I think there's some false information often interleaved with news stories in general. For example, about a year ago a muslim dude and his family had their visa to the US canceled, (they were going on a trip to Disneyland) and one of the major cable news channels I saw it aired on (I believe it was NBC) painted a narrative that it was because of Trump, even though Trump hadn't even been the republican nominee yet, and to this day still holds no political office.
Even for those outlets that didn't paint such a narrative, I suspect the story wouldn't have made news at all if Trump hadn't said anything. It turns out the guy had links on his facebook account to taliban and al-qaeda websites, and his cousin attended mosque with a known terrorist. That triggered a red flag that got his visa canceled. So why was this even in the news at all?
This is the problem with the paper, apart from the sloppy uncertainties, there is no investigation as to the cause of the thrust.
Unless you have an "all other things being equal" baseline, science is basically worthless, so it makes sense do to things one at a time. What good would it be to try to determine what is causing thrust if we really have no idea if it is even producing thrust at all? Hence this is step 1. At least, that's what I'm getting out of this.
It probably didn't even work in that one case. Usually things that promise to get rid of colds only work because the cold was going to go away on its own anyways, like they always do, but then somebody takes the medication to "cure" it, and when the cold is gone, they get confirmation bias.
Likewise, warts do actually go away on their own in many cases, and furthermore, alcohol alone isn't enough to get rid of a wart (the "bump" you see on your skin is already dead, and alcohol will just clean the top of it but not remove anything.) The best way (in my experience) is to peel off the top layer of skin (pretty easy to do on a wart since it's damaged and weak), then put a drop of salicylic acid (compound w for example) on the exposed raw skin, and then cover it with duck tape, leaving it there for at least a week (do not change the tape; you need it to become rancid to encourage an immune response, which helps kill off the HPV virus that causes it.)
They go a bit beyond that though, namely they ban ownership of WWII memorabilia, goose-stepping or Hitler salutes (even when they're just being done mockingly or in jest.)
At any rate, this proposal sounds like SOPA. They're essentially expecting facebook to review every single post that somebody considers even mildly offensive, and I'll bet that some reviewer who is expected to cover high volume will take the "safer than sorry" approach and delete benign content.
Aren't there enough free radio sites operating perfectly legally to demonstrate that music sites can survive if only they pay the fucking royalties?
audiophiles
Oh shit. The only way this thread can end is in a bitter argument with audio snobs about how much popular music sucks. Well here's your preemptive FUCK YOU! FUCK ALL OF YOU!
What.CD was much more than that. I'm not a music snob nor an audiophile by any stretch, but I was a member for the past 2 years, and although I joined the site mainly so that I could get invites to other private trackers, I stuck around because they had some really neat stuff that you just couldn't find anywhere else. That, and there were a few indie and smaller labels that actually distributed their songs through What.CD.
I remember one thing I was impressed with was when I found a high quality rip of Where Eagles Dare by Misfits that sounded better than any other copy I heard, and you didn't need to even have good hearing or even good speakers to notice the difference. Having good quality rips of EVERYTHING was an ironclad rule that you won't ever find on other music sites, even legal ones. Amazon for example actually sells you MP3s that are upsampled, which was a HUGE no-no on What.CD, and it speaks volumes when paid music sites don't even have basic quality control, and a pirate site does.
I have an Asus P8Z77-V Pro. What you have to do is insert the NVMe UEFI module into a bios image provided by your manufacturer (for i.e. bios updates.) If you do that, you don't need to do any kind of grub bootstrapping or anything like that.
Some motherboards normally won't flash a bios image that isn't signed (it's a safety feature,) and mine is one of those, so you have to take advantage of the failed flash recovery feature, in my case it was putting the bios image on a fat32 USB drive and pressing a button on the motherboard while the system powers on.
The URL somebody else posted outlines really well how all of this works, but the exact steps vary from motherboard to motherboard, and you can do it with almost any motherboard that supports PCI-e 2.0 or better (though you need 3.0 or better to take advantage of the speed offered by these SSDs.)
By the way, M.2 is literally just a small form factor PCI-e x4. Any adapter will work just as well as another, regardless of price, as it's basically just a shim. I paid $17 for mine on Amazon:
Your PCs nonvolatile storage is one of the last things you can upgrade these days and notice a big difference in performance (the other being the GPU.)
