Salt water is hella corrosive. It's really not about potable water, it's about water which wants to eat through most anything.
Now, I have no idea what Google has salt water contained in, but having lived in coastal areas and visited coastal areas... salt water pretty much eats everything near it even if it isn't in direct contact.
Pretty much most metal in contact with salt water is either going to need to get replaced often, have a sacrificial anode thingy, or be fairly constantly maintained and painted.
Plastics might fare better, but metal faces huge issues near salt water.
No such thing. English is an amalgamation of a bunch of languages.
Glue rhymes with poo.
Anybody who tries to give a universal rule for English is going to be wrong in several corner cases. As evidence, I offer this, or this.
English is much less definable and explainable than people like to admit. Which is what makes it infinitely malleable and capable of doing things nobody thought of.
I'm not convinced there is a single rule which says "in English you always..." which is actually accurate in all cases. Because English borrows words from Latin, French, German, Spanish, Gaelic.. and every other language which we ever encountered.
It's got more exceptions than most people will ever fully have a handle on. It's not that kind of language.
But, honestly, without being familiar with all the details:
UC San Diego hired Aisen in 2007 to administer the program, which coordinates Alzheimer's research throughout the U.S. and Canada. UC San Diego founded the study in 1991 as a kind of joint venture with the National Institute on Aging, with funding provided by federal research grants, the pharmaceutical industry, and private foundations.
Hired to administer an existing program... that sort of screams you can't suddenly claim ownership of it and bring it with you when you leave.
If this many players have been involved that long, one guy can't suddenly claim it's his and lock everybody else out.
This kind of potentially critical situation (the gov't being able to filter the internet at the behest of corporate interests) shouldn't require us all rising up and complaining. We elect people that should have our fiduciary interests at heart
"[Citizens United] violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system," Carter said. "Now it's just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members.
"So now we've just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election's over," Carter continued, according to The Intercept. "The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody's who's already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who's just a challenger."
You should know you're fucked.
The only fiduciary interest these guys have is their own, and your politics are irrevocably for sale.
Your interests don't fucking matter, unless you have enough money to make a large campaign donation and pay for lobbyists.
When money == speech, if you don't have money you don't have speech, and your government doesn't give a crap about you.
America has been an oligarchy for a long time, and it's only getting worse. Why do you think they let the MPAA write laws like SOPA in the first place?
what ever, this absolutely has nothing to do with life imitating art at all. if no movie, play, story, you name it had ever been made, this still would have happened. it's just people trying to smuggle stuff they shouldn't always find creative ways to do so, always!
And I'm not disagreeing with that, not even a little.
I'm saying it isn't possible to make up something and say "but that could only happen in a movie". Sometimes you see stuff in movies and go "yeah, no way" only to find it has a basis in truth.
I'm not saying the convicts watched a movie and said "hey, let's try that". I'm saying never underestimate the motivation of people who don't want to be there, and have lots of time on their hands.
So when someone says "this isn't Hollywood", I think "nope, we wouldn't believe it if Hollywood did it".
If it's physically possible, it's probably likely been tried, or will be if someone figures out how.
I hereby invoke the "he needed killkin' " laws Texas is alleged to have, and suggest it is both moral and correct in the defense of our rights to shoot every asshole associated with the copyright cartel.
Even with the relatively high value of the cargo, it is still hard to see how the person who delivered it could reasonably expect to be paid for it.
You don't watch many movies, do you? Or missed the whole thing where the Mexican cartel guy had a tunnel excavated under the prison and "nobody noticed"?
As much as it sounds like a Hollywood fantasy, it's not like people in prison have no contact with the outside world, and don't have a lot of time on their hands to come up with new ways to work around the system.
Hell, you could do a Tarantino plot about the shit you could drop into a prison yard to create unrest.
Hell, have one drone drop in a bag of weapons and have another with a long zoom televise the the gladiatorial games which ensue.
It really was only a matter of time until drugs and other stuff started getting dropped into prisons. People have been doing low tech versions of this for decades, if not centuries.
Well, that's where the regulatory capture comes in. For some, it's a stated goal.
In case you haven't been paying attention, it's already happened.
Lobbyists work for government long enough to stack the deck before they return to being lobbyists. Corporations write the laws which give them the best deal.
So, it's good because it's only fascism-lite for now?
Because, honestly, the fact that it's stepping all over the law and the Constitution to do it tells me there should be a lot more outrage than there is.
You know, like the nationally endorsed perjury they call "parallel construction" and the police forces which want to hide the fact they illegally use surveillance technology without a warrant?
