More like "hydrocarbons and organic compounds are fairly common in the universe".
You can't make up a 288 billion mile alcohol cloud and not have people laugh at you. Find it for real, and everyone stands around going "wow, really?".
The universe has all sorts of wacky stuff in it. This probably isn't even much of a stretch.
So the TPP is all about movies, drugs, and sex that one partner enjoys way more than the other?
Sure, if you mean using date rape drugs and filming it... because that's pretty much what this stupid deal is doing to us.
It's a grab bag of stuff from the wishlist of multinational corporations, pushed through by people who are more beholden to corporate profits than their own citizens, and largely written by the industries it benefits.
Mark my words, this really is just more "race to the bottom" crap, and won't benefit citizens.
Are you so sure of that? Are you actually taking steps to stop it? Are you verifying it?
Right now on Slashdot as I type this, there are 12 external domains being referenced, 8 of which want to run scripts. All of them are ad or analytics companies.
A massive amount of sites have references to the big ad sites (usually multiple), as well as references and/or cookies to social media sites... which means a lot of ad companies trivially track you across sites, know where you visit, how often, and the pages you're reading.
Unless you are actively blocking this crap, and unless you're looking at the sites which are being blocked and adding which you've missed... and clearing any cookies and shit they've added as you go... you should really assume that these sites are seeing your data even if you don't subscribe to them or realize you're interacting with them.
You have to be fairly aggressively blocking this shit to believe those companies aren't seeing some of your data.
And, quite frankly, if you are aggressively blocking this shit, your friends and family are probably tired of you ranting about how fucked up the internet is. I know mine are.
The problem is so many people don't know this, and even if you try to tell them they don't care.
Flammable" and "non-flammable" are HORSESHIT with backwards and incorrect derivations that have only added confusion.
Oh, bullshit. When I was a kid things were flammable, and inflammable. That's what was taught in school. Then some whiny people said in deference to other languages it was less confusing if we changed to match them. Mostly it's caused confusion since.
Backwards and incorrect derivations are the fucking mean and potatoes of English. It's all backwards and incorrect.
We discuss Flammability as a property, not inflammability. Something is said to be aflame, and not inflamed. Moe from the Simpsons made a flaming Moe, not an inflaming Moe.
(In)destructible, (in)secure, (in)visible, (in)controvetible, (in)sane, (in)correct, (in)capable. These are examples of why inflammable was a perfectly valid derivation which meant "doesn't burn", and was in fact in widespread use for a VERY long time.
Don't give me crap about wrong derivations and that this word comes from this or that and is therefore conjugated thusly
The entire rest of the grammar in English around fire, do NOT lead you to "inflammable" to mean "does burn".
Do you know why? Because English is a horribly screwed up language, full of bizarre exceptions and corner cases, piled on top of stupid rules which only mostly work, and in some cases require some really arcane knowledge about the word.
Flammable has been in use for a very long time. Inflammable for even longer, apparently.
But let's not pretend that the word hasn't seen active use in society for a LONG time. It's not a few random people who are confused, it's everybody over a certain age in an English speaking country.
You can't talk about "flammable" things and then tell me I should be saying "inflammable" means it burns; that doesn't match the rest of the English language on this.
Funny you should mention that... just last week I had planned to bring a suitcase and a laptop bag with nothing checked.
Turns out, the plane was full, there was barely any overhead space (and this is a 737), and I had to check it anyway. And my connecting flight was one of those pedal powered commuter planes with even less overhead storage.
The lesson I learned is you can't reliably assume carrying it on works, it's not worth the damned trouble to not check the bag, and the damned company is paying the checked bag fees.
Business travel sucks. Trying to do it without checked bags can make it much worse, and can screw up how you pack.
Me, I'll never try to travel again with purely carry on. Because it's a pain in the ass unless you like to buy new toiletries when you arrive and spend two days in the same clothes.