I personally am still running an old sandy bridge i7 2600k CPU, and just hacked my UEFI to support booting to NVMe in order to use this ssd because it makes no sense to replace the motherboard/CPU/ram when they work perfectly fine.
Another fun thing about these is that there's no further use for drive bays, so you can totally gut them out and install two slow turning 240mm fans in the front of your case to make your PC silent.
Yes, but even if it's a threat, it's not necessarily illegal. There's quite a fine line between idle words and a credible threat. I don't know the exact legal standards, but I think in order for it to be actually prosecuted, there has to be some other evidence along with it to suggest that the person might reasonably carry it out.
Of course, the guy getting fired doesn't require any such standard -- the board of directors simply not liking it is enough.
I honestly think that on the "Nazi" scale, you rank much higher than the person you replied to. You've already demonstrated a much higher level of bigotry.
And on that point, Obama didn't really do much of anything to help the environment. We haven't reduced carbon output very much, and the amount we did reduce was mostly due to economics and not any particular vision or plan from the president.
He heavily promoted an attempt, namely the cash for clunkers program, though it was a huge waste of government money and even environmentalists weren't pleased with the results.
That's putting it likely; I'll bet that Hillary wants Assange's head on a pike. And to be honest, I'm not sure why anybody cares about him at all, to new he comes off as a total weasel.
Exactly. I really don't think Facebook played that big of a role. It's already been established that people on Facebook tend to form a social bubble where they're only exposed to their own ideas. So if those voters were seeing pro Trump messages, then it's very likely that this is already what they wanted to see to begin with.
I think that kind of thing is precisely the opposite of what we need. People who say that it's your civic duty or that it is patriotic to vote are wrong. I think that if you don't take the time to educate yourself about the candidates and the issues, then the responsible thing to do is to not vote at all.
Personally, if I see a name that I don't recognize on a ballot, then I won't vote at all on that office, I'll just leave it blank. I'm just not going to give an endorsement to somebody that I don't even know.
The patriotic and responsible thing is to make yourself an educated voter. Personally, I like the idea of some kind of test of knowledge of your given candidate's take on the issues or something like that in order for your vote to be counted, but it would be hard to implement without disenfranchising single issue voters, which are just as legitimate as anybody else.
Nonetheless, uneducated voters are part of why we get a choice between a douche and a turd every election.
While I have no sympathy for antivirus vendors, windows 10 does have a problem with replacing default applications on every major patch, and it's annoying as hell.
Literally every major patch, the stupid store and edge icons get placed on my taskbar, stupid edge is set to the default browser and default pdf viewer, and a ton of really annoying settings (like telemetry, peer to peer updates) are turned back to their defaults.
Personally, I'd love to see the antivirus industry succeed on this lawsuit, and things would only improve because I simply don't buy antivirus software.
Both may as well be true if every third article posted to slashdot for the next four years just talks about how America sucks now because...the president...
Seriously this is already starting to remind me of the crappy, overly dramatic/hyperbolic kdawson posts, which caused myself (and likely many others) to stop visiting slashdot because we'd rather read about tech rather than some dweeb share his chronic "politician induced" depression.
To be fair doctors are not supposed to pass moral judgements on their patients. That means that a criminal gets the same life saving treatment as a boy scout. Was this a waste of a good heart that could have helped someone that wasn't total scum instead of this guy? Yes, but was it right to withhold the treatment? I'm not sure that it was.
It's not a moral judgement, rather it's one based on their own statistical gathering. Organs are a very very finite resource, and in the face of any kind of limited resource, triage does in fact mean they have to make judgments. The transplant team likewise will not allow somebody to receive an organ if, based on a criteria that is the same for everybody, they determine that the person probably won't live long either because of personal recklessness or because they fail to maintain the graft (organ.) And yes, there's a LOT of maintenance involved.
In fact, when I got listed for kidney transplant, they looked back through my medical records to make sure that I was taking all of my medication exactly as prescribed. If I wasn't, then no graft. They also asked questions about criminal history, if I had any other terminal illnesses, if I abused alcohol, tobacco, and/or drugs. If the answer to any of this was yes, then no graft.
