And yet, Germany has the biggest economy in Europe, a massive trade surplus, and has a heavy focus on technology and manufacturing.
Maybe the Germans have collectively decided that the cost of the education is trivial compared to the long term gains of keeping some highly educated people around, or having its own citizens be educated.
Maybe, gasp, it's possible to both make profits and take care of your people -- and that it isn't an either/or proposition.
Yeah... seems to boil down to "nobody wanted our stuff", "had no idea how to make it into a business", and "my magical idea didn't work".
Solutions in search of an actual problem in many cases from the sounds of it.
And, once again, venture capitalists are parted with their money... in around 1999 it seemed like the simple act of registering a.com domain could get you millions in funding and create some paper millionaires overnight. The Herman Miller chairs left in the wake was legendary.
I'd actually love to see stats on startups... what minuscule fraction don't go under leaving a bunch of employees how they didn't see that coming?
Yeah, but is "earlier than previously thought" anything other than "gee, we never thought of it but now it seems obvious"?
Because, honestly, if you look on a map they're pretty darned close and the whole surprise that the Romans might have had a broad reaching influence (and trade) seems a little silly.
They had animals from all over the world, and who knows what else.
If you showed me a map of the Roman empire and the location of Ethiopia when I was in middle school and said "do you think these people traded" I'd probably have said yes.
Especially since we know there was other trade in the area and even further afield.
The notion that trade between the Romans and Ethiopia comes as a shock... well, that comes as a shock. Because it seems like something for which the answer should have been "but of course they did".
Yes, I'm sure they've totally forgotten about the actual physical aspects of the game, and will do this 100% VR.
Just like pilots now exclusively use flight sims and don't fly real planes.
Honestly, it's a tool. It's not the entirety of everything they will ever seek to do. Nobody is going to strap VR goggles to someone's head and then send them out to play football.
The fundamental principle behind capitalism is free markets, and free markets mean prices are governed by the forces of supply and demand.
These are constructed things.
At the end of the day, Capitalism comes from the observation "people own stuff", that is it. People owning stuff exists independent of "free markets", "supply and demand", and anything else. The rest of it is a belief system.
Any time where supply and demand doesn't figure into that, then it's not a free market (such as monopolies, for example) and thus is not capitalism.
Again, bullshit.
You can't take definitions which came after the fact and pretend that they inherently describe a system as is did (or should) exist in nature. Because "Capitalism" is not a naturally occurring thing, nor are the special little footnotes which are supposed to make it perfect, infallible, and ideologically pure.
Capitalism isn't an innate fact of the universe. It is an ideology, just like communism. It's not a natural law.
That people have spent decades doign hand-wringing to try to define in the specific what "Capitalism is" doesn't mean it's any thing more than an ideology.
And, exactly like Communism, there are huge holes in the ideology of Capitalism, and if you take either to its extreme it will completely fall apart.
And, exactly like Communism, Capitalism is treated like a blind ideology as if it is some inherent aspect of the universe, and that disagreeing with the premises or conclusions is somehow heresy.
Sorry, but in their extreme forms, both of these ideologies are unsupportable, unworkable, rely on assumptions which don't align with reality, and which have no more meaning as any other human idea which isn't founded in objective fact.
It's how people think things should work, if their assumptions are 100% true, and their predictions are 100% accurate.
And that's simply not possible, and demonstrates why they're both flawed views.
You know what is a natural fact? "If I am big enough, I will eat you or take your stuff". In "civilization" we put a different spin on things, and pretend it's all noble and the like.
The reality is, both Communism and Capitalism describe who should do the eating and under what circumstances.
But stop pretending that either isn't a constructed thing, or that either is an innate fact of the universe. The fucking Ferengi rules of Acquisition have as much actual meaning and basis in "fact" as all the treatises on Capitalism or Communism.
And like any religion/belief system, they're both woefully incomplete and oversimplify the world around them.
If you'd have written this 100+ years ago while riding your wagon
Honestly, if you're using this argument you're too stupid top understand what I've written.
We're not all living in space, taking taxis to the moon, travelling in flying cars, and having our robotic maids take care of the house.
Many aspect of technology changes our lives, that is inevitable.
Many utterly fail to live up to their claims, and largely because they're impractical or way more expensive than will ever be possible. Which means it becomes a novelty and a gimmick, but not what people claimed it would.
So, go ahead, put all of your money into the autonomous car market.
But if you're going to ignore the reasons why sometimes these technologies just simply can't ever do what people claim because we'd have to rebuild the world around it.. then expect to be disappointed as it proves impossible to achieve this bright new future.
And 100 years from now is a hell of a lot different than 5 years from now.
In 5 years I predict self-driving cars will have failed to impact more than a small percentage of people's lives.
You know what, 30 years ago I could have also said the same thing about flying cars or Mr Fusion, and I'd still be 100% correct. Because they never lived up to their hype.
That there exist some technologies which have been successful in no way changes that many of these super awesome technologies of the future are, ultimately, never ever going to happen as pitched to us.
You argument is meaningless, because you can no more say that a specific technology will be revolutionary than I can say won't. But I can say based on the ones I've seen touted over the last several decades the ones I personally think won't be nearly as huge as people claim.
Yes, the future is coming. If you want to place your bets about what it is, be my guest.
But don't for a moment pretend that every "revolutionary" technology the futurists have told us we'd all be using in five years have even come close to being true or practical. Nobody is that delusional.
In no way do I believe that self-driving cars is a 100% guaranteed thing except as a niche for the wealthy, for for which the majority of people simply will not care.
Especially if they're supposed to foot the bill for it.
As far as "and there is in fact an enormous financial (and humanitarian) incentive" there is financial incentive for the people who will benefit from selling it, and the "humanitarian" incentive is practically non-existent these days -- unless it leads to corporate profits, increasingly nobody gives a fuck.
Corporate America doesn't do anything for humanitarian reasons unless they can spin that for financial gain.
History is littered with technology which didn't quite change the world. And in a 5 year timeline, I think this will be one of those. Extend that to 20 or 40 years? Who knows.
But 5 years? No bloody way. Not for more than a trivial percentage of drivers.
I agree with you... I think the difference in potential human intelligence between now and the Romans is probably very little.
The sum total of our knowledge is much greater, but I think claiming we've evolved to be that much smarter since then is probably a fairly limited view.
I just think there's thousands of years of human evolution and knowledge which is unavailable to us, and that much of the science and technologies which the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans (etc) had was a VERY long time in the making.
By the time we see the spectacular examples, the basic stuff was pretty well established. We just think that because we don't have recorded history it didn't exist.
Agriculture, societies, pottery, building techniques... beer... all of these things have been with us a very long time, and by people who were very similar to what we are now.
I very much doubt we've evolved that much in two thousand years.
More than that... if we have self driving cars, why would I pay for insurance at all?
So that some company can sell me a product which mostly works, and when it fails will throw control over to me and make it my liability?
Yeah, sorry... but no.
Your car is either autonomous, and whoever made it/is responsible to maintain it pays the liability.. or it will hand back to me when it runs out of options, in which case I'll just drive the car myself because I don't trust it.
Either we trust the autonomous cars, or we don't. But I'm not taking any liability for it, and I'm sure as hell not paying for liability for it.
That's just companies wanting the best of both worlds.
You want autonomous cars, fine, then I'm a passenger with no controls. At which point these things are only economically viable in a rental model... because why the hell would I pay to own one?
The alternate vision of the future is that, as usual, futurists are all hot and horny about how their technology will revolutionize the world, but it will continue to be far too expensive for society to change over and it will never happen on the claimed scale.
So, like when I see things about how we'll have smart cities in which the roads are interconnected and technology will be everywhere.. I'm forced to conclude we're not going to tear down the world and start over to build this shiny stuff the futurists keep telling us is inevitable.
At the end of the day, these are products someone wants to sell us. And if the world doesn't feel like it has billions or trillions of dollars to rebuild everything for your shiny new technology, then either it will never happen, or it will be rolled out in a few limited places for the wealthy.
Take the average age of a car in North America.. hell, take the average age of a car in the world.
Now, ask yourself who is going to replace all of the cars on the planet with your super awesome technology?
From there you can pretty much realize that this stuff will never 100% replace what we have, will only ever benefit a very small amount of people, and likely won't be able to coexist with what we have now. In which case it sounds good on paper, but will never come to fruition.
Technology is cool, and it does move forward. But the economics of technology often means it will never be as practical or achievable as claimed by its proponents.
The world isn't going to rush out and buy self-driving cars just because the people who want to sell self-driving cars tell us how awesome they'll be. It just doesn't work that way.
However there certainly was a noticeable explosion in knowledge
Notable expansion, yes. But an increasing "discovery" that the things they did know, they'd have had to know for quite some time. You don't start off by making massive stone buildings and aqueducts when you're learning engineering.
Denying this seems irrational.
I'm not denying it, but I am saying that it doesn't account for the stuff they already knew.
Or otherwise driven by some bizarre agenda...
You want a bizarre agenda? Because apparently you're incapable of viewing the world without there being an "agenda"?
How about, history, as reported through the lens of the West, and after it had been cleaned up by the Catholic church... is largely a distorted view of reality which misses a lot of stuff, and which has otherwise been sanitized to bolster a historical viewpoint, and which is only slowly starting to realize that the stuff they knew in in antiquity was far more advanced than we've given them credit for.
That suddenly saying "wow, the Romans had trade routes with Ethiopia" is kind of missing that these societies had been intermingling and interacting for long before this.
They are dead wrong. Music is, per definitionem, live music.
I'm sorry, but you appear to be randomly making shit up and passing it off as a fact.
There is literally a century of precedent for people to refer to recordings of music as music. You don't get to suddenly decide it isn't music now just because you throw in a bit of latin.
It can not capture quite a lot of things inherent to live music.
Yeah, like that jerk next to me who spills into my seat, the little bored brat behind me kicking my chair, or lots of things which aren't "music".
Honestly, what the hell are you talking about?
You seem to be retroactively applying arbitrary semantics which fly in the face of a very large amount of precedent in the real world. But since it has nothing to do with reality as experienced by anybody else... well, it's kind of meaningless drivel.
I've rather had it Bethesda since I couldn't complete the main quest on Skyrim due to a major bug
LOL, there's a main quest?
I find I mostly ignore a lot of the quests and just do my own thing. Occasionally I do a quest by accident, or because I want something specific.
I'm probably an outlier, but for me the best thing about Skyrim is a largely don't have to follow a set story or give a damn about the quests.
But then, I pick it up every now and then and play for a few hours.
I think we need more games where we're not herded along a linear plot, and if we decide not to pursue anything specific we can. It's much more enjoyable for some of us.
Yeah, but some of this stuff always strikes me as a little bit of modern hubris and arrogance.
People act like the Greeks and Romans suddenly appeared, and had engineering, society, agriculture, and all sorts of things -- and that before them people lived in mud huts and foraged.
It always seems like the more we understand of what was happening in antiquity the more we realize our assumptions about them barely rising up out of the mud is just plain bullshit.
The Egyptians, the Asyrians, the Babylonians and who knows who else that have been lost to history... these cultures had stone work, complex societies, libraries... and suddenly we pretend that none of this stuff existed before the Romans or the Greeks?
It seems increasingly evident that a lot of the shit we have "discovered" in the last 100 years or so is stuff which had been widely known before the dark ages made us pretend nothing had come before.
Lack of written history or not, humans have been around for a very long time.
Pretty much anything except "medieval" which, kind of by definition, came after the Roman empire collapsed.
And then pretty much everything which came after that is the world "discovering" things which had been known before "medieval" times and acting like it was new.
"Infosec professionals do not generally wish to install secondary offers."
Honestly, who the fuck does?
I get the sense they didn't do this because they knew Infosec professionals would pillory them, but they're more than willing to embed shit in everything else.
Well, it looks like Microsoft is going to try to force these updates on us no matter if we want them or not.
Apparently KB3035583 is a recommended Windows update to 8.1 which suddenly starts nagging you to install Windows 10.
Fuck you, Microsoft. I'm not in your beta program, and I'll stick with the version I bought.
Tonight I'm going to have to uninstall and block this update, because it's not something I want.
Annoyingly, the actual MS aticle on this just says "enable more features in Windows Update". Basically Microsoft is slipping crap into our operating systems which will try to herd us into upgrading.
Sorry, Microsoft, it's my fucking computer, not yours. I'll upgrade it to a new version of the OS if and when I choose.
Don't you have to be actually under investigation for that to be true?
It isn't our job to provide every piece of evidence which makes us seem guilty -- especially if we're not under investigation.
So, say I decide one day to smoke crack, and then throw out the evidence of that... am guilty of a crime because I should have retained that evidence in case some asshole decides to retroactively charge me with a crime?
Maybe in a fascist police state it is your job to retain anything which could be incriminating. But unless you're actively under investigation, claiming that getting rid of something like that constitutes a criminal act is complete bullshit.
Hell, I bet half the fucking people in Washington routinely cover up evidence of a crime, including the fucking FBI. You know, the people who don't want us to know when they use that Stingray thing without a court order.
This is the beginning of "failure to facilitate being charged under trumped up charges in order to further the interests of the state and guarantee compliance of the citizenry".
Was he being investigated at the time he cleared his browser?
If not, this is retroactively constructing a legal charge out of thin air.
It's basically saying "you should have known you were guilty of thought crime and preserved the evidence in case we ever decided to come looking for you". Fuck that.
My god but law enforcement have become writers of fiction, and have completely given up on the law. They'll just make up any old shit these days.
Hey, FBI, I'm clearing my browser history right now. I'm doing it again. I'm even blocking cookies and ads, AND listening to music without paying additional royalties. I'm even going to fast forward through commercials.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize the mice are going to be really angry, right?
And yet, Germany has the biggest economy in Europe, a massive trade surplus, and has a heavy focus on technology and manufacturing.
Maybe the Germans have collectively decided that the cost of the education is trivial compared to the long term gains of keeping some highly educated people around, or having its own citizens be educated.
Maybe, gasp, it's possible to both make profits and take care of your people -- and that it isn't an either/or proposition.
The cost of the education pales in comparison to the benefit to society, and the profits isn't always a good metric?
I like your ideas, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yeah ... seems to boil down to "nobody wanted our stuff", "had no idea how to make it into a business", and "my magical idea didn't work".
Solutions in search of an actual problem in many cases from the sounds of it.
And, once again, venture capitalists are parted with their money ... in around 1999 it seemed like the simple act of registering a .com domain could get you millions in funding and create some paper millionaires overnight. The Herman Miller chairs left in the wake was legendary.
I'd actually love to see stats on startups ... what minuscule fraction don't go under leaving a bunch of employees how they didn't see that coming?
Yeah, but is "earlier than previously thought" anything other than "gee, we never thought of it but now it seems obvious"?
Because, honestly, if you look on a map they're pretty darned close and the whole surprise that the Romans might have had a broad reaching influence (and trade) seems a little silly.
They had animals from all over the world, and who knows what else.
If you showed me a map of the Roman empire and the location of Ethiopia when I was in middle school and said "do you think these people traded" I'd probably have said yes.
Especially since we know there was other trade in the area and even further afield.
The notion that trade between the Romans and Ethiopia comes as a shock ... well, that comes as a shock. Because it seems like something for which the answer should have been "but of course they did".
Yes, I'm sure they've totally forgotten about the actual physical aspects of the game, and will do this 100% VR.
Just like pilots now exclusively use flight sims and don't fly real planes.
Honestly, it's a tool. It's not the entirety of everything they will ever seek to do. Nobody is going to strap VR goggles to someone's head and then send them out to play football.
Bullshit.
These are constructed things.
At the end of the day, Capitalism comes from the observation "people own stuff", that is it. People owning stuff exists independent of "free markets", "supply and demand", and anything else. The rest of it is a belief system.
Again, bullshit.
You can't take definitions which came after the fact and pretend that they inherently describe a system as is did (or should) exist in nature. Because "Capitalism" is not a naturally occurring thing, nor are the special little footnotes which are supposed to make it perfect, infallible, and ideologically pure.
Capitalism isn't an innate fact of the universe. It is an ideology, just like communism. It's not a natural law.
That people have spent decades doign hand-wringing to try to define in the specific what "Capitalism is" doesn't mean it's any thing more than an ideology.
And, exactly like Communism, there are huge holes in the ideology of Capitalism, and if you take either to its extreme it will completely fall apart.
And, exactly like Communism, Capitalism is treated like a blind ideology as if it is some inherent aspect of the universe, and that disagreeing with the premises or conclusions is somehow heresy.
Sorry, but in their extreme forms, both of these ideologies are unsupportable, unworkable, rely on assumptions which don't align with reality, and which have no more meaning as any other human idea which isn't founded in objective fact.
It's how people think things should work, if their assumptions are 100% true, and their predictions are 100% accurate.
And that's simply not possible, and demonstrates why they're both flawed views.
You know what is a natural fact? "If I am big enough, I will eat you or take your stuff". In "civilization" we put a different spin on things, and pretend it's all noble and the like.
The reality is, both Communism and Capitalism describe who should do the eating and under what circumstances.
But stop pretending that either isn't a constructed thing, or that either is an innate fact of the universe. The fucking Ferengi rules of Acquisition have as much actual meaning and basis in "fact" as all the treatises on Capitalism or Communism.
And like any religion/belief system, they're both woefully incomplete and oversimplify the world around them.
Honestly, if you're using this argument you're too stupid top understand what I've written.
We're not all living in space, taking taxis to the moon, travelling in flying cars, and having our robotic maids take care of the house.
Many aspect of technology changes our lives, that is inevitable.
Many utterly fail to live up to their claims, and largely because they're impractical or way more expensive than will ever be possible. Which means it becomes a novelty and a gimmick, but not what people claimed it would.
So, go ahead, put all of your money into the autonomous car market.
But if you're going to ignore the reasons why sometimes these technologies just simply can't ever do what people claim because we'd have to rebuild the world around it .. then expect to be disappointed as it proves impossible to achieve this bright new future.
And 100 years from now is a hell of a lot different than 5 years from now.
In 5 years I predict self-driving cars will have failed to impact more than a small percentage of people's lives.
You know what, 30 years ago I could have also said the same thing about flying cars or Mr Fusion, and I'd still be 100% correct. Because they never lived up to their hype.
That there exist some technologies which have been successful in no way changes that many of these super awesome technologies of the future are, ultimately, never ever going to happen as pitched to us.
You argument is meaningless, because you can no more say that a specific technology will be revolutionary than I can say won't. But I can say based on the ones I've seen touted over the last several decades the ones I personally think won't be nearly as huge as people claim.
Yes, the future is coming. If you want to place your bets about what it is, be my guest.
But don't for a moment pretend that every "revolutionary" technology the futurists have told us we'd all be using in five years have even come close to being true or practical. Nobody is that delusional.
In no way do I believe that self-driving cars is a 100% guaranteed thing except as a niche for the wealthy, for for which the majority of people simply will not care.
Especially if they're supposed to foot the bill for it.
As far as "and there is in fact an enormous financial (and humanitarian) incentive" there is financial incentive for the people who will benefit from selling it, and the "humanitarian" incentive is practically non-existent these days -- unless it leads to corporate profits, increasingly nobody gives a fuck.
Corporate America doesn't do anything for humanitarian reasons unless they can spin that for financial gain.
History is littered with technology which didn't quite change the world. And in a 5 year timeline, I think this will be one of those. Extend that to 20 or 40 years? Who knows.
But 5 years? No bloody way. Not for more than a trivial percentage of drivers.
I agree with you ... I think the difference in potential human intelligence between now and the Romans is probably very little.
The sum total of our knowledge is much greater, but I think claiming we've evolved to be that much smarter since then is probably a fairly limited view.
I just think there's thousands of years of human evolution and knowledge which is unavailable to us, and that much of the science and technologies which the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans (etc) had was a VERY long time in the making.
By the time we see the spectacular examples, the basic stuff was pretty well established. We just think that because we don't have recorded history it didn't exist.
Agriculture, societies, pottery, building techniques ... beer ... all of these things have been with us a very long time, and by people who were very similar to what we are now.
I very much doubt we've evolved that much in two thousand years.
More than that ... if we have self driving cars, why would I pay for insurance at all?
So that some company can sell me a product which mostly works, and when it fails will throw control over to me and make it my liability?
Yeah, sorry ... but no.
Your car is either autonomous, and whoever made it/is responsible to maintain it pays the liability .. or it will hand back to me when it runs out of options, in which case I'll just drive the car myself because I don't trust it.
Either we trust the autonomous cars, or we don't. But I'm not taking any liability for it, and I'm sure as hell not paying for liability for it.
That's just companies wanting the best of both worlds.
You want autonomous cars, fine, then I'm a passenger with no controls. At which point these things are only economically viable in a rental model ... because why the hell would I pay to own one?
The alternate vision of the future is that, as usual, futurists are all hot and horny about how their technology will revolutionize the world, but it will continue to be far too expensive for society to change over and it will never happen on the claimed scale.
So, like when I see things about how we'll have smart cities in which the roads are interconnected and technology will be everywhere .. I'm forced to conclude we're not going to tear down the world and start over to build this shiny stuff the futurists keep telling us is inevitable.
At the end of the day, these are products someone wants to sell us. And if the world doesn't feel like it has billions or trillions of dollars to rebuild everything for your shiny new technology, then either it will never happen, or it will be rolled out in a few limited places for the wealthy.
Take the average age of a car in North America .. hell, take the average age of a car in the world.
Now, ask yourself who is going to replace all of the cars on the planet with your super awesome technology?
From there you can pretty much realize that this stuff will never 100% replace what we have, will only ever benefit a very small amount of people, and likely won't be able to coexist with what we have now. In which case it sounds good on paper, but will never come to fruition.
Technology is cool, and it does move forward. But the economics of technology often means it will never be as practical or achievable as claimed by its proponents.
The world isn't going to rush out and buy self-driving cars just because the people who want to sell self-driving cars tell us how awesome they'll be. It just doesn't work that way.
As usual, I'll believe it when I see it.
Notable expansion, yes. But an increasing "discovery" that the things they did know, they'd have had to know for quite some time. You don't start off by making massive stone buildings and aqueducts when you're learning engineering.
I'm not denying it, but I am saying that it doesn't account for the stuff they already knew.
You want a bizarre agenda? Because apparently you're incapable of viewing the world without there being an "agenda"?
How about, history, as reported through the lens of the West, and after it had been cleaned up by the Catholic church ... is largely a distorted view of reality which misses a lot of stuff, and which has otherwise been sanitized to bolster a historical viewpoint, and which is only slowly starting to realize that the stuff they knew in in antiquity was far more advanced than we've given them credit for.
That suddenly saying "wow, the Romans had trade routes with Ethiopia" is kind of missing that these societies had been intermingling and interacting for long before this.
I'm sorry, but you appear to be randomly making shit up and passing it off as a fact.
There is literally a century of precedent for people to refer to recordings of music as music. You don't get to suddenly decide it isn't music now just because you throw in a bit of latin.
Yeah, like that jerk next to me who spills into my seat, the little bored brat behind me kicking my chair, or lots of things which aren't "music".
Honestly, what the hell are you talking about?
You seem to be retroactively applying arbitrary semantics which fly in the face of a very large amount of precedent in the real world. But since it has nothing to do with reality as experienced by anybody else ... well, it's kind of meaningless drivel.
LOL, there's a main quest?
I find I mostly ignore a lot of the quests and just do my own thing. Occasionally I do a quest by accident, or because I want something specific.
I'm probably an outlier, but for me the best thing about Skyrim is a largely don't have to follow a set story or give a damn about the quests.
But then, I pick it up every now and then and play for a few hours.
I think we need more games where we're not herded along a linear plot, and if we decide not to pursue anything specific we can. It's much more enjoyable for some of us.
Yeah, but some of this stuff always strikes me as a little bit of modern hubris and arrogance.
People act like the Greeks and Romans suddenly appeared, and had engineering, society, agriculture, and all sorts of things -- and that before them people lived in mud huts and foraged.
It always seems like the more we understand of what was happening in antiquity the more we realize our assumptions about them barely rising up out of the mud is just plain bullshit.
The Egyptians, the Asyrians, the Babylonians and who knows who else that have been lost to history ... these cultures had stone work, complex societies, libraries ... and suddenly we pretend that none of this stuff existed before the Romans or the Greeks?
It seems increasingly evident that a lot of the shit we have "discovered" in the last 100 years or so is stuff which had been widely known before the dark ages made us pretend nothing had come before.
Lack of written history or not, humans have been around for a very long time.
Bronze age? Ancient? Roman era?
Pretty much anything except "medieval" which, kind of by definition, came after the Roman empire collapsed.
And then pretty much everything which came after that is the world "discovering" things which had been known before "medieval" times and acting like it was new.
Is this surprising to us?
I though we knew that the Romans had contact throughout Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia, and all sorts of places.
I thought it was pretty much a given that Ethiopia would be one of them ... the whole Cleopatra thing says they were definitely in the region.
The archaeology is really cool, but I didn't think finding Roman influence there would surprise anybody.
I'm pretty sure I watched this on TV several months ago,
So I'm kind of surprised to see it being presented as fresh news now.
It's cool and all, but from what I can tell it was aired in February on PBS and they'll even sell you the DVD.
Is it even a hypothesis if it's un-testable?
Non empirical physics sounds like a fucking joke.
Honestly, it's actually impossible to tell the difference between the silly shit people actually do with vinyl and the jokes.
Because except for the water part, I know people who have definitely done the reel to reel thing.
Honestly, who the fuck does?
I get the sense they didn't do this because they knew Infosec professionals would pillory them, but they're more than willing to embed shit in everything else.
Too little, too late there Sourceforge.
Well, it looks like Microsoft is going to try to force these updates on us no matter if we want them or not.
Apparently KB3035583 is a recommended Windows update to 8.1 which suddenly starts nagging you to install Windows 10.
Fuck you, Microsoft. I'm not in your beta program, and I'll stick with the version I bought.
Tonight I'm going to have to uninstall and block this update, because it's not something I want.
Annoyingly, the actual MS aticle on this just says "enable more features in Windows Update". Basically Microsoft is slipping crap into our operating systems which will try to herd us into upgrading.
Sorry, Microsoft, it's my fucking computer, not yours. I'll upgrade it to a new version of the OS if and when I choose.
Bloody assholes.
Don't you have to be actually under investigation for that to be true?
It isn't our job to provide every piece of evidence which makes us seem guilty -- especially if we're not under investigation.
So, say I decide one day to smoke crack, and then throw out the evidence of that ... am guilty of a crime because I should have retained that evidence in case some asshole decides to retroactively charge me with a crime?
Maybe in a fascist police state it is your job to retain anything which could be incriminating. But unless you're actively under investigation, claiming that getting rid of something like that constitutes a criminal act is complete bullshit.
Hell, I bet half the fucking people in Washington routinely cover up evidence of a crime, including the fucking FBI. You know, the people who don't want us to know when they use that Stingray thing without a court order.
This is the beginning of "failure to facilitate being charged under trumped up charges in order to further the interests of the state and guarantee compliance of the citizenry".
Fuck that.
Was he being investigated at the time he cleared his browser?
If not, this is retroactively constructing a legal charge out of thin air.
It's basically saying "you should have known you were guilty of thought crime and preserved the evidence in case we ever decided to come looking for you". Fuck that.
My god but law enforcement have become writers of fiction, and have completely given up on the law. They'll just make up any old shit these days.
Hey, FBI, I'm clearing my browser history right now. I'm doing it again. I'm even blocking cookies and ads, AND listening to music without paying additional royalties. I'm even going to fast forward through commercials.
Assholes.