the ancestors of the modern Irish and they predate the Celts and their purported arrival by 1,000 years or more
You know, the more we learn about antiquity, I think the more we thought we knew about where humans showed up and when is completely bullshit.
Humans have been around a lot longer, doing a lot more settling and other aspects of civilization than people have believed. The narrative that more modern humans were the first in all of these places has always struck me as absurd.
So much of history is written by people who assumed they were the first at everything, and a large amount of that is utterly wrong.
Ever since they found a submerged Indian city from like 7000BC or so I've thought it fairly obvious there's far more to human history than people realize.
Humans have been around a very long time. We might not ever piece it all together, but stuff like this is pretty cool.
2) Even if it was in quotes, the submitter and Slashdot editors are responsible for writing summaries that make sense.
I'd go with the fallback of "you must be new here", but, really, have you ever seen any evidence of this?
I sure as hell haven't. I'm skeptical it's even in the job description, because people have been griping about the editors as long as I've been using Slashdot.
After having his Prius burgled repeatedly outside his Los Angeles home, the New York Times' former tech columnist Nick Bilton came to the conclusion that the thieves must be amplifying the signal from the key fob in the house to trick his car's keyless entry system into thinking the key was in the thieves' hand. He eventually resorted to keeping his keys in the freezer.
Cuz, you know, Pudding Pops are frozen. And go really nicely with quaaludes, apparently.;-)
I'm surprised by the lack of strong encryption on this, but do you even need to replay?
Well, think about it... sit in a parking lot at an office or something, and passively collect a bunch of these things as people enter the building or something.
Instead of stealing belongings, you target a bunch of cars, come back the next day with a bunch of people, and drive off with a dozen or so cars in one go.
Why steal stuff when you can just drive off with the cars later and without needing to get the thing near enough to the keys to re-transmit?
You could have a bunch of cars in a chop shop before anybody even knew they were gone.
I had this in a rental car recently, and once I figured out there was not place to put the key (never seen it before, never even occurred to me) I did wonder just how secure it was.
So, what, it just continuously broadcasts "you can start now", with no intermediate encryption or anything? There's clearly no user interaction required to start the car (I never did get used to having the "key" in my pocket to start the car), no button to push or anything.
TFA says "every second semester electronic student should be able to build such devices without any further technical instruction." That positively screams of something which was built to be cool, but with no real thought about security.
I wonder if this is something which even changes on each invocation, or if you could simply record and play back the signal... in which case this is a pretty pathetic system.
And, once again, the security of such things is purely an afterthought when it's pointed out how trivial it is to bypass. And, once again, I say companies need to have legal liability for shit like this.
Why not? They've added ads and telemetry to Windows 10... they've decided you don't get a vote about updates, and that they're going to do as they please.
Do you honestly think they give a fuck about what people want? Or do you think they're just incrementally doing whatever the hell they want and shoving it up their customers' asses?
That they backed off a little and are going to come back for more is no surprise.
Microsoft is going to do what benefits Microsoft, and they're slowly giving up on the notion of pretending to give a crap what people say about it.
What caused outrage not so long ago will be met with mild whimpering, followed by cheers of "thanks to our benevolent overlords".
If you don't see a second attempt going better, you've simply not been paying attention.
Don't for a moment kid yourself that Microsoft isn't figuring out how to lock this stuff down, take away any remaining consumer choices, and monetize the shit out of anything they possibly can.
but they also have some very intelligent and resourceful people who develop methods of attack and avoidance of detection
Honestly though, how much of a rocket scientist do you need to be use to a burner phone?
Anybody over the age of 13 who has watched any amount of TV knows you can walk into a store, buy a no-contract phone and a SIM, and register it with very little effort. Likely without any real ID or credit cards.
As I understand it, in Europe and elsewhere it's common to travel, buy a cheap local SIM, and just use that as your phone.
These days I figure if you have the sophistication to plan a bus or train trip between two cities and use an email account, you probably have all of the required "trade craft" to buy a damned burner phone and keep under the radar with it.