I had to personally meet with the head transplant surgeon as a final step for being listed, (everybody does at my transplant center) and he told me the reason for this is that every day his team has about 200 people come in needing graft removal, and a third of them are there simply because they didn't take their medication as prescribed. Those are the lucky ones though; a lot of them just plain die. These rules are meant to weed those people out, because if they didn't, those numbers would be much higher, and we'd have a lot of people in need of a graft while many people just waste perfectly good organs for no good reason.
As another poster mentioned, it's been done with West Virginia, but I think California would have much bigger shit than the law to deal with if it split off:
- Most of its essential resources come from neighboring states. Hell, Arizona alone (which Californian politicians often scoff at) provides California with 25% of its electricity. I'm curious how Silicon Valley would deal with that. Perhaps draw more power away from the more rural regions and charge them more money? Speak of which...
- Most of the landmass of California is in fact very red. They'd probably be able to take the major cities with them, but I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of the residents outside of those areas wouldn't be on board with this. But what do we need all of those rednecks for right? Well, you need farmland and farmers to eat.
This shit needs to just stop. Every god damn election there's this stupid talk about either going to Canada or seceding, and it's all a bunch of stupid bullshit, and I'm sick of it.
Besides, Shervin Pishevar is a first generation Iranian immigrant. Coming over here and then just demanding that we split up the country just because he doesn't like its politics is a real asshole move, and it's exactly this kind of asshole attitude that got an asshole like Trump elected.
but because the left was so quick to label anyone that supported him as a deplorable, racist, sexist, bigoted misogynist. People that are not any of those things don't like being labeled that. What we're seeing is the attempted suppression of opposition by the left failed and likely actually fueled votes that may not have happened otherwise.
The democrats, and especially the social justice crowd, has been highly bigoted against people who don't share their viewpoint. In my opinion, the most egregious example of it was this:
TL;DR: Kid gets denied heart transplant because of bad grades and long rap sheet. Doctors were accused of being racist, so he gets heart transplant anyways in spite of this happening to everybody, regardless of race (I personally was initially denied kidney transplant listing myself, though for health reasons which I later resolved.) Two years later, in a criminal rampage, the kid attempts to shoot an old lady in the head during a robery, flees the cops in a high speed chase, strikes a pedestrian, and then dies in a high speed collision with a lightpost. Meanwhile somebody else likely died while waiting for a heart transplant that should have been theirs. Thank you social justice.
This election will be the defining moment for these online millennials as they learn to deal and grow the fuck up.
I'm still wondering when slashdot will do that. Literally every summary posted somehow can't deal with the reality that its (obviously) favored side just fucking lost. In this case it blames facebook, of all fucking things.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there's some false information often interleaved with news stories in general. For example, about a year ago a muslim dude and his family had their visa to the US canceled, (they were going on a trip to Disneyland) and one of the major cable news channels I saw it aired on (I believe it was NBC) painted a narrative that it was because of Trump, even though Trump hadn't even been the republican nominee yet, and to this day still holds no political office.
Even for those outlets that didn't paint such a narrative, I suspect the story wouldn't have made news at all if Trump hadn't said anything. It turns out the guy had links on his facebook account to taliban and al-qaeda websites, and his cousin attended mosque with a known terrorist. That triggered a red flag that got his visa canceled. So why was this even in the news at all?
This is the problem with the paper, apart from the sloppy uncertainties, there is no investigation as to the cause of the thrust.
Unless you have an "all other things being equal" baseline, science is basically worthless, so it makes sense do to things one at a time. What good would it be to try to determine what is causing thrust if we really have no idea if it is even producing thrust at all? Hence this is step 1. At least, that's what I'm getting out of this.
It probably didn't even work in that one case. Usually things that promise to get rid of colds only work because the cold was going to go away on its own anyways, like they always do, but then somebody takes the medication to "cure" it, and when the cold is gone, they get confirmation bias.
Likewise, warts do actually go away on their own in many cases, and furthermore, alcohol alone isn't enough to get rid of a wart (the "bump" you see on your skin is already dead, and alcohol will just clean the top of it but not remove anything.) The best way (in my experience) is to peel off the top layer of skin (pretty easy to do on a wart since it's damaged and weak), then put a drop of salicylic acid (compound w for example) on the exposed raw skin, and then cover it with duck tape, leaving it there for at least a week (do not change the tape; you need it to become rancid to encourage an immune response, which helps kill off the HPV virus that causes it.)