"Ma'am, if you'll just stick it in your pocket it will pass the metal detector just fine when you walk through. That's what I do."
There are holes throughout airline security. They could be exploited. Nobody, however, seems to want to.
Hmmm... so the endlessly bad security just helps people understand what they'd need to do to defeat security, while just pretending to not have endlessly bad security?
Basically those of us who follow the rules just provide training for people to bypass security?
My wife tried to explain how that all worked to me once; it didn't work.
So, I still make my bets on the ponies based on a combination of the name of the horse and who the house has given the shortest odds of winning. Usually I just bet the two horses who are handicapped to win but don't pay very well.
I can't win any real money, but the house often ends up paying for my betting, which is good enough for me.
The guys who read all the stats and the like? I question if they do any better than chance.
Now, I've never tried to bring a weapon on a plane... but I've had one screener flag my suitcase in the security line, only to have another screener ask me "what did he see in your suitcase to flag you?", followed by me saying "if I knew that I wouldn't have put it in that suitcase".
Then I asked if he'd show me the xray and I'd try to tell him what it was, he said I wasn't allowed. OK sir, shall I just stare at you as you demonstrate you have no idea of your own job? Or can I go now?
And, on several occasions I've realized my laptop bag still had toothpaste, a Tide stick, and mouthwash in it -- and nobody noticed.
TSA are inept, expensive, and annoying. And I very much doubt they can provably demonstrate they've ever actually stopped anything from happening.
People who want a dedicated gaming console want dedicated performance.
Sorry, but are you just making shit up?
People want a dedicated gaming console for many reasons.. not the least of which is it's what we're used to, and because we don't wish to build a dedicated gaming PC. Or because it's "good enough", or simple to use
Casual gaming is the realm of the smart phone
Yup, you're just making shit up.
I've been a decidedly casual gamer since the 90s. I don't play online, I don't play the shiniest FPS games (because I lack the skill and interest), I sure as hell don't play hundreds of hours on a new title.
I find a couple of games I like, and at random intervals I'll fire up the console, play for a while, and turn it off... it could be days, weeks, or months before I play again.
This was true on my N64, my Playstation 2, my Wii, my XBox 360, and on my tablet.
Casual gaming is not defined how you want to decree it is. Because what you're claiming casual gaming as is simply wrong, because people have been casual gamers for decades without smartphones.
Casual gaming is about people who infrequently play games, don't necessarily want invest hundreds of hours in a game, and don't chase the latest and greatest. It's about intermittent burst of fun, and has nothing to do with the device it's played on.
Sure the screen is bigger, but the graphics aren't much better and you're monopolizing the TV.
It's my damned TV, my HDTV and phone have pretty much the same resolution, and sitting in my comfy chair is far more comfortable than holding a portable device.
And shoplifting is obviously the fault of merchants that have their candy bars on display.
No, that's a terrible analogy, and it misses the entire point.
If the EPA requires that, by law, carmakers are ONLY allowed to report mpg figures based on an EPA provided formula which is known to be wrong... then when carmakers tell you a mileage figure which is wrong, they are not lying, they are telling you the only number they are legally allowed to tell you.
So, in your terrible analogy, if I go into a store, and the store security tells me I am REQUIRED to take a candy bar and not pay for it... it's not fucking shoplifting. It's complying with the policy.
The carmakers are not lying about MPG figures, they are honestly reporting it based on an incorrect estimation which everybody knows is faulty. Well, everyone except the consumer that is.
So, by law, they are reporting what has been declared as the truth by the EPA. But it is the ONLY version of "the truth" the EPA will allow you to cite.
The problem isn't the car companies, it's that the EPA forces them to provide information based on a formula which everybody involved knows is inaccurate. If any car company tried to report actual numbers which differed from those estimates, they would be fined.
EPA has legally defined what the truth is, and made it illegal to tell someone the actual truth, instead of their faulty version of it. The lie has been defined by law as the truth, which means the companies aren't lying, they're "telling the truth" as defined by the EPA.