I have yet to be convinced they actually only target individuals. In fact, I'm pretty sure what they do amounts to general warrants.
But, no, let's keep pretending our own governments aren't trying to do the same exact thing and that it's only a little illegal curtailing of our rights and a tiny amount of ignoring due process of law.
And we're supposed to think this is different from Western governments demanding crypto backdoors, the ability to intercept at the data center, and secret warrants allowing them to demand all info in secret?
Sorry, but all governments are trending towards fascism, that China is doing this surprises me not even a little.
What we should be outraged at is the fact the governments of "free" countries are half way to doing the same fucking thing.
Sure, it's not outright censorship yet... but give it time.
The difference is I don't need to give a fuck what the Chinese government does. I have no ability to stop the US government or other western governments doing the same thing, and that does affect me.
"how about we make secret videos of your personal activities"
why don't you bother to read what I was responding to
What you were responding to was irrelevant when you made the spurious claim about your "personal activities". Because they're not legally the same thing.
These were videos filmed by employees and disclosed in the public interest, not "personal activities", and not covered under the same legal protections.
This is about the legally protected rights of employees to document true things and disclose them if they are in the public interest.
There is no "personal activities" here. There is no equating this with personal activities. This is commercial activities in the public interest.
Your belief this is a "personal activity" is wrong. Which means your claim of this being about your personal activity is irrelevant to the facts of this.
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. - Thomas Jefferson
What, like war? Or tax cuts for the rich? Or the right to say god hates fags via charitable status and donations? Or the enforcement of copyright laws bought and paid for by industry? How about treaties which are also for the benefit of corporations instead of taxpayers?
Or is it only the stuff you object to you think is tyrannical you wish would stop?
They didn't film people having sex, they filmed people abusing animals and creating unhealthy environments in which to be growing food for human consumption.
Arguably there is a much more clearly defined public interest as opposed to if you like to wear your wife's underwear as part of your thing in your "personal activities".
This is about blocking employees from filming stuff which happens in their place of work... it's not so much about "personal activities" as it is about suppressing constitutionally protected speech.
The judge concluded that the law restricted constitutionally protected free speech, and contradicted "long-established defamation and whistleblowing statutes by punishing employees for publishing true and accurate recordings on matters of public concern."
This is not the same as someone releasing your damned sex tape.
Many of us give a damn when governments pass terrible laws which don't pass Constitutional muster, because increasingly governments don't care if the laws they pass are actually legal. They just feel they can pass any old law and that should stand.
Feel free to exclude YRO from your preferences, or stick to reading the video games section.
The rest of us care if our governments act like fascists who think they can pass any law they want to.
This is stuff which matters.
They didn't outlaw the animal cruelty, they outlawed telling people about it.
You should always care when a government passes a law which arbitrarily places limits on free speech. Or the next thing you know they'll make it illegal to criticize idiot governments who pass laws which place arbitrary limits on free speech.
You know, a good quality education, and engaged parents can probably go a long way to fostering both ability and aptitude.
From what I can see, kids are like sponges. All things being equal, give them opportunities and teach them, and they'll just get better.
But pretending like CS is some mag bullet which makes all kids smarter and excel at all things is just plain fantasy.
The one and only time in school I was sufficiently afraid of failing an exam than I intended to cheat, I spent a bunch of hours reviewing it, summarizing it, making tiny little notes I could use for cheating... and found myself in the class realizing that, quite shockingly, I understood the material.
I don't think it's the magic of creating a chatbot which made these kids understand Macbeth. I think it's the fact that they spent time studying and interacting with it on a level other than simply reading through the play.
I'm all for giving kids access to computers and encouraging them. But I think it's a complete crock to claim that the act of learning to code improved their understanding of Macbeth. The act of studying Macbeth in a personal way improved their understanding of Macbeth.
Kids were grasping Macbeth before there were computers to program.
Sure, if you build your own study aid you learn the material. That doesn't mean programming makes you better, smarter, or more fucking capable of grasping Macbeth.
It means that with high quality teaching, in small classes with dedicates teachers who know their stuff, and for students who have the benefits of wealthy parents and a decent breakfast... and all of the other benefits kids who go to an expensive private school have... that education actually works.
This is complete and utter crap. It's not evidence programming teaches Macbeth, it's evidence that wealthy kids in really good schools do better because it's a higher quality of education.
It ignores home life, single parent families, neighborhoods where you have to worry about getting shot, and pretty much everything kids with fewer advantages in life have to deal with.
I am so damned sick of listening to a bunch of rich white guys telling us how education will be improved if kids learn to code.
Put your money where your mouth is, and fund some really damned high quality education for a bunch of poor kids, and while you're at it give them some of the other benefits kids who aren't poor have.
And while you're at it, make the spoiled little rich kids live in poverty as a control. Then you can talk about causation.
Until then, this boils down to "kids whose parents can send them to expensive private schools have many benefits in life which aren't enjoyed by poor kids".
You can't take one of those advantages in isolation and claim it's fucking magic.
In fairness to Bill Gates, he's talking about poor farmers in poor countries where there is no real electrical grid.
He's not talking about whiny punks in rich countries and their damned cell phones. Or rich assholes with private yachts and jets.
Oddly enough, people in poor and remote areas are the ones who would stand to benefit from solar power the most, and they aren't the people who would be looking at reducing their energy consumption... they're the people who don't have lights and really basic things.
How many of these boil down to "a system and methodology for doing something we already do all the time but in the cloud"?
So many computer patents these day are pretty much garbage.
I hope these actually have some merit instead of just having "in the cloud" tacked onto existing stuff. So many patents which get issues represent nothing new or novel, just "but on a cell phone" (which is a special case of computer), or "but with a network".
Part of me suspects a good chunk is neither new nor novel.
The problem with using IE and Flash for your shit work is that IE with Flash is SO INCREDIBLY SLOW as to be unusable. Just as an extreme example, try loading some clickbait site with IE
If you're loading something you do not need for your job in IE with Flash enabled... that's your damned problem.
I said to keep IE for those sites you are required to use for your job, and use something with it disabled it for the rest.
Whining about how slow Flash is for random sites means you bloody well deserve malware, because you haven't been paying attention to the fact that Flash has been a gaping security hole for around 15 years.
If you're going to a click bait site with IE and Flash, you're begging to be compromised, and you'll have nobody but yourself to blame. Because you're pretty much doing the thing which is going to guarantee you get hacked.
I have found if you truly need Flash (by which I mean work not cat videos) you keep IE around as your insecure browser you only use for crap required for your job. For everything else, use a browser which doesn't have Flash enabled.
In no other circumstances should people be accessing the internet with Flash enabled for everything. Because that's just asking for it.
I've had Flash disabled for over a decade, and except one or two sites a year for something required by HR, I've never found myself thinking "gee, I really miss Flash".
Having Flash enabled by default is a self-inflicted injury I no longer feel any sympathy about. It's not like we haven't heard at least monthly for at least a decade about yet another Flash exploit.
Slashdot Mirror
Salt water is hella corrosive. It's really not about potable water, it's about water which wants to eat through most anything.
Now, I have no idea what Google has salt water contained in, but having lived in coastal areas and visited coastal areas ... salt water pretty much eats everything near it even if it isn't in direct contact.
Pretty much most metal in contact with salt water is either going to need to get replaced often, have a sacrificial anode thingy, or be fairly constantly maintained and painted.
Plastics might fare better, but metal faces huge issues near salt water.
No such thing. English is an amalgamation of a bunch of languages.
Glue rhymes with poo.
Anybody who tries to give a universal rule for English is going to be wrong in several corner cases. As evidence, I offer this, or this.
English is much less definable and explainable than people like to admit. Which is what makes it infinitely malleable and capable of doing things nobody thought of.
I'm not convinced there is a single rule which says "in English you always ..." which is actually accurate in all cases. Because English borrows words from Latin, French, German, Spanish, Gaelic .. and every other language which we ever encountered.
It's got more exceptions than most people will ever fully have a handle on. It's not that kind of language.
Trick question ... before the copyright expires the copyright cartel will have bought another extension.
But, honestly, without being familiar with all the details:
Hired to administer an existing program ... that sort of screams you can't suddenly claim ownership of it and bring it with you when you leave.
If this many players have been involved that long, one guy can't suddenly claim it's his and lock everybody else out.
When you have a past president saying:
You should know you're fucked.
The only fiduciary interest these guys have is their own, and your politics are irrevocably for sale.
Your interests don't fucking matter, unless you have enough money to make a large campaign donation and pay for lobbyists.
When money == speech, if you don't have money you don't have speech, and your government doesn't give a crap about you.
America has been an oligarchy for a long time, and it's only getting worse. Why do you think they let the MPAA write laws like SOPA in the first place?
Because that's who paid for them.
And I'm not disagreeing with that, not even a little.
I'm saying it isn't possible to make up something and say "but that could only happen in a movie". Sometimes you see stuff in movies and go "yeah, no way" only to find it has a basis in truth.
I'm not saying the convicts watched a movie and said "hey, let's try that". I'm saying never underestimate the motivation of people who don't want to be there, and have lots of time on their hands.
So when someone says "this isn't Hollywood", I think "nope, we wouldn't believe it if Hollywood did it".
If it's physically possible, it's probably likely been tried, or will be if someone figures out how.
Honestly, I assume for every new thing you put into stop one thing it just creates another class of problem for you.
I also assume there's nothing so far fetched it hasn't been tried.
I hereby invoke the "he needed killkin' " laws Texas is alleged to have, and suggest it is both moral and correct in the defense of our rights to shoot every asshole associated with the copyright cartel.
You're welcome.
Now get on with it.
(No, I'm not actually advocating murder)
Right, and a drone dropping drugs into the prison yard is in no way like something out of a movie.
Honestly, the world is a screwed up place, and this entire incident is meta enough to seem like something out of Hollywood.
Life imitating art and all that.
LOL, I do know that ... but I find it useful to convey the explicit outrage for the slower among us who actually think this is somehow different.
Far too many people act as if it's really OK because we're the good guys, and miss the entire point.
You don't watch many movies, do you? Or missed the whole thing where the Mexican cartel guy had a tunnel excavated under the prison and "nobody noticed"?
As much as it sounds like a Hollywood fantasy, it's not like people in prison have no contact with the outside world, and don't have a lot of time on their hands to come up with new ways to work around the system.
Hell, you could do a Tarantino plot about the shit you could drop into a prison yard to create unrest.
Hell, have one drone drop in a bag of weapons and have another with a long zoom televise the the gladiatorial games which ensue.
It really was only a matter of time until drugs and other stuff started getting dropped into prisons. People have been doing low tech versions of this for decades, if not centuries.
Well, that's where the regulatory capture comes in. For some, it's a stated goal.
In case you haven't been paying attention, it's already happened.
Lobbyists work for government long enough to stack the deck before they return to being lobbyists. Corporations write the laws which give them the best deal.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
So, it's good because it's only fascism-lite for now?
Because, honestly, the fact that it's stepping all over the law and the Constitution to do it tells me there should be a lot more outrage than there is.
You know, like the nationally endorsed perjury they call "parallel construction" and the police forces which want to hide the fact they illegally use surveillance technology without a warrant?
I have yet to be convinced they actually only target individuals. In fact, I'm pretty sure what they do amounts to general warrants.
But, no, let's keep pretending our own governments aren't trying to do the same exact thing and that it's only a little illegal curtailing of our rights and a tiny amount of ignoring due process of law.
And we're supposed to think this is different from Western governments demanding crypto backdoors, the ability to intercept at the data center, and secret warrants allowing them to demand all info in secret?
Sorry, but all governments are trending towards fascism, that China is doing this surprises me not even a little.
What we should be outraged at is the fact the governments of "free" countries are half way to doing the same fucking thing.
Sure, it's not outright censorship yet ... but give it time.
The difference is I don't need to give a fuck what the Chinese government does. I have no ability to stop the US government or other western governments doing the same thing, and that does affect me.
LOL ... oh, man, suddenly I want one. It would make meetings so much more fun.
Time to spin up a different mix for the rest of today.
What you were responding to was irrelevant when you made the spurious claim about your "personal activities". Because they're not legally the same thing.
These were videos filmed by employees and disclosed in the public interest, not "personal activities", and not covered under the same legal protections.
This is about the legally protected rights of employees to document true things and disclose them if they are in the public interest.
There is no "personal activities" here. There is no equating this with personal activities. This is commercial activities in the public interest.
Your belief this is a "personal activity" is wrong. Which means your claim of this being about your personal activity is irrelevant to the facts of this.
What, like war? Or tax cuts for the rich? Or the right to say god hates fags via charitable status and donations? Or the enforcement of copyright laws bought and paid for by industry? How about treaties which are also for the benefit of corporations instead of taxpayers?
Or is it only the stuff you object to you think is tyrannical you wish would stop?
They didn't film people having sex, they filmed people abusing animals and creating unhealthy environments in which to be growing food for human consumption.
Arguably there is a much more clearly defined public interest as opposed to if you like to wear your wife's underwear as part of your thing in your "personal activities".
This is about blocking employees from filming stuff which happens in their place of work ... it's not so much about "personal activities" as it is about suppressing constitutionally protected speech.
This is not the same as someone releasing your damned sex tape.
Your rights online.
Many of us give a damn when governments pass terrible laws which don't pass Constitutional muster, because increasingly governments don't care if the laws they pass are actually legal. They just feel they can pass any old law and that should stand.
Feel free to exclude YRO from your preferences, or stick to reading the video games section.
The rest of us care if our governments act like fascists who think they can pass any law they want to.
This is stuff which matters.
They didn't outlaw the animal cruelty, they outlawed telling people about it.
You should always care when a government passes a law which arbitrarily places limits on free speech. Or the next thing you know they'll make it illegal to criticize idiot governments who pass laws which place arbitrary limits on free speech.
You know, a good quality education, and engaged parents can probably go a long way to fostering both ability and aptitude.
From what I can see, kids are like sponges. All things being equal, give them opportunities and teach them, and they'll just get better.
But pretending like CS is some mag bullet which makes all kids smarter and excel at all things is just plain fantasy.
The one and only time in school I was sufficiently afraid of failing an exam than I intended to cheat, I spent a bunch of hours reviewing it, summarizing it, making tiny little notes I could use for cheating ... and found myself in the class realizing that, quite shockingly, I understood the material.
I don't think it's the magic of creating a chatbot which made these kids understand Macbeth. I think it's the fact that they spent time studying and interacting with it on a level other than simply reading through the play.
I'm all for giving kids access to computers and encouraging them. But I think it's a complete crock to claim that the act of learning to code improved their understanding of Macbeth. The act of studying Macbeth in a personal way improved their understanding of Macbeth.
Kids were grasping Macbeth before there were computers to program.
Sure, if you build your own study aid you learn the material. That doesn't mean programming makes you better, smarter, or more fucking capable of grasping Macbeth.
It means that with high quality teaching, in small classes with dedicates teachers who know their stuff, and for students who have the benefits of wealthy parents and a decent breakfast ... and all of the other benefits kids who go to an expensive private school have ... that education actually works.
This is complete and utter crap. It's not evidence programming teaches Macbeth, it's evidence that wealthy kids in really good schools do better because it's a higher quality of education.
It ignores home life, single parent families, neighborhoods where you have to worry about getting shot, and pretty much everything kids with fewer advantages in life have to deal with.
I am so damned sick of listening to a bunch of rich white guys telling us how education will be improved if kids learn to code.
Put your money where your mouth is, and fund some really damned high quality education for a bunch of poor kids, and while you're at it give them some of the other benefits kids who aren't poor have.
And while you're at it, make the spoiled little rich kids live in poverty as a control. Then you can talk about causation.
Until then, this boils down to "kids whose parents can send them to expensive private schools have many benefits in life which aren't enjoyed by poor kids".
You can't take one of those advantages in isolation and claim it's fucking magic.
In fairness to Bill Gates, he's talking about poor farmers in poor countries where there is no real electrical grid.
He's not talking about whiny punks in rich countries and their damned cell phones. Or rich assholes with private yachts and jets.
Oddly enough, people in poor and remote areas are the ones who would stand to benefit from solar power the most, and they aren't the people who would be looking at reducing their energy consumption ... they're the people who don't have lights and really basic things.
How many of these boil down to "a system and methodology for doing something we already do all the time but in the cloud"?
So many computer patents these day are pretty much garbage.
I hope these actually have some merit instead of just having "in the cloud" tacked onto existing stuff. So many patents which get issues represent nothing new or novel, just "but on a cell phone" (which is a special case of computer), or "but with a network".
Part of me suspects a good chunk is neither new nor novel.
If you're loading something you do not need for your job in IE with Flash enabled ... that's your damned problem.
I said to keep IE for those sites you are required to use for your job, and use something with it disabled it for the rest.
Whining about how slow Flash is for random sites means you bloody well deserve malware, because you haven't been paying attention to the fact that Flash has been a gaping security hole for around 15 years.
If you're going to a click bait site with IE and Flash, you're begging to be compromised, and you'll have nobody but yourself to blame. Because you're pretty much doing the thing which is going to guarantee you get hacked.
In my best Nelson voice I say to you "Ha ha!!".
I have found if you truly need Flash (by which I mean work not cat videos) you keep IE around as your insecure browser you only use for crap required for your job. For everything else, use a browser which doesn't have Flash enabled.
In no other circumstances should people be accessing the internet with Flash enabled for everything. Because that's just asking for it.
I've had Flash disabled for over a decade, and except one or two sites a year for something required by HR, I've never found myself thinking "gee, I really miss Flash".
Having Flash enabled by default is a self-inflicted injury I no longer feel any sympathy about. It's not like we haven't heard at least monthly for at least a decade about yet another Flash exploit.