They go a bit beyond that though, namely they ban ownership of WWII memorabilia, goose-stepping or Hitler salutes (even when they're just being done mockingly or in jest.)
At any rate, this proposal sounds like SOPA. They're essentially expecting facebook to review every single post that somebody considers even mildly offensive, and I'll bet that some reviewer who is expected to cover high volume will take the "safer than sorry" approach and delete benign content.
Aren't there enough free radio sites operating perfectly legally to demonstrate that music sites can survive if only they pay the fucking royalties?
audiophiles
Oh shit. The only way this thread can end is in a bitter argument with audio snobs about how much popular music sucks. Well here's your preemptive FUCK YOU! FUCK ALL OF YOU!
What.CD was much more than that. I'm not a music snob nor an audiophile by any stretch, but I was a member for the past 2 years, and although I joined the site mainly so that I could get invites to other private trackers, I stuck around because they had some really neat stuff that you just couldn't find anywhere else. That, and there were a few indie and smaller labels that actually distributed their songs through What.CD.
I remember one thing I was impressed with was when I found a high quality rip of Where Eagles Dare by Misfits that sounded better than any other copy I heard, and you didn't need to even have good hearing or even good speakers to notice the difference. Having good quality rips of EVERYTHING was an ironclad rule that you won't ever find on other music sites, even legal ones. Amazon for example actually sells you MP3s that are upsampled, which was a HUGE no-no on What.CD, and it speaks volumes when paid music sites don't even have basic quality control, and a pirate site does.
How do you refute a prediction about a future event without any evidence to confirm or deny?
And remember, Trump is pretty much unpredictable at this point.
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's a felony...period. Go read the statute.
No, you have no idea what you're talking about. Statute is notwithstanding because case law stipulates that it must be a credible threat:
http://law.justia.com/constitu...
Or a major auto manufacturer.
I have an Asus P8Z77-V Pro. What you have to do is insert the NVMe UEFI module into a bios image provided by your manufacturer (for i.e. bios updates.) If you do that, you don't need to do any kind of grub bootstrapping or anything like that.
Some motherboards normally won't flash a bios image that isn't signed (it's a safety feature,) and mine is one of those, so you have to take advantage of the failed flash recovery feature, in my case it was putting the bios image on a fat32 USB drive and pressing a button on the motherboard while the system powers on.
The URL somebody else posted outlines really well how all of this works, but the exact steps vary from motherboard to motherboard, and you can do it with almost any motherboard that supports PCI-e 2.0 or better (though you need 3.0 or better to take advantage of the speed offered by these SSDs.)
By the way, M.2 is literally just a small form factor PCI-e x4. Any adapter will work just as well as another, regardless of price, as it's basically just a shim. I paid $17 for mine on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d...
This.
Your PCs nonvolatile storage is one of the last things you can upgrade these days and notice a big difference in performance (the other being the GPU.)
I personally am still running an old sandy bridge i7 2600k CPU, and just hacked my UEFI to support booting to NVMe in order to use this ssd because it makes no sense to replace the motherboard/CPU/ram when they work perfectly fine.
Another fun thing about these is that there's no further use for drive bays, so you can totally gut them out and install two slow turning 240mm fans in the front of your case to make your PC silent.
Yes, but even if it's a threat, it's not necessarily illegal. There's quite a fine line between idle words and a credible threat. I don't know the exact legal standards, but I think in order for it to be actually prosecuted, there has to be some other evidence along with it to suggest that the person might reasonably carry it out.
Of course, the guy getting fired doesn't require any such standard -- the board of directors simply not liking it is enough.
Has the potential to be either much better or much worse. In other words, the office of the president has jitter.
I honestly think that on the "Nazi" scale, you rank much higher than the person you replied to. You've already demonstrated a much higher level of bigotry.
You know why Obama wanted it, of course.
http://www.eonline.com/news/28...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
And on that point, Obama didn't really do much of anything to help the environment. We haven't reduced carbon output very much, and the amount we did reduce was mostly due to economics and not any particular vision or plan from the president.