Your candy bar analogy doesn't come anywhere NEAR close to the reality here.
When the chain of command is ignoring the law, there is no fucking point in reporting to the chain of command... they're the problem, which pretty much means they can't be part of the solution.
The problem with this is that they all knew damned well they were operating well beyond what they were allowed to, and weren't going to do anything about it -- other than keeping doing it.
The the agencies are deciding what is legal and what isn't with no consequence, it's time to stop trusting the agencies with deciding what is legal and what isn't.
"Legitimate whistleblower protection" has to include the fact that the people in charge ARE the damned problem. Because in this case, they were. And trusting them to fix the problem would mean they'd bury it, and nothing would change.
Sorry, when the system is that broken, you can't rely on the system to fix the problem.
The difference here is the way car manufacturers in North America lie about mileage is the fault of the EPA.
See, they don't drive the car, and measure the mileage you get. As I understand it, they hook it up to a test rig, do some tests, and then calculate the mileage.
Car companies can only use the output of that formula, using anything else would be illegal -- and, unfortunately, people have known that the method calculating mileage is pretty flawed. Which is why all those people who had hybrids found out they weren't getting anywhere near the mileage they were promised.
So, no the car makers don't lie about mileage, they can only report it one way. Any other way would be illegal, even if the test is known to be wrong.
By the same token, I can also see some degree of hostility and mischief... I mean, I'm sorry, but what do you figure the odds are someone won't give it a good kick or otherwise find ways to abuse it?
And I'll tell you what, I aint getting out of the way of no damned robot; so if it isn't bigger than me, it better be faster than me.
Mark my words, people will treat this like shit on their shoes. They sure as heck won't be polite to it.
How the hell is the market that large? Who the hell is paying for these games or is it ads and user information that are the real value?
Dude, seriously?
In... app... purchases; click here now to buy 16 more dongle-doodles to play faster.
Sure, ads; but if you want to make real money, in-app purchases is a literal license to print money. So you have a game reward system tied to real money.
It's basically a mobile slot machine. It's a monkey clicking the bar for a hit of crack.
And if all of your Facebook friends are doing it, then dagnubbit you need to do it too.
Think of the ST:TNG episode where everyone gets sucked into the video game and Wesley has to save the day. Only with money, and no sexy half Betazoid women.
In app purchases allows for an almost endless revenue stream with a successful title.
You've been retired so long you've become naive all over again.;-)
You can't one sided make changes to agreed to terms and services.
Well, don't forget, in the US the EULA is magical.
It basically says "we can change damned near anything, you can't, we can do anything with your data, if you don't like it piss off and stop using the service -- and if you really don't like it and won't piss off, you agree to an arbitration procedure of our own choosing which you definitely won't like".
Except for things which couldn't possibly be enforceable in a contract, corporations can do almost anything they choose.
Surprise!!
I'd be surprised if Europeans aren't subject to damned near the same EULA, because it comes down to "it's our service not yours, and if you don't like the terms that's tough".
LOL... me I'm giving the GP the benefit of the doubt of making a really good reference.
The first occurrence of this debate was recorded on January 29, 1992, when Tanenbaum first posted his criticism on the Linux kernel to comp.os.minix, noting how the monolithic design was detrimental to its abilities, in a post titled LINUX is obsolete.
Because Tanenbaum once said the same thing about Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, I'd say "not at all".
Exactly. Keeping it in their player, to stream it to you, until they decide to change the terms isn't "buying", and it isn't "permanent".
That happens when they give you a DRM free copy you can store offline, transfer between devices, and make your own backups.
This is renting until they change their mind and stop making it available.
More like "hydrocarbons and organic compounds are fairly common in the universe".
You can't make up a 288 billion mile alcohol cloud and not have people laugh at you. Find it for real, and everyone stands around going "wow, really?".
The universe has all sorts of wacky stuff in it. This probably isn't even much of a stretch.
Sure, if you mean using date rape drugs and filming it ... because that's pretty much what this stupid deal is doing to us.
It's a grab bag of stuff from the wishlist of multinational corporations, pushed through by people who are more beholden to corporate profits than their own citizens, and largely written by the industries it benefits.
Mark my words, this really is just more "race to the bottom" crap, and won't benefit citizens.
Yes, but African satellites are non-migratory.
Are you so sure of that? Are you actually taking steps to stop it? Are you verifying it?
Right now on Slashdot as I type this, there are 12 external domains being referenced, 8 of which want to run scripts. All of them are ad or analytics companies.
A massive amount of sites have references to the big ad sites (usually multiple), as well as references and/or cookies to social media sites ... which means a lot of ad companies trivially track you across sites, know where you visit, how often, and the pages you're reading.
Unless you are actively blocking this crap, and unless you're looking at the sites which are being blocked and adding which you've missed ... and clearing any cookies and shit they've added as you go ... you should really assume that these sites are seeing your data even if you don't subscribe to them or realize you're interacting with them.
You have to be fairly aggressively blocking this shit to believe those companies aren't seeing some of your data.
And, quite frankly, if you are aggressively blocking this shit, your friends and family are probably tired of you ranting about how fucked up the internet is. I know mine are.
The problem is so many people don't know this, and even if you try to tell them they don't care.
Oh, bullshit. When I was a kid things were flammable, and inflammable. That's what was taught in school. Then some whiny people said in deference to other languages it was less confusing if we changed to match them. Mostly it's caused confusion since.
Backwards and incorrect derivations are the fucking mean and potatoes of English. It's all backwards and incorrect.
We discuss Flammability as a property, not inflammability. Something is said to be aflame, and not inflamed. Moe from the Simpsons made a flaming Moe, not an inflaming Moe.
(In)destructible, (in)secure, (in)visible, (in)controvetible, (in)sane, (in)correct, (in)capable. These are examples of why inflammable was a perfectly valid derivation which meant "doesn't burn", and was in fact in widespread use for a VERY long time.
Don't give me crap about wrong derivations and that this word comes from this or that and is therefore conjugated thusly
The entire rest of the grammar in English around fire, do NOT lead you to "inflammable" to mean "does burn".
Do you know why? Because English is a horribly screwed up language, full of bizarre exceptions and corner cases, piled on top of stupid rules which only mostly work, and in some cases require some really arcane knowledge about the word.
Flammable has been in use for a very long time. Inflammable for even longer, apparently.
But let's not pretend that the word hasn't seen active use in society for a LONG time. It's not a few random people who are confused, it's everybody over a certain age in an English speaking country.
You can't talk about "flammable" things and then tell me I should be saying "inflammable" means it burns; that doesn't match the rest of the English language on this.
We prefer to think of it as scientifically curious, literally precise, and prone to debunking hyperbole.
Apparently everyone else says that means we have some traits in common with autism.
My wife just sticks with calling me a dork.
Bah, pretty much any time a company says something isn't "un-anythingable" it's lying.
Unsinkable. Unbreakable. Unbendable. Un-non-inflammable (because those of us old enough don't know what it means).
I usually assume these claims are marketing crap, and therefore fairly meaningless.
Funny you should mention that ... just last week I had planned to bring a suitcase and a laptop bag with nothing checked.
Turns out, the plane was full, there was barely any overhead space (and this is a 737), and I had to check it anyway. And my connecting flight was one of those pedal powered commuter planes with even less overhead storage.
The lesson I learned is you can't reliably assume carrying it on works, it's not worth the damned trouble to not check the bag, and the damned company is paying the checked bag fees.
Business travel sucks. Trying to do it without checked bags can make it much worse, and can screw up how you pack.
Me, I'll never try to travel again with purely carry on. Because it's a pain in the ass unless you like to buy new toiletries when you arrive and spend two days in the same clothes.
To me it created more problems than it solved.
Hmmm ... so the endlessly bad security just helps people understand what they'd need to do to defeat security, while just pretending to not have endlessly bad security?
Basically those of us who follow the rules just provide training for people to bypass security?
That's absurd.
My wife tried to explain how that all worked to me once; it didn't work.
So, I still make my bets on the ponies based on a combination of the name of the horse and who the house has given the shortest odds of winning. Usually I just bet the two horses who are handicapped to win but don't pay very well.
I can't win any real money, but the house often ends up paying for my betting, which is good enough for me.
The guys who read all the stats and the like? I question if they do any better than chance.
Now, I've never tried to bring a weapon on a plane ... but I've had one screener flag my suitcase in the security line, only to have another screener ask me "what did he see in your suitcase to flag you?", followed by me saying "if I knew that I wouldn't have put it in that suitcase".
Then I asked if he'd show me the xray and I'd try to tell him what it was, he said I wasn't allowed. OK sir, shall I just stare at you as you demonstrate you have no idea of your own job? Or can I go now?
And, on several occasions I've realized my laptop bag still had toothpaste, a Tide stick, and mouthwash in it -- and nobody noticed.
TSA are inept, expensive, and annoying. And I very much doubt they can provably demonstrate they've ever actually stopped anything from happening.
Especially since the market for people who want an "Amazon approved device" is far smaller than the Android/Chromecase/Apple TV/iOS markets.
But, thankfully, that's Amazon't problem, and not mine.
Sorry, but are you just making shit up?
People want a dedicated gaming console for many reasons .. not the least of which is it's what we're used to, and because we don't wish to build a dedicated gaming PC. Or because it's "good enough", or simple to use
Yup, you're just making shit up.
I've been a decidedly casual gamer since the 90s. I don't play online, I don't play the shiniest FPS games (because I lack the skill and interest), I sure as hell don't play hundreds of hours on a new title.
I find a couple of games I like, and at random intervals I'll fire up the console, play for a while, and turn it off ... it could be days, weeks, or months before I play again.
This was true on my N64, my Playstation 2, my Wii, my XBox 360, and on my tablet.
Casual gaming is not defined how you want to decree it is. Because what you're claiming casual gaming as is simply wrong, because people have been casual gamers for decades without smartphones.
Casual gaming is about people who infrequently play games, don't necessarily want invest hundreds of hours in a game, and don't chase the latest and greatest. It's about intermittent burst of fun, and has nothing to do with the device it's played on.
It's my damned TV, my HDTV and phone have pretty much the same resolution, and sitting in my comfy chair is far more comfortable than holding a portable device.
So, why wouldn't they have this functionality?
No, that's a terrible analogy, and it misses the entire point.
If the EPA requires that, by law, carmakers are ONLY allowed to report mpg figures based on an EPA provided formula which is known to be wrong ... then when carmakers tell you a mileage figure which is wrong, they are not lying, they are telling you the only number they are legally allowed to tell you.
So, in your terrible analogy, if I go into a store, and the store security tells me I am REQUIRED to take a candy bar and not pay for it ... it's not fucking shoplifting. It's complying with the policy.
The carmakers are not lying about MPG figures, they are honestly reporting it based on an incorrect estimation which everybody knows is faulty. Well, everyone except the consumer that is.
So, by law, they are reporting what has been declared as the truth by the EPA. But it is the ONLY version of "the truth" the EPA will allow you to cite.
The problem isn't the car companies, it's that the EPA forces them to provide information based on a formula which everybody involved knows is inaccurate. If any car company tried to report actual numbers which differed from those estimates, they would be fined.
EPA has legally defined what the truth is, and made it illegal to tell someone the actual truth, instead of their faulty version of it. The lie has been defined by law as the truth, which means the companies aren't lying, they're "telling the truth" as defined by the EPA.
