You seem to think you've scored points for your witty repartee.
In respond to you saying "yarg, teh tattoos are tech stupid because I said so", I said:
People have been tattooing for thousands of years, it's not going to stop because you don't like them.
Which is a statement of fact, not a logical fallacy. Because the world isn't going to stop getting tattooed because you complain.
Then you doubled down on the "yarg, teh tattoos are for the sux0rs". And then you idiotically accuse me of a logical fallacy.
But, hey, maybe you simply don't understand what a logical fallacy is. Or maybe you're just so convinced of your own awesome you're unaware of your own stupid.
Other than proponents saying "because it's distributed, digital, and magic" I fail to see how failing to tell your government about one source of money is going to be any different that failing to disclose another.
Other than the pixie dust and unicorn poop, what exactly keeps the government from charging you with nor reporting the money?
Bitcoin doesn't exist outside of the real world just because people who use it claim that to be the case. But it definitely carries its own reality distortion field with it.
You obviously don't get out much... the kids go straight to full sleeves these days because they're cool and highly visible.
The tramp stamp of years ago has been replaced with brightly colored new school sleeves. I wouldn't be cool and edgy if people didn't know you had it.
Honestly, if Apple didn't have some inked up folks around I'd be surprised. But chances are nobody ever thought of it as a test case.
Many people have lots of ink which can be hidden when needed... but a lot of kids start with the highly visible ones which only the hardcore used to have.
Gone are the days of the body-suit which nobody could see if you wore long sleeves.
Aye, ya wee celestail body... there, we'v said it... 'yer wee, ye'll always be wee... too wee 'ta be called a planet, so you'll e'er be doomed to be called an almost planet, or an ex planet as it were.
Sorry, but we ha' no time to listen to the lamentations of an ex planet, sorry Pluto, but 'yer too wee to listen to.
Take tha' you wee ex planet... why we have people wha' have bigger heads than 'ye!!
I always worry when the "century old colossus" is trying to act like a startup. Because it usually ends badly, because management and the bean counters have their own inertia, and are sure as heck not going to give up their control over stuff, or stop going by the 5,000 page manual of procedures.
I've known people who used to work at IBM... and most of them still owned the starched white shirts.
They have anything resembling "agile" surgically removed when they're hired.
Other than that, I find myself asking the same question, because I can't think of many applications in which you need to lob something from point a to point b.
I mean, "sub-orbital" is basically punkin' chunkin', isn't it?
Honestly, the Apple-ness of this is completely irrelevant, and you know damned well it is.
A device, approved by the FAA for these purposes, received an update from the vendor (probably), which caused said device to crash. Since the function of that device is required by FAA regulations, you can't fly without it.
The bundle of manuals weighed around 40 pounds, and eliminating them was expected to save them millions in fuel costs.
This exact same problem could have happened on Windows or Linux.
Your bitching about Apple users is stupid and irrelevant.
This is a problem with a piece of mission critical software failing in a large way. Which means it has more to do with lazy/greedy corporations than what fucking OS was being used.
But, hey, don't let any of that stop you from your bullshit.
blaming the opening system for the failure of a 3rd party application
Where the fuck did I blame the OS? I cited a well known example of an epic software failure (in which a badly written DB crashed NT).
In this case, a badly written app (or piece of data) crashed a bunch of iPads.
I blame badly tested commercial software in both cases, and hold both as examples of people doing a shitty job of writing software in "must not fail" contexts.
Having worked in regulated industries, and knowing damned well how risk averse they are, for this to end up happening to pilots already in an aircraft... it's mind boggling. Because it means someone did a terrible job of testing and verifying.
Funny how details never seem to matter to trolls.
Yes, funny, isn't it?
Because your comprehension of what I said suggests you might be stupid.
And you're going to continue to pretend that insurance companies haven't cancelled the policies of Uber drivers?
It is true that the insurance situation and legality of operations is most decidedly NOT what comes out of the reality distortion field Uber tells people.
I don't have an irrational hate for Uber... I have a well reasoned dislike for a company who says "la la la, we're not listening, your laws don't apply because we're awesome".
I heard one of the founders/mouthpieces defending their position once... he sounded like a self entitled ass who deemed himself special and covered under a different set of rules.
Uber can't simultaneously say "we're not a transport company, we're a tech company" and also pretend to be a transport company.
Having an app doesn't exempt you from laws. Only in their delusional, self important heads.
They're a greedy tech company, they're not some fucking saviors of the world.