How many movies in the last decade have pretty much given the template for this? How easy is it to buy a cheap phone and a SIM card in almost any city in the world?
I'd be shocked if your average teenager, or even your average anybody, can't just set themselves up with a burner phone with minimal effort -- it's not like it's some super secret thing which can only be done by people with large amounts of money or technical backing.
This stuff is pretty much common knowledge these days, to pretty much everybody who lives in a country with cell phones and a reasonably big city.
I bet with a relatively small amount of resources you could get a bunch of teenagers/homeless people to buy you phones in a bunch of different places such that you didn't even appear on video buying them... this really really is well and truly so widely known it's not funny.
It really doesn't take a criminal mastermind to do this. Not by a long shot.
They are still receiving food aid (small island, large population) but nobody would starve without it; it's not like 1994.
How much do you know about Cuba? Have you been there?
I've been there several times, and trust me, the levels of abject poverty in Cuba is a lot higher than you seem to think. You don't need to go very far to find people living in cinder block homes with dirt floors and a couple of chickens scratching in the yard. And that's a couple of notches above poor by Cuban standards.
The official rations people get? A bit of beans and rice per person, and people who are trained as engineers and doctors are working as bartenders because it pays a lot more.
Yes, they have education and health care, but much beyond that and there's probably a lot of people who are literally starving.
The picture is more complicated than you have been led to believe.
That cuts two ways. Cuba isn't a land of plenty, they've come a long way, but there's still a tremendous amount of poverty, and there are many many things they simply cannot get... like basic toiletries and the like.
Cuba is a very poor country, with pockets where some people can make a lot of extra money working in the tourist trade.
But there's also people who are pan-handling, and waiting for the side of the road to catch a ride on an overcrowded bus which wouldn't even be legal to operate in a first world country.
The difference between the resorts and the rural parts of Cuba are massive. And increasingly in the larger cities there are huge signs of outright poverty.
It's very complex indeed. But if you think people aren't actually at risk of starving, you really know a lot less than you think.
There is a reason why autism, even in it's mildest forms, is still regarded as a disorder. It might help you wrap your mind with better intensity around some problems
And I'm willing to bet it's really only in a few cases it helps you with some class of problems... many autistic people pretty much need to be cared for their entire lives.
This overly romanticized notion that autism is a gift for all who have it needs to be fixed; you're probably more likely to have some pretty debilitating issues.
I knew a kid in school who was never really identified as autistic until much later, and he was fairly lucky in that he was high functioning. But I've known a few people who really couldn't even dress and feed themselves. If they had some unique insights or gifts, it was seldom apparent.
Many of us probably rate a little on the spectrum, or at least say we do... but compared to some of the people who have far less function and will never have independent lives, we should stop acting like it's some cool thing which lets you solve math problems.
I'm sure if you raised a kid with Aspberger's you've seen far less functioning versions of the same thing.
You know, until people act on it, or there are privacy laws in place, or the rest of the populace is outraged... this is apparently quite far from "obvious".
Say this to most people, and you'll get an eye-roll and a tick-box in the crazy column.
Well, because "fancy" algorithms often means you have a vague idea of what is happening, and rely very heavily on the underlying magic. And, the problem with the underlying magic is it often isn't doing what you hope.
Any OS kernel which ignores the realities of the hardware is probably going to perform pretty terrible in a lot of places.
I've seen several people who wrote things requiring "fancy algorithms" who loudly proclaimed performance optimization was something you did later, only to later discover they had no fucking idea how to fix their slow and shitty code without having to rewrite it entirely -- precisely because they'd so heavily abstracted it they had no idea of why it was slow, or if they had a guess it would involve scrapping the whole thing because of how they'd written it.
The thing is, even though you want your kernel to run only a tiny fraction of the time, if you write it such that it's slow and inefficient, you'll get anything but. Not to mention the potential for bloat as people bring in endless libraries to do that hard work for them.
And saying "oh, the hardware is fast enough, it'll all be OK" doesn't always solve the problem.
I'm all for writing better code, but I have seen numerous examples of where pursuit of purity and elegance results in crap code, which is allegedly pure and elegant.
We should just "get shit done" and make the cyber war domain based on your craptastic inventions a bit larger. Make a shitload of sense.
You know, there comes a time when you develop software for a living that "do your fucking job" becomes a real thing.
If you have the luxury of pursuing ideological purity in software, congratulations, either your mom is really understanding, or you have a tenured position and nobody is relying on you for anything real. But in the real world, that level of bullshit onanism and self congratulatory crap is something nobody has time for.
That guy who refuses to write the stuff he's being paid to write because it lacks sufficient ideological purity, and instead endless refactors stuff which already works? That guy is asking to get canned because he thinks his job is an outlet for his political agenda. That guy sitting in his basement doing the same thing? Well, he's entitled to do whatever the hell he wants, no matter how detached from reality he is.
Unix and C are attempts to dumb down and cheap down computer science.
Oh, now that's some fucking rewriting of history. Someone didn't take some pure fucking temple of computer science and "dumb down/cheap down" by using UNIX and C... someone solved actual real damned problems decades before whiny punks like you come along and whine about your elegance and theoretical perfection.
Go ahead, pursue ideological perfection as a goal. But do it on your own time, and don't expect the rest of the world to do anything but roll their eyes at you -- because you're so far detached from actual reality as to be laughable and irrelevant.
Sitting around saying how the rest of the world has done it wrong and your toy nobody will ever use will be so much more better and perfect? Well, put up or shut up, but don't expect applause or interest based on your own level of smug -- that's your damned problem.
Because the smugness does nothing at all to make anybody think you're anything but a whiny little prat who hasn't actually been exposed to reality.
But in my direct experience, the people who go on the loudest about the theoretical and ideological purity of software are the ones who have delivered the least working software in the room -- right up to several people who couldn't deliver the stuff they were being paid to because they were so focused on trivia they failed to do their jobs.
And those people usually delivered badly written, brittle code which was so 'elegant' as to be a useless pile of shit.
Redox isn't afraid of dropping the bad parts of POSIX, while preserving modest Linux API compatibility.' They also level harsh criticisms at other OSes, saying "...we will not replicate the mistakes made by others.
This basically means their special little pony of an OS will be kinda sorta compatible, they will take some "principled" stand and break whatever they choose, and will screech and whine about how the rest of the world is doing it wrong.
Go ahead, be a bunch of yowling zealots, write an OS nobody will care about... and sit around being all smug about how awesome the thing you've written is while wondering why nobody is using it.
If you want to have a manifesto of childishness and stern disapproval, don't expect to get taken seriously.
I worked with a guy who wouldn't bend on his perceived form of "correctness"... he usually failed to deliver what was required of him and was an ass to work with, because he couldn't get past being a smug prick to get the job done. Delivering nothing is worse than griping it isn't aesthetically and ideologically perfect.
Microsoft seems to be trying to co-opt every other platform
I'd say they're more trying to leverage other platforms to mask their own screw-ups... because they can't seem to figure out what is successful or people actually want, so they're trying to get the things which work onto their own platform so people will stop saying "why would I need your crap?"
I find it pretty sad that a company who has had so much market dominance for so many years, spends billions on research, finds themselves floundering around trying to make their stuff look relevant by simply trying to get stuff which people actually like to run on their platform.
No, scratch that, I don't find it sad it all... I find it pathetic and hilarious. Because they clearly find themselves in a situation in which all of their "innovation" is shit nobody gives a damn about... yes, congratulations, you have recycled the same failed Active Desktop crap on yet another operating system, and taken away Solitaire.
This. No serious PC gamer gives 2 hot shits about gimp console-specced games anyway
Ironically, console gamers also don't give a crap about what snooty PC gamers think about games, because we probably play different titles and play them differently.
Your "no true Scotsman" argument is representative owfhow you play games, and has nothing at all to do with how I play games -- and for me the last thing I want it the annoying churn of constantly installing titles on my desktop machine which over time turns it into a messy nightmare I have no desire to mess with. And I certainly don't wish to be constantly buying new fucking hardware constantly and screwing around with that.
I want a console, that I can put in a game, play it while disconnected from the internet... and play a few hours here and there as I choose.
When my XBox 360 dies, if there is no suitable gaming console which can be played offline, that might end gaming for me.
So, play all the PC games you want. But do understand that there are a LOT of people who play games and for which the PC is a terrible platform.
Starting with my comfy reclining sofa, to the fact that my console is hooked to my big screen whereas my PC as at me desk where I already work... If Microsoft is abandoning the console gamer, they're going to lose customers.
You know, I bet if you could unfurl 10 or 20 feet of it, it would also be useful in a lot of places.
Hell, for camping make an entire tarp out of it. It's both your shelter over the picnic table and your power source. If it's portable, light, and flexible it's not like there aren't situations in which you can simply let it cover area once you get it there.
If the mass is low enough, getting a sufficient area to a location to be useful becomes a whole lot easier.
I can imagine tons of places where people would say "yeah, so, I've got 50' of space I can put this". How many watts can you get out of a 50' strip? I'm betting more than enough to be useful.
The unfortunate thing about such people is they have no grasp of the fact that they're morons.
To them, "won't someone think of the children" trumps any rational thought. Stopping that one suicide is a perfect justification to shit all over the rights of everybody else.
Sadly, your MP is too stupid to know she's a fucking idiot.
Even if code is speech, things like viruses and ransomware are dangerous speech that must be restricted
There is a huge difference between free speech, and speech you are forced to make.
Neither does the first amendment protect Apple's dangerous speech that opposes law enforcement and is helping terrorists.
You don't understand the concept, apparently. Apples "dangerous speech" is an inaction of not making speech, compelling Apple to do something is the exact opposite of free speech.
There is no rational scenario in which you compare forcing Apple to do something with restricted free speech. And if you think there is, you're an idiot.
In your analogy, giving a public endorsement to something under duress restricting their "dangerous speech".
You're a fucking moron if you think forcing something to do something is in any way related to restricting "dangerous speech".
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, dude, seriously?
Whiskey, Guinness, and red-heads. Duh.
You know, the more we learn about antiquity, I think the more we thought we knew about where humans showed up and when is completely bullshit.
Humans have been around a lot longer, doing a lot more settling and other aspects of civilization than people have believed. The narrative that more modern humans were the first in all of these places has always struck me as absurd.
So much of history is written by people who assumed they were the first at everything, and a large amount of that is utterly wrong.
Ever since they found a submerged Indian city from like 7000BC or so I've thought it fairly obvious there's far more to human history than people realize.
Humans have been around a very long time. We might not ever piece it all together, but stuff like this is pretty cool.
I'd go with the fallback of "you must be new here", but, really, have you ever seen any evidence of this?
I sure as hell haven't. I'm skeptical it's even in the job description, because people have been griping about the editors as long as I've been using Slashdot.
Well, there's this:
Cuz, you know, Pudding Pops are frozen. And go really nicely with quaaludes, apparently. ;-)
Well, think about it ... sit in a parking lot at an office or something, and passively collect a bunch of these things as people enter the building or something.
Instead of stealing belongings, you target a bunch of cars, come back the next day with a bunch of people, and drive off with a dozen or so cars in one go.
Why steal stuff when you can just drive off with the cars later and without needing to get the thing near enough to the keys to re-transmit?
You could have a bunch of cars in a chop shop before anybody even knew they were gone.
I had this in a rental car recently, and once I figured out there was not place to put the key (never seen it before, never even occurred to me) I did wonder just how secure it was.
So, what, it just continuously broadcasts "you can start now", with no intermediate encryption or anything? There's clearly no user interaction required to start the car (I never did get used to having the "key" in my pocket to start the car), no button to push or anything.
TFA says "every second semester electronic student should be able to build such devices without any further technical instruction." That positively screams of something which was built to be cool, but with no real thought about security.
I wonder if this is something which even changes on each invocation, or if you could simply record and play back the signal ... in which case this is a pretty pathetic system.
And, once again, the security of such things is purely an afterthought when it's pointed out how trivial it is to bypass. And, once again, I say companies need to have legal liability for shit like this.
Why not? They've added ads and telemetry to Windows 10 ... they've decided you don't get a vote about updates, and that they're going to do as they please.
Do you honestly think they give a fuck about what people want? Or do you think they're just incrementally doing whatever the hell they want and shoving it up their customers' asses?
That they backed off a little and are going to come back for more is no surprise.
Microsoft is going to do what benefits Microsoft, and they're slowly giving up on the notion of pretending to give a crap what people say about it.
What caused outrage not so long ago will be met with mild whimpering, followed by cheers of "thanks to our benevolent overlords".
If you don't see a second attempt going better, you've simply not been paying attention.
Don't for a moment kid yourself that Microsoft isn't figuring out how to lock this stuff down, take away any remaining consumer choices, and monetize the shit out of anything they possibly can.
Honestly though, how much of a rocket scientist do you need to be use to a burner phone?
Anybody over the age of 13 who has watched any amount of TV knows you can walk into a store, buy a no-contract phone and a SIM, and register it with very little effort. Likely without any real ID or credit cards.
As I understand it, in Europe and elsewhere it's common to travel, buy a cheap local SIM, and just use that as your phone.
These days I figure if you have the sophistication to plan a bus or train trip between two cities and use an email account, you probably have all of the required "trade craft" to buy a damned burner phone and keep under the radar with it.
How many movies in the last decade have pretty much given the template for this? How easy is it to buy a cheap phone and a SIM card in almost any city in the world?
I'd be shocked if your average teenager, or even your average anybody, can't just set themselves up with a burner phone with minimal effort -- it's not like it's some super secret thing which can only be done by people with large amounts of money or technical backing.
This stuff is pretty much common knowledge these days, to pretty much everybody who lives in a country with cell phones and a reasonably big city.
I bet with a relatively small amount of resources you could get a bunch of teenagers/homeless people to buy you phones in a bunch of different places such that you didn't even appear on video buying them ... this really really is well and truly so widely known it's not funny.
It really doesn't take a criminal mastermind to do this. Not by a long shot.
How much do you know about Cuba? Have you been there?
I've been there several times, and trust me, the levels of abject poverty in Cuba is a lot higher than you seem to think. You don't need to go very far to find people living in cinder block homes with dirt floors and a couple of chickens scratching in the yard. And that's a couple of notches above poor by Cuban standards.
The official rations people get? A bit of beans and rice per person, and people who are trained as engineers and doctors are working as bartenders because it pays a lot more.
Yes, they have education and health care, but much beyond that and there's probably a lot of people who are literally starving.
That cuts two ways. Cuba isn't a land of plenty, they've come a long way, but there's still a tremendous amount of poverty, and there are many many things they simply cannot get ... like basic toiletries and the like.
Cuba is a very poor country, with pockets where some people can make a lot of extra money working in the tourist trade.
But there's also people who are pan-handling, and waiting for the side of the road to catch a ride on an overcrowded bus which wouldn't even be legal to operate in a first world country.
The difference between the resorts and the rural parts of Cuba are massive. And increasingly in the larger cities there are huge signs of outright poverty.
It's very complex indeed. But if you think people aren't actually at risk of starving, you really know a lot less than you think.
And I'm willing to bet it's really only in a few cases it helps you with some class of problems ... many autistic people pretty much need to be cared for their entire lives.
This overly romanticized notion that autism is a gift for all who have it needs to be fixed; you're probably more likely to have some pretty debilitating issues.
I knew a kid in school who was never really identified as autistic until much later, and he was fairly lucky in that he was high functioning. But I've known a few people who really couldn't even dress and feed themselves. If they had some unique insights or gifts, it was seldom apparent.
Many of us probably rate a little on the spectrum, or at least say we do ... but compared to some of the people who have far less function and will never have independent lives, we should stop acting like it's some cool thing which lets you solve math problems.
I'm sure if you raised a kid with Aspberger's you've seen far less functioning versions of the same thing.
Think of it like scritching, with less chance of a reach-around by a guy in a panda suit.
You decide if that's better or worse. ;-)
You know, until people act on it, or there are privacy laws in place, or the rest of the populace is outraged ... this is apparently quite far from "obvious".
Say this to most people, and you'll get an eye-roll and a tick-box in the crazy column.
Well, because "fancy" algorithms often means you have a vague idea of what is happening, and rely very heavily on the underlying magic. And, the problem with the underlying magic is it often isn't doing what you hope.
Any OS kernel which ignores the realities of the hardware is probably going to perform pretty terrible in a lot of places.
I've seen several people who wrote things requiring "fancy algorithms" who loudly proclaimed performance optimization was something you did later, only to later discover they had no fucking idea how to fix their slow and shitty code without having to rewrite it entirely -- precisely because they'd so heavily abstracted it they had no idea of why it was slow, or if they had a guess it would involve scrapping the whole thing because of how they'd written it.
The thing is, even though you want your kernel to run only a tiny fraction of the time, if you write it such that it's slow and inefficient, you'll get anything but. Not to mention the potential for bloat as people bring in endless libraries to do that hard work for them.
And saying "oh, the hardware is fast enough, it'll all be OK" doesn't always solve the problem.
I'm all for writing better code, but I have seen numerous examples of where pursuit of purity and elegance results in crap code, which is allegedly pure and elegant.
You know, there comes a time when you develop software for a living that "do your fucking job" becomes a real thing.
If you have the luxury of pursuing ideological purity in software, congratulations, either your mom is really understanding, or you have a tenured position and nobody is relying on you for anything real. But in the real world, that level of bullshit onanism and self congratulatory crap is something nobody has time for.
That guy who refuses to write the stuff he's being paid to write because it lacks sufficient ideological purity, and instead endless refactors stuff which already works? That guy is asking to get canned because he thinks his job is an outlet for his political agenda. That guy sitting in his basement doing the same thing? Well, he's entitled to do whatever the hell he wants, no matter how detached from reality he is.
Oh, now that's some fucking rewriting of history. Someone didn't take some pure fucking temple of computer science and "dumb down/cheap down" by using UNIX and C ... someone solved actual real damned problems decades before whiny punks like you come along and whine about your elegance and theoretical perfection.
Go ahead, pursue ideological perfection as a goal. But do it on your own time, and don't expect the rest of the world to do anything but roll their eyes at you -- because you're so far detached from actual reality as to be laughable and irrelevant.
Sitting around saying how the rest of the world has done it wrong and your toy nobody will ever use will be so much more better and perfect? Well, put up or shut up, but don't expect applause or interest based on your own level of smug -- that's your damned problem.
Because the smugness does nothing at all to make anybody think you're anything but a whiny little prat who hasn't actually been exposed to reality.
But in my direct experience, the people who go on the loudest about the theoretical and ideological purity of software are the ones who have delivered the least working software in the room -- right up to several people who couldn't deliver the stuff they were being paid to because they were so focused on trivia they failed to do their jobs.
And those people usually delivered badly written, brittle code which was so 'elegant' as to be a useless pile of shit.
This basically means their special little pony of an OS will be kinda sorta compatible, they will take some "principled" stand and break whatever they choose, and will screech and whine about how the rest of the world is doing it wrong.
Go ahead, be a bunch of yowling zealots, write an OS nobody will care about ... and sit around being all smug about how awesome the thing you've written is while wondering why nobody is using it.
If you want to have a manifesto of childishness and stern disapproval, don't expect to get taken seriously.
I worked with a guy who wouldn't bend on his perceived form of "correctness" ... he usually failed to deliver what was required of him and was an ass to work with, because he couldn't get past being a smug prick to get the job done. Delivering nothing is worse than griping it isn't aesthetically and ideologically perfect.
So, whatever. Throw your tantrum.
Then you're an idiot who has failed to grasp the legal issues here.
He didn't know he was being recorded. He didn't consent to being recorded. He didn't give permission to release the tape.
Gawker then used the celebrity of someone who had no idea the tape was being made to drive traffic to their website and make a profit.
I'm going to have to come down on the side of punishing douchebag journalism on this one.
I'd say they're more trying to leverage other platforms to mask their own screw-ups ... because they can't seem to figure out what is successful or people actually want, so they're trying to get the things which work onto their own platform so people will stop saying "why would I need your crap?"
I find it pretty sad that a company who has had so much market dominance for so many years, spends billions on research, finds themselves floundering around trying to make their stuff look relevant by simply trying to get stuff which people actually like to run on their platform.
No, scratch that, I don't find it sad it all ... I find it pathetic and hilarious. Because they clearly find themselves in a situation in which all of their "innovation" is shit nobody gives a damn about ... yes, congratulations, you have recycled the same failed Active Desktop crap on yet another operating system, and taken away Solitaire.
That's some cutting edge shit right there.
Ironically, console gamers also don't give a crap about what snooty PC gamers think about games, because we probably play different titles and play them differently.
Your "no true Scotsman" argument is representative owfhow you play games, and has nothing at all to do with how I play games -- and for me the last thing I want it the annoying churn of constantly installing titles on my desktop machine which over time turns it into a messy nightmare I have no desire to mess with. And I certainly don't wish to be constantly buying new fucking hardware constantly and screwing around with that.
I want a console, that I can put in a game, play it while disconnected from the internet ... and play a few hours here and there as I choose.
When my XBox 360 dies, if there is no suitable gaming console which can be played offline, that might end gaming for me.
So, play all the PC games you want. But do understand that there are a LOT of people who play games and for which the PC is a terrible platform.
Starting with my comfy reclining sofa, to the fact that my console is hooked to my big screen whereas my PC as at me desk where I already work ... If Microsoft is abandoning the console gamer, they're going to lose customers.
You know, I bet if you could unfurl 10 or 20 feet of it, it would also be useful in a lot of places.
Hell, for camping make an entire tarp out of it. It's both your shelter over the picnic table and your power source. If it's portable, light, and flexible it's not like there aren't situations in which you can simply let it cover area once you get it there.
If the mass is low enough, getting a sufficient area to a location to be useful becomes a whole lot easier.
I can imagine tons of places where people would say "yeah, so, I've got 50' of space I can put this". How many watts can you get out of a 50' strip? I'm betting more than enough to be useful.
Well then, we should just give up now because there are situations in which this won't apply.
Doom! Horror! Insurmountable obstacles!
Whatever, don't care. Deal with it.
If it's paper thin, flexible, and really light ... you can cram a lot of surface area into a rolled up tube.
Flexible implies far more damage resistant, no?
If it's more bendy it's less break-y.
So I take it this is an issue which hasn't been properly fixed by vendors and nobody is using web servers from 1998?
This sounds more like badly written software than bad admin practices. How the heck are you supposed to prevent that?
The unfortunate thing about such people is they have no grasp of the fact that they're morons.
To them, "won't someone think of the children" trumps any rational thought. Stopping that one suicide is a perfect justification to shit all over the rights of everybody else.
Sadly, your MP is too stupid to know she's a fucking idiot.
There is a huge difference between free speech, and speech you are forced to make.
You don't understand the concept, apparently. Apples "dangerous speech" is an inaction of not making speech, compelling Apple to do something is the exact opposite of free speech.
There is no rational scenario in which you compare forcing Apple to do something with restricted free speech. And if you think there is, you're an idiot.
In your analogy, giving a public endorsement to something under duress restricting their "dangerous speech".
You're a fucking moron if you think forcing something to do something is in any way related to restricting "dangerous speech".