must be significant expense involved for merchants to switch to the chip readers, as most of the POS now systems have chip readers, but some retailers don't support them. More than likely it is price gouging by the vendors that configure and manage the POS units.
Finally, in my area, Lowes Home Improvement has the totally bizarre setup where if I want to use my bank card as a debit card (requiring PIN) I must swipe, and if I want to use it as credit card (requiring signature) I must insert it. However, it asks you AFTER you have inserted or swiped, so if you choose the wrong option then you have to remove or re-swipe the card. The local store has resorted to putting handwritten notes on the POS terminals advising which to do (insert or swipe) depending on whether you want credit or debit. That leads me to believe there is some recurring per-transaction cost using chip with debit.
We're talking about the list of *known* supercomputers. I'm sure various government agencies have supercomputers that are secret. In fact, it's highly probable that the most powerful in the world are not public knowledge.
Handley's simulation suggests that the project will be most appealing to high-frequency traders at big banks, who might be willing to fork out large sums for dedicated, faster connections.
Well that's just dumb. High frequency traders at big banks merely locate their data center / computing presence in close physical proximity to the point where the trades occur. Relying on a massive, expensive space network to come into existence just for high frequency trading is absurd.
This will most appeal to the millions of people that do not have broadband. The money to be made is in the masses, not in "high-frequency traders at big banks".
What they are saying is instead of going with the natural time (noon is midday, and midnight is... well, midnight), they want to keep the shifted time where we get up an hour earlier, so that we have more daylight later in the day after work.
It's interesting because two issues are being convoluted. One is having to change times twice a year, and the other is it getting dark earlier than people want. The former is a pain in the butt and disruptive, the latter is natural.
The "right" way to do it is do away with time changes and DST, and simply move schedules an hour earlier. School starts an hour earlier, work starts an hour earlier, etc. But apparently this is psychologically too difficult to embrace so instead we'll just pretend 8 PM is 9 PM, and call "6 AM" "7 AM", so we don't think we are waking up earlier and going to be earlier.
2. California The nation's most populous state also is one of the most disaster-prone due to wildfires, landslides, flooding, winter storms, severe freeze and even tsunami waves. But earthquakes are the disaster perhaps most closely associated with California. The worst in recent years have included a magnitude-6.9 quake near San Francisco in 1989 that killed 63 and a magnitude-6.7 quake in Southern California in 1994 that killed 61.
Thanks a lot. You totally screwed that video up for me. You're the type that tells all your friends the endings to books before they read them, don't you?
Modern AI isn't that much different than the AI I learned in school 25 years ago. There are two things that enable AI to be much more useful now, and often seem more powerful than it is: 1) Processing power 2) Dataset size
Both of those are multiple orders of magnitude greater today than 25 years ago, and that is what enables the kind of "flashy" AI that people get to interact with directly. Things like Siri, and photo albums on our phone that can automatically tag images with search terms (like "car", "tree", etc) as well as figure out that the same person is in multiple photos.
Siri, for example, works not because the software is more intelligent and can universally understand English in a speaker-independent manner (like how the human brain would work), but because Apple has the processing power and storage capability to process a voice against dozens (if not hundreds) of speech models in parallel, and then pick the best match. A person with a southern drawl can be understood by Siri because their speech was also matched against a model that was generated from people that speak with a southern drawl. This reminds me that in the 80s I bought a speech recognition IC from Radio Shack for under $10 ( http://21stdigitalhome.blogspo... ). It could only understand around 10 words or so, and had lots of false detections, but it did work. What is the primary difference between it and Siri? Processing power, and the size of the datasets.
So it is has primarily been the physical advancements in computing (processor speed, memory size, storage) that have enabled AI as we know it, and not advancements in the theoretical. To give credit where it is due, certainly some advancements in theory and AI have been made, but not the kinds of breakthroughs that would allow AI to function reasonably on 25 year old hardware, for example.
This creates far, far more problems then is solves. Wherever you go, you have to determine the geographic time frame of reference. Morning is.... 1100 hours and nightfall is 2300 hours. Without time zones, who determines the frame of reference for that specific location? I open a business, and so I check the longitude and decide that for where I am, I should open at 0421 hours. Do I round that down? Am I in some region where we can all coordinate and agree on a time frame of reference? Let's call it a "time zone" and everyone in that zone can use the same frame of reference, rounded to the nearest hour, so we can all be on the same page. Oh, whoops, we're right back where we started, but even more convoluted.
Finally, what does everyone using UTC have to do with daylight savings time anyway?
When your straw man argument is this illogical and off topic (and throws in some religion bashing for good measure)....
Oh, okay, so maybe Trump should repeal the Americans With Disabilities act while he's at it, since it's such a bother to have to make places accessible to someone in a wheelchair or otherwise physically disabled to the point where, say, getting up stairs is impossible for them. Obviously, their so-called 'disability' is part of God's Plan for them, so why should anyone subvert His will, right?
Who defines who has disabilities? That's what we're talking about here with gender - what is the *definition* of gender, from a scientific, objective, legal perspective. You better believe that "disability" is extremely well defined. There is an entire segment of the law (and lawyers) dedicated to proving a person has disability to the government. If you think that currently any person can merely claim they are disabled and get government assistance, or even just a handicap parking permit to hang in their window, then you're very much mistaken.
This seems like a very low correlation for the cause to be the appendix. More than likely the appendix is merely capturing and concentrating these proteins, perhaps well before the symptoms of Parkinsons have manifested. That hardly means the appendix is the source of the proteins.
Yeah there's a pattern of this. Yesterday it was "New Zealand Chooses Google Chromebooks Over Microsoft Windows 10 For Education", when the story, hidden behind an additional layer of unprofessional blogging, said no such thing. The problem is in the sources Slashdot promotes to represent the story. There are usually many versions of the same story submitted, so it's a shame inaccurate (and often sensationalist and blatantly biased) ones keep making it through.
Nothing in the statement from Google says this is an exclusive switch to only Chromebooks. This is just the government saying that they'll pay for special education licenses to manage Chromebooks for schools that want it. Probably because schools have been buying Chromebooks because they're the cheapest option, and now the school systems are having issues managing them. Obviously the government wouldn't be blowing money on these management tools if they weren't having issues with the Chromebooks that needed to be addressed. What I want to know is if the schools already bought Chromebooks, and Google has tools the manage them en masse, why is Google *charging* schools to use this tool? Google already has made money off the Chromebooks - they've already been purchased. This expenditure doesn't directly help the students. It's not buying more hardware, or more educational software. It's just to try and keep the Chromebooks running right. You'd think Google, with their billions, would provide these tools for free to any educational organization that wants it.
But this has to be spun as an anti-Microsoft move by New Zealand.
What Facebook has taught me is that most people are sheep. Based simply on what people share (absolutely ridiculous things that they believe is true, and don't care one iota about validating or verifying, that any normal person with common sense should know is almost certainly a scam). Do any of you have friends or family members who just kept infecting their computer over and over opening emails or links or believing some popup on a web page that said their computer was infected and they needed to download a tool to clean it? That is the "normal" general population in an online computing environment. They do not care about the technical aspects, only the most superficial functionality the software provides.
My conclusion is that the average person *requires* some gatekeeping and protection against their own lack of interest, lack of effort and lack of motivation to protect themselves. When it comes to platforms / hardware, like iPhone, or Android, or Windows, people gain an impression of that platform by how easily it lets them shoot themselves in the foot. Oh, they won't accept responsibility that they are the problem. Of course not. But if platform Y makes it harder to shoot themselves in the foot than platform X, then they will perceive platform Y as being better. Because it is, from a user experience point of view.
Stallman makes an assumption in his reasoning that everyone is him. And that is flawed. He is atypical, in regards to computing and software.
Finally, I will say that this statement is flat out wrong:
Apple. Ironically, Apple has retreated from that a little bit. If a program is written in Swift, you can now install it yourself from source code.
That has nothing to do with Swift. Since the beginning of 3rd party iOS app development (iOS version 2), you could always install and run any software you compiled on devices that you physically connected to the Mac. That could be in Objective-C or C++ or C, and of course now includes Swift as well. Additionally, XCode has always been free.
If you paid someone $1000 to repaint your house, and he took your money and used it to paint someone else's house
It's far worse than that. This is a matter of image. She was paid specifically for that purpose, because of her high profile status and the image it would portray. Not only did she not help Samsung's image, she directly harmed it, far more than the value of the amount she was paid. A better analogy is that you paid someone $1000 to repaint your house and they vandalized it instead.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes me wince to come across as defending Facebook, but regarding the "scammy ad" reader pcjunky is talking about.... Facebook is not Amazon. It is not reasonable to expect Facebook to vet the products being sold by some business that has bought advertising on their platform. If something seems too good to be true.... then it probably is. Lots of individuals sell products on Facebook too, and it's no better than Craiglist in that regard. You should at least bother to research the website selling a product before buying. You can't blame that one on Facebook.
True, I didn't hear skyjacking used to describe the 9/11 flights either. The normal connotations of "skyjacking" are actually relatively peaceful, in that the motive isn't to kill everyone on board or weaponize the plane. Usually skyjackers wanted one of two things - to be flown to some other country, and / or money. They typically aren't suicidal, and typically do not actually intend on killing everyone on the plane or people on the ground. Many skyjackings were made with the mere threat of a bomb, or with something inert that looked similar to a bomb. I believe towards the end of that era the skyjackings did start to become more violent and innocent people started dying as officials began to crack down and upped the ante.
Skyjacking is a specific term that came into use in the 1960s to describe the rash of airplane hijackings that occurred in the late 60s and 70s. I count 20 skyjackings that involved the United States in just the decade of 1970. It is a specific type of hijacking that involves airplanes, and which typically takes place while the plane is in the sky during flight. Thus the plane is redirected to some other destination because the risk of the threat being real must be taken seriously.
I presume you are in your 20s to have not encountered this word, which is defined in pretty much every English dictionary there is. If you prefer "A hijacking that occurs on an airplane while the plane is in flight" over "skyjacking" then feel free to use the longer phrase in your writings and conversation. However your lack of exposure to this word hardly makes it "tabloid-headline made-up".
To totally beat this point to death, here are some various dictionary entries.
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
https://dictionary.cambridge.o...
https://en.oxforddictionaries....
https://www.dictionary.com/bro...
https://www.thefreedictionary....
https://www.macmillandictionar...
I also note that the Chome spellchecker knows this word by default as well.
There were 209 million people in the US in 1972. Finding one of them who circumstantially could conceivably within the realm of possibility have known someone who circumstantially could conceivably have been D.B. Cooper is not a hard thing to do. There needs to be direct evidence connecting them for this to be newsworthy. Also, saying that the rare earth metals ending up on his tie because he was a rail yard manager is a huge stretch. In that case, assuming he left his office and went frolicking around inside of rail cars, he might have had one kind of rare earth metal. However the tie had multiple rare earths (cerium, strontium sulfide, pure titanium, etc) that indicate more of a production type facility (Boeing has been mentioned) where numerous rare earths are collected together in a single place.
That's a lot better than the interim workaround they sent out, which was to never eat sticky honey buns before unlocking your phone.
I did think the fix of sending out cell phone cases with a wet wipe dispenser built into the back was clever. But then what do you do with the dirty wipes? That was starting cause litter problems.
Another recommendation to lick off the touch sensor area of the screen regularly was highly effective, but it increased the chance of catching the flu by 37%.
I've always wondered how Obama managed to thrive in the Chicago political environment, rising through the ranks in Chicago from community organizer, to the State Senate (representing Chicago), then to the US Senate (and then of course on to President) and remain so squeaky clean.
There is a lot of irony in the history of Sears. Sears was the original Amazon. Sears aggressively made use of a new technology as it was rolled out throughout the country to reach a massive customer base and flourish - modern transportation. As roads, and especially rail, began to be built and improved across the country Sears capitalized on it to create a massive mail order business. Rural areas might only have a few small stores, but if they had a train depot, then they had access to the entire Sears catalog. You could buy any part for your tractor from Sears, or even an entire set of materials needed to build a house (literally).
Then Sears began to roll out brick and mortar stores - a natural progression for a large retail business with lots of money. Store fronts are like bragging rights - a tangible, physical way to show off the power and size of your business. Eventually mail order declined significantly, and their catalogs were primary an advertising tool to get people into stores.
Then came the internet, and Sears did not capitalize on it as they could have. That opened the door for Amazon to beat Sears at its original game. It's so ironic that one of the things forcing Sears out of business is being undercut by mail-order shopping.
Less than two months ago Amazon opened its first brick and mortar store in New York - Amazon 4-Star. Bragging rights.
What will be the demise of Amazon? Maybe 3D printing purchases regionally and then using drones to handle last-mile delivery? It will be some technology that Amazon fails to embrace, letting a new competitor get a leg up on them.
The answer is no, and here is why. Art must be created by an artist. An artist is a being which has consciously labeled something as "art". Every beautiful sunset perpetually occurring as the earth rotates is not producing an infinite number of art pieces. However, when a conscious being labels a sunset as art - through photography, painting, or even through some performance art or other means that allows other conscious beings to also consider it in that context - it is then "art".
A formula which plots fractal equations in colors to a grid producing an image is not an artist, thus what it produced is not art. However when a person then takes some instance of that output and declares it is art, then it is art. That formula can produce an infinite number of images, but it has not the consciousness to declare which of those images are art.
Thus, AI, which is set of formulas that can be executed on a Turing complete device, has no consciousness to declare its output as art, thus it cannot produce art. However if a conscious being takes some specific output generated by the AI and declares that it is art, then it is art. Just like an image produced by a fractal algorithm.
And much less seriously, this entire question is just to draw attention to the developers / software that is producing those images.
The headline makes it sound like Google had a brief outage and that caused some traffic to be routed through Russia and China. What actually happened is Some Google Traffic Routed Through Russia and China Causing Brief Outage.
But since we're all used to awful headlines here at Slashdot, and we know we can't expect much better from the original source cnet, that's perfectly fine.
The headline is misleading. It is not the transactions by chip that are being compromised. The fact that a card swiped the old fashioned way happened to have a chip is moot - it is the same attack vector on the legacy magnetic strip.
There must be significant expense involved for merchants to switch to the chip readers, as most of the POS now systems have chip readers, but some retailers don't support them. More than likely it is price gouging by the vendors that configure and manage the POS units.
Finally, in my area, Lowes Home Improvement has the totally bizarre setup where if I want to use my bank card as a debit card (requiring PIN) I must swipe, and if I want to use it as credit card (requiring signature) I must insert it. However, it asks you AFTER you have inserted or swiped, so if you choose the wrong option then you have to remove or re-swipe the card. The local store has resorted to putting handwritten notes on the POS terminals advising which to do (insert or swipe) depending on whether you want credit or debit. That leads me to believe there is some recurring per-transaction cost using chip with debit.
We're talking about the list of *known* supercomputers. I'm sure various government agencies have supercomputers that are secret. In fact, it's highly probable that the most powerful in the world are not public knowledge.
Handley's simulation suggests that the project will be most appealing to high-frequency traders at big banks, who might be willing to fork out large sums for dedicated, faster connections.
Well that's just dumb. High frequency traders at big banks merely locate their data center / computing presence in close physical proximity to the point where the trades occur. Relying on a massive, expensive space network to come into existence just for high frequency trading is absurd.
This will most appeal to the millions of people that do not have broadband. The money to be made is in the masses, not in "high-frequency traders at big banks".
What they are saying is instead of going with the natural time (noon is midday, and midnight is... well, midnight), they want to keep the shifted time where we get up an hour earlier, so that we have more daylight later in the day after work.
It's interesting because two issues are being convoluted. One is having to change times twice a year, and the other is it getting dark earlier than people want. The former is a pain in the butt and disruptive, the latter is natural.
The "right" way to do it is do away with time changes and DST, and simply move schedules an hour earlier. School starts an hour earlier, work starts an hour earlier, etc. But apparently this is psychologically too difficult to embrace so instead we'll just pretend 8 PM is 9 PM, and call "6 AM" "7 AM", so we don't think we are waking up earlier and going to be earlier.
They get little or no natural disasters
Wow, do you have that totally backwards. CA is second in the number of declared natural disasters per year, after Texas.
https://www.nbcnews.com/busine...
2. California
The nation's most populous state also is one of the most disaster-prone due to wildfires, landslides, flooding, winter storms, severe freeze and even tsunami waves. But earthquakes are the disaster perhaps most closely associated with California. The worst in recent years have included a magnitude-6.9 quake near San Francisco in 1989 that killed 63 and a magnitude-6.7 quake in Southern California in 1994 that killed 61.
Major disaster declarations since 1953: 78
Thanks a lot. You totally screwed that video up for me. You're the type that tells all your friends the endings to books before they read them, don't you?
Modern AI isn't that much different than the AI I learned in school 25 years ago. There are two things that enable AI to be much more useful now, and often seem more powerful than it is:
1) Processing power
2) Dataset size
Both of those are multiple orders of magnitude greater today than 25 years ago, and that is what enables the kind of "flashy" AI that people get to interact with directly. Things like Siri, and photo albums on our phone that can automatically tag images with search terms (like "car", "tree", etc) as well as figure out that the same person is in multiple photos.
Siri, for example, works not because the software is more intelligent and can universally understand English in a speaker-independent manner (like how the human brain would work), but because Apple has the processing power and storage capability to process a voice against dozens (if not hundreds) of speech models in parallel, and then pick the best match. A person with a southern drawl can be understood by Siri because their speech was also matched against a model that was generated from people that speak with a southern drawl. This reminds me that in the 80s I bought a speech recognition IC from Radio Shack for under $10 ( http://21stdigitalhome.blogspo... ). It could only understand around 10 words or so, and had lots of false detections, but it did work. What is the primary difference between it and Siri? Processing power, and the size of the datasets.
So it is has primarily been the physical advancements in computing (processor speed, memory size, storage) that have enabled AI as we know it, and not advancements in the theoretical. To give credit where it is due, certainly some advancements in theory and AI have been made, but not the kinds of breakthroughs that would allow AI to function reasonably on 25 year old hardware, for example.
This creates far, far more problems then is solves. Wherever you go, you have to determine the geographic time frame of reference. Morning is.... 1100 hours and nightfall is 2300 hours. Without time zones, who determines the frame of reference for that specific location? I open a business, and so I check the longitude and decide that for where I am, I should open at 0421 hours. Do I round that down? Am I in some region where we can all coordinate and agree on a time frame of reference? Let's call it a "time zone" and everyone in that zone can use the same frame of reference, rounded to the nearest hour, so we can all be on the same page. Oh, whoops, we're right back where we started, but even more convoluted.
Finally, what does everyone using UTC have to do with daylight savings time anyway?
When your straw man argument is this illogical and off topic (and throws in some religion bashing for good measure)....
Oh, okay, so maybe Trump should repeal the Americans With Disabilities act while he's at it, since it's such a bother to have to make places accessible to someone in a wheelchair or otherwise physically disabled to the point where, say, getting up stairs is impossible for them. Obviously, their so-called 'disability' is part of God's Plan for them, so why should anyone subvert His will, right?
Who defines who has disabilities? That's what we're talking about here with gender - what is the *definition* of gender, from a scientific, objective, legal perspective. You better believe that "disability" is extremely well defined. There is an entire segment of the law (and lawyers) dedicated to proving a person has disability to the government. If you think that currently any person can merely claim they are disabled and get government assistance, or even just a handicap parking permit to hang in their window, then you're very much mistaken.
So what you are saying is, there may be a Link Between Parkinson's Disease and the Appendix
Yeah, just like the bladder is the source of diabetes because uncontrolled diabetes manifests with glucose in the urine.
This seems like a very low correlation for the cause to be the appendix. More than likely the appendix is merely capturing and concentrating these proteins, perhaps well before the symptoms of Parkinsons have manifested. That hardly means the appendix is the source of the proteins.
Yeah there's a pattern of this. Yesterday it was "New Zealand Chooses Google Chromebooks Over Microsoft Windows 10 For Education", when the story, hidden behind an additional layer of unprofessional blogging, said no such thing. The problem is in the sources Slashdot promotes to represent the story. There are usually many versions of the same story submitted, so it's a shame inaccurate (and often sensationalist and blatantly biased) ones keep making it through.
What is this garbage?
Hell, even the Surface hardware feels uninspired these days
Why is some lame Microsoft-hating blog being linked to instead of the original source?
https://www.blog.google/outrea...
Nothing in the statement from Google says this is an exclusive switch to only Chromebooks. This is just the government saying that they'll pay for special education licenses to manage Chromebooks for schools that want it. Probably because schools have been buying Chromebooks because they're the cheapest option, and now the school systems are having issues managing them. Obviously the government wouldn't be blowing money on these management tools if they weren't having issues with the Chromebooks that needed to be addressed. What I want to know is if the schools already bought Chromebooks, and Google has tools the manage them en masse, why is Google *charging* schools to use this tool? Google already has made money off the Chromebooks - they've already been purchased. This expenditure doesn't directly help the students. It's not buying more hardware, or more educational software. It's just to try and keep the Chromebooks running right. You'd think Google, with their billions, would provide these tools for free to any educational organization that wants it.
But this has to be spun as an anti-Microsoft move by New Zealand.
What Facebook has taught me is that most people are sheep. Based simply on what people share (absolutely ridiculous things that they believe is true, and don't care one iota about validating or verifying, that any normal person with common sense should know is almost certainly a scam). Do any of you have friends or family members who just kept infecting their computer over and over opening emails or links or believing some popup on a web page that said their computer was infected and they needed to download a tool to clean it? That is the "normal" general population in an online computing environment. They do not care about the technical aspects, only the most superficial functionality the software provides.
My conclusion is that the average person *requires* some gatekeeping and protection against their own lack of interest, lack of effort and lack of motivation to protect themselves. When it comes to platforms / hardware, like iPhone, or Android, or Windows, people gain an impression of that platform by how easily it lets them shoot themselves in the foot. Oh, they won't accept responsibility that they are the problem. Of course not. But if platform Y makes it harder to shoot themselves in the foot than platform X, then they will perceive platform Y as being better. Because it is, from a user experience point of view.
Stallman makes an assumption in his reasoning that everyone is him. And that is flawed. He is atypical, in regards to computing and software.
Finally, I will say that this statement is flat out wrong:
Apple. Ironically, Apple has retreated from that a little bit. If a program is written in Swift, you can now install it yourself from source code.
That has nothing to do with Swift. Since the beginning of 3rd party iOS app development (iOS version 2), you could always install and run any software you compiled on devices that you physically connected to the Mac. That could be in Objective-C or C++ or C, and of course now includes Swift as well. Additionally, XCode has always been free.
If you paid someone $1000 to repaint your house, and he took your money and used it to paint someone else's house
It's far worse than that. This is a matter of image. She was paid specifically for that purpose, because of her high profile status and the image it would portray. Not only did she not help Samsung's image, she directly harmed it, far more than the value of the amount she was paid. A better analogy is that you paid someone $1000 to repaint your house and they vandalized it instead.
Just curious for those who have been using DuckDuckGo - how's the quality of the search results?