Your candy bar analogy doesn't come anywhere NEAR close to the reality here.
When the chain of command is ignoring the law, there is no fucking point in reporting to the chain of command ... they're the problem, which pretty much means they can't be part of the solution.
The problem with this is that they all knew damned well they were operating well beyond what they were allowed to, and weren't going to do anything about it -- other than keeping doing it.
The the agencies are deciding what is legal and what isn't with no consequence, it's time to stop trusting the agencies with deciding what is legal and what isn't.
"Legitimate whistleblower protection" has to include the fact that the people in charge ARE the damned problem. Because in this case, they were. And trusting them to fix the problem would mean they'd bury it, and nothing would change.
Sorry, when the system is that broken, you can't rely on the system to fix the problem.
The difference here is the way car manufacturers in North America lie about mileage is the fault of the EPA.
See, they don't drive the car, and measure the mileage you get. As I understand it, they hook it up to a test rig, do some tests, and then calculate the mileage.
Car companies can only use the output of that formula, using anything else would be illegal -- and, unfortunately, people have known that the method calculating mileage is pretty flawed. Which is why all those people who had hybrids found out they weren't getting anywhere near the mileage they were promised.
So, no the car makers don't lie about mileage, they can only report it one way. Any other way would be illegal, even if the test is known to be wrong.
Apparently they do lie about emissions, however.
By the same token, I can also see some degree of hostility and mischief ... I mean, I'm sorry, but what do you figure the odds are someone won't give it a good kick or otherwise find ways to abuse it?
And I'll tell you what, I aint getting out of the way of no damned robot; so if it isn't bigger than me, it better be faster than me.
Mark my words, people will treat this like shit on their shoes. They sure as heck won't be polite to it.
Dude, seriously?
In ... app ... purchases; click here now to buy 16 more dongle-doodles to play faster.
Sure, ads; but if you want to make real money, in-app purchases is a literal license to print money. So you have a game reward system tied to real money.
It's basically a mobile slot machine. It's a monkey clicking the bar for a hit of crack.
And if all of your Facebook friends are doing it, then dagnubbit you need to do it too.
Think of the ST:TNG episode where everyone gets sucked into the video game and Wesley has to save the day. Only with money, and no sexy half Betazoid women.
In app purchases allows for an almost endless revenue stream with a successful title.
You've been retired so long you've become naive all over again. ;-)
LOL .... awww, I suppose you want a puppy, a pony, a unicorn, and red rider BB gun with a compass in the stock and a thing which tells time?
If they posted interesting stuff, they wouldn't be trolls and shitposters, now, would they?
Deep breath, and repeat after me ... the internet is full of stupid, and there's nothing I can do about that.
You're gonna hurt yourself if you keep on like that.
Well, don't forget, in the US the EULA is magical.
It basically says "we can change damned near anything, you can't, we can do anything with your data, if you don't like it piss off and stop using the service -- and if you really don't like it and won't piss off, you agree to an arbitration procedure of our own choosing which you definitely won't like".
Except for things which couldn't possibly be enforceable in a contract, corporations can do almost anything they choose.
Surprise!!
I'd be surprised if Europeans aren't subject to damned near the same EULA, because it comes down to "it's our service not yours, and if you don't like the terms that's tough".
LOL ... me I'm giving the GP the benefit of the doubt of making a really good reference.
Because Tanenbaum once said the same thing about Linux.
I would be curious to know how many people are even using MINIX.
I still have Tanenbaum's operating systems book on my shelf, but once Linux came along I have no idea if anybody is using it for much.
Dynamite is for cows, you're all cows ... send in the cows, there ought to be cows.
In Soviet Russia, meme pukes you!
Get over it. Slashdot has always had the drivel, and has always had people complaining about the drivel.
Just be glad time cube guy and the poop guy have slowed down.