Currently, commercial coverage that Uber buys for its UberX freelance drivers, who use their own cars and must maintain their own personal auto insurance, kicks in at the point when a ride request is accepted through the company's smart phone app.
Pending legislation advanced last week by the Assembly and supported by the insurance industry in New Jersey would require that Uber's commercial coverage take effect as soon as the drivers log into the mobile app and make themselves available to passengers seeking rides.
If an accident occurs during the gap between when the driver logs on to the app and when he or she accepts a request for a ride, the driver's personal auto insurance company sometimes denies those claims, Mohrer acknowledged. But he said the company has additional insurance to cover those situations, "All rides on the Uber platform have insurance when commercial activity is actually happening," Mohrer said.
The legal situation with Uber being a commercial vehicle, and their insurance situation is not ever as clear as Uber claims it to be.
The problem with Uber is the delusional owners who like to assert that they are not covered under laws which are designed to cover exactly what they do.
So, sorry, as long as Uber says "we're not a cab company, we're a tech company" they don't also get to pretend they're a legally licensed transportation company.
Uber is just a company who has an app, and takes a cut of people running mostly as bootleg cabs.
FedEx/UPS are bonded, insured, and reliable, and have global logistics chains.
Uber is some guy with his mom's car, no commercial license, possibly improper insurance, and quite likely operating as an illegal commercial vehicle in many places.
I just don't see that happening.
Uber's magical thinking that laws don't apply to them tell me they're not what I'd call trustworthy.
The iPad has been used in General Aviation in conjunction with its paper backup counterpart, which is mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). There are many applications available which include everything that would be on the paper charts plus aviation tools including navigation charts, taxi procedures, weather maps, GPS, Minimum Equipment List, Company Policy Manual, Federal Aviation Regulations and flight controls. Although these tools have been used in the private sector, the use of the iPad in commercial aviation is just taking flight.
The Federal Aviation Administration finished a three-month testing project which included putting the device thru adverse conditions such as rapid decompression testing and tests to make sure the tablet did not interfere with the avionic equipment. Early in 2011 the FAA authorized charter company Executive Jet Management to use iPad records without the backup paper charts.[1] This helps make way for the iPad to become an aviation instrument for the rest of the industry. Alaskan Airlines,[2] Delta Air Lines,[2] and American Airlines[3] planned test programs.
Why must everybody on Slashdot keep acting like they could whip up a half-assed solution in a week, or that regulated industries just make shit up as they go?
The reality is, this has not a fucking thing to do with paying off Apple or a hastily thrown together solution.
This sounds entirely like an update from the vendor was poorly tested. In which case, they have some lessons to learn about working in that industry -- which is about as risk averse as you can get. Precisely because the FAA holds them to a very high standard.
But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your claims you could do a better job in your pajamas.
Because they were expecting to save millions in fuel from not schlepping them around.
So bringing the physical copy would have been almost 40 pounds of crap, which would defeat the purpose of having the iPad.
Not saying I agree with not having a backup. But I can see why airlines wanted to get rid of it.
A little known fact about aircraft manuals... pretty much no two are identical since the production of planes changes over the years, and they all have slightly different pieces and parts. So this 737 is unlikely to be identical to that 737.
You cant' have one manual, you need one for each damned aircraft. Which is part of the appeal for having it in electronic form.
What part of "no fucking kidding" don't you understand?
I didn't say it was the exact same thing, I said it reminded me of a time when another epic technology fail caused a similarly huge cluster fuck.
I don't give a crap what the crash was... I care that a piece of technology barfed all over the place and left people sitting around going "what the hell do we do now?"
When an airline has to halt operations because of something like their iPad crashing, that's a sure sign that someone hasn't really been doing a sufficient job of testing.
I used to work on a project which dealt with people who do aircraft maintenance.. this is not an industry who collectively takes risks. But apparently their software vendor doesn't see it that way.
But all in all, because women own their bodies exclusively.
And this is now technically NOT her body.
She and her ex have a tissue sample in storage.
It is most certainly no more part of her body than it is his. Why the hell should she have the right to force him to become a father with her after their relationship ended?
Sorry, she essentially peed in a cup. This bit about her exclusively owning her body would be true if this was still her body.
But this isn't her body any more. Which means you can't say that her egg is any more part of her body than his sperm... and now it's in medical storage and not part of either of their bodies.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, but it's two vendors ... IBM and Apple, right there in the headline ... so it's twice as good!
You seem to think you've scored points for your witty repartee.
In respond to you saying "yarg, teh tattoos are tech stupid because I said so", I said:
Which is a statement of fact, not a logical fallacy. Because the world isn't going to stop getting tattooed because you complain.
Then you doubled down on the "yarg, teh tattoos are for the sux0rs". And then you idiotically accuse me of a logical fallacy.
But, hey, maybe you simply don't understand what a logical fallacy is. Or maybe you're just so convinced of your own awesome you're unaware of your own stupid.
Other than proponents saying "because it's distributed, digital, and magic" I fail to see how failing to tell your government about one source of money is going to be any different that failing to disclose another.
Other than the pixie dust and unicorn poop, what exactly keeps the government from charging you with nor reporting the money?
Bitcoin doesn't exist outside of the real world just because people who use it claim that to be the case. But it definitely carries its own reality distortion field with it.
I plan on wearing mine like a cock ring, just set it to vibrate and keep texting myself.
Think that'll void the warranty?
Wow, you have seriously just sunk as low as "I know you are but what am I".
Congratulations on reaching the bottom of erudite discussion while simultaneously being a condescending ass.
I bet your mom is proud!
Honestly though, if HP released web cameras which couldn't see black folks, I find this strangely unsurprising.
Apparently people who build these things assume everyone is the same shade of pasty white.
You keep telling yourself that, sport. You just keep telling yourself that.
Not all tattoos are back and blue, and your opinion on the aesthetic of tattoos is just that ... your opinion.
People have been tattooing for thousands of years, it's not going to stop because you don't like them.
You obviously don't get out much ... the kids go straight to full sleeves these days because they're cool and highly visible.
The tramp stamp of years ago has been replaced with brightly colored new school sleeves. I wouldn't be cool and edgy if people didn't know you had it.
Honestly, if Apple didn't have some inked up folks around I'd be surprised. But chances are nobody ever thought of it as a test case.
Many people have lots of ink which can be hidden when needed ... but a lot of kids start with the highly visible ones which only the hardcore used to have.
Gone are the days of the body-suit which nobody could see if you wore long sleeves.
Then one might suggest you either live under a rock, or have no contact with tattoos.
Nowadays the kiddies with the stretched ears get their sleeves as their first tattoos, instead of getting a bunch of smaller ones first.
The sleeve tattoo is very much now a hipster thing. In some ways, so is the neck tattoo.
Hell, your average barrista seems to be required to have stretched lobes, dreads, and full sleeves ... even if they don't have any other tattoos.
Aye, ya wee celestail body ... there, we'v said it ... 'yer wee, ye'll always be wee ... too wee 'ta be called a planet, so you'll e'er be doomed to be called an almost planet, or an ex planet as it were.
Sorry, but we ha' no time to listen to the lamentations of an ex planet, sorry Pluto, but 'yer too wee to listen to.
Take tha' you wee ex planet ... why we have people wha' have bigger heads than 'ye!!
The rich must be awfully good at promoting their own agenda and making it look like it's in the interests of those people.
A little sophistry goes a long way.
IBM ... agile??? That sounds like an oxymoron.
I always worry when the "century old colossus" is trying to act like a startup. Because it usually ends badly, because management and the bean counters have their own inertia, and are sure as heck not going to give up their control over stuff, or stop going by the 5,000 page manual of procedures.
I've known people who used to work at IBM ... and most of them still owned the starched white shirts.
They have anything resembling "agile" surgically removed when they're hired.
Ballistic poop-o-grams. :-P
Other than that, I find myself asking the same question, because I can't think of many applications in which you need to lob something from point a to point b.
I mean, "sub-orbital" is basically punkin' chunkin', isn't it?
Honestly, the Apple-ness of this is completely irrelevant, and you know damned well it is.
A device, approved by the FAA for these purposes, received an update from the vendor (probably), which caused said device to crash. Since the function of that device is required by FAA regulations, you can't fly without it.
The bundle of manuals weighed around 40 pounds, and eliminating them was expected to save them millions in fuel costs.
This exact same problem could have happened on Windows or Linux.
Your bitching about Apple users is stupid and irrelevant.
This is a problem with a piece of mission critical software failing in a large way. Which means it has more to do with lazy/greedy corporations than what fucking OS was being used.
But, hey, don't let any of that stop you from your bullshit.
Where the fuck did I blame the OS? I cited a well known example of an epic software failure (in which a badly written DB crashed NT).
In this case, a badly written app (or piece of data) crashed a bunch of iPads.
I blame badly tested commercial software in both cases, and hold both as examples of people doing a shitty job of writing software in "must not fail" contexts.
Having worked in regulated industries, and knowing damned well how risk averse they are, for this to end up happening to pilots already in an aircraft ... it's mind boggling. Because it means someone did a terrible job of testing and verifying.
Yes, funny, isn't it?
Because your comprehension of what I said suggests you might be stupid.
Go wave your little penis elsewhere.
And you're going to continue to pretend that insurance companies haven't cancelled the policies of Uber drivers?
It is true that the insurance situation and legality of operations is most decidedly NOT what comes out of the reality distortion field Uber tells people.
I don't have an irrational hate for Uber ... I have a well reasoned dislike for a company who says "la la la, we're not listening, your laws don't apply because we're awesome".
I heard one of the founders/mouthpieces defending their position once ... he sounded like a self entitled ass who deemed himself special and covered under a different set of rules.
Uber can't simultaneously say "we're not a transport company, we're a tech company" and also pretend to be a transport company.
Having an app doesn't exempt you from laws. Only in their delusional, self important heads.
They're a greedy tech company, they're not some fucking saviors of the world.
It's not libel if it's true:
The legal situation with Uber being a commercial vehicle, and their insurance situation is not ever as clear as Uber claims it to be.
The problem with Uber is the delusional owners who like to assert that they are not covered under laws which are designed to cover exactly what they do.
So, sorry, as long as Uber says "we're not a cab company, we're a tech company" they don't also get to pretend they're a legally licensed transportation company.
Uber is just a company who has an app, and takes a cut of people running mostly as bootleg cabs.
Yeah, right.
FedEx/UPS are bonded, insured, and reliable, and have global logistics chains.
Uber is some guy with his mom's car, no commercial license, possibly improper insurance, and quite likely operating as an illegal commercial vehicle in many places.
I just don't see that happening.
Uber's magical thinking that laws don't apply to them tell me they're not what I'd call trustworthy.
Do we really need people bitching about every damned story?
Nobody ever promised you a pony or that you'd never see a story you weren't personally interested in.
You're free to not read it. You're also free to stop kvetching about it.
Yeah, how they failed to have two distinct sets which are never updated at the same time eludes me.
That just pretty much guaranteed it would eventually go wrong on them.
Horseshit. You are completely talking out of your ass.
Because they sure as shit didn't do this without approval from the FAA:
Why must everybody on Slashdot keep acting like they could whip up a half-assed solution in a week, or that regulated industries just make shit up as they go?
The reality is, this has not a fucking thing to do with paying off Apple or a hastily thrown together solution.
This sounds entirely like an update from the vendor was poorly tested. In which case, they have some lessons to learn about working in that industry -- which is about as risk averse as you can get. Precisely because the FAA holds them to a very high standard.
But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your claims you could do a better job in your pajamas.
Because they were expecting to save millions in fuel from not schlepping them around.
So bringing the physical copy would have been almost 40 pounds of crap, which would defeat the purpose of having the iPad.
Not saying I agree with not having a backup. But I can see why airlines wanted to get rid of it.
A little known fact about aircraft manuals ... pretty much no two are identical since the production of planes changes over the years, and they all have slightly different pieces and parts. So this 737 is unlikely to be identical to that 737.
You cant' have one manual, you need one for each damned aircraft. Which is part of the appeal for having it in electronic form.
What part of "no fucking kidding" don't you understand?
I didn't say it was the exact same thing, I said it reminded me of a time when another epic technology fail caused a similarly huge cluster fuck.
I don't give a crap what the crash was ... I care that a piece of technology barfed all over the place and left people sitting around going "what the hell do we do now?"
When an airline has to halt operations because of something like their iPad crashing, that's a sure sign that someone hasn't really been doing a sufficient job of testing.
I used to work on a project which dealt with people who do aircraft maintenance .. this is not an industry who collectively takes risks. But apparently their software vendor doesn't see it that way.
And this is now technically NOT her body.
She and her ex have a tissue sample in storage.
It is most certainly no more part of her body than it is his. Why the hell should she have the right to force him to become a father with her after their relationship ended?
Sorry, she essentially peed in a cup. This bit about her exclusively owning her body would be true if this was still her body.
But this isn't her body any more. Which means you can't say that her egg is any more part of her body than his sperm ... and now it's in medical storage and not part of either of their bodies.