He heavily promoted an attempt, namely the cash for clunkers program, though it was a huge waste of government money and even environmentalists weren't pleased with the results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(That, and it caused the price of used cars to go way up for about a year.)
That's ok, so long as there are no guns in the country, then the country is safe.
That's putting it likely; I'll bet that Hillary wants Assange's head on a pike. And to be honest, I'm not sure why anybody cares about him at all, to new he comes off as a total weasel.
Exactly. I really don't think Facebook played that big of a role. It's already been established that people on Facebook tend to form a social bubble where they're only exposed to their own ideas. So if those voters were seeing pro Trump messages, then it's very likely that this is already what they wanted to see to begin with.
I think that kind of thing is precisely the opposite of what we need. People who say that it's your civic duty or that it is patriotic to vote are wrong. I think that if you don't take the time to educate yourself about the candidates and the issues, then the responsible thing to do is to not vote at all.
Personally, if I see a name that I don't recognize on a ballot, then I won't vote at all on that office, I'll just leave it blank. I'm just not going to give an endorsement to somebody that I don't even know.
The patriotic and responsible thing is to make yourself an educated voter. Personally, I like the idea of some kind of test of knowledge of your given candidate's take on the issues or something like that in order for your vote to be counted, but it would be hard to implement without disenfranchising single issue voters, which are just as legitimate as anybody else.
Nonetheless, uneducated voters are part of why we get a choice between a douche and a turd every election.
While I have no sympathy for antivirus vendors, windows 10 does have a problem with replacing default applications on every major patch, and it's annoying as hell.
Literally every major patch, the stupid store and edge icons get placed on my taskbar, stupid edge is set to the default browser and default pdf viewer, and a ton of really annoying settings (like telemetry, peer to peer updates) are turned back to their defaults.
Personally, I'd love to see the antivirus industry succeed on this lawsuit, and things would only improve because I simply don't buy antivirus software.
Both may as well be true if every third article posted to slashdot for the next four years just talks about how America sucks now because...the president...
Seriously this is already starting to remind me of the crappy, overly dramatic/hyperbolic kdawson posts, which caused myself (and likely many others) to stop visiting slashdot because we'd rather read about tech rather than some dweeb share his chronic "politician induced" depression.
To be fair doctors are not supposed to pass moral judgements on their patients. That means that a criminal gets the same life saving treatment as a boy scout. Was this a waste of a good heart that could have helped someone that wasn't total scum instead of this guy? Yes, but was it right to withhold the treatment? I'm not sure that it was.
It's not a moral judgement, rather it's one based on their own statistical gathering. Organs are a very very finite resource, and in the face of any kind of limited resource, triage does in fact mean they have to make judgments. The transplant team likewise will not allow somebody to receive an organ if, based on a criteria that is the same for everybody, they determine that the person probably won't live long either because of personal recklessness or because they fail to maintain the graft (organ.) And yes, there's a LOT of maintenance involved.
In fact, when I got listed for kidney transplant, they looked back through my medical records to make sure that I was taking all of my medication exactly as prescribed. If I wasn't, then no graft. They also asked questions about criminal history, if I had any other terminal illnesses, if I abused alcohol, tobacco, and/or drugs. If the answer to any of this was yes, then no graft.
I had to personally meet with the head transplant surgeon as a final step for being listed, (everybody does at my transplant center) and he told me the reason for this is that every day his team has about 200 people come in needing graft removal, and a third of them are there simply because they didn't take their medication as prescribed. Those are the lucky ones though; a lot of them just plain die. These rules are meant to weed those people out, because if they didn't, those numbers would be much higher, and we'd have a lot of people in need of a graft while many people just waste perfectly good organs for no good reason.
As another poster mentioned, it's been done with West Virginia, but I think California would have much bigger shit than the law to deal with if it split off:
- Most of its essential resources come from neighboring states. Hell, Arizona alone (which Californian politicians often scoff at) provides California with 25% of its electricity. I'm curious how Silicon Valley would deal with that. Perhaps draw more power away from the more rural regions and charge them more money? Speak of which...
- Most of the landmass of California is in fact very red. They'd probably be able to take the major cities with them, but I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of the residents outside of those areas wouldn't be on board with this. But what do we need all of those rednecks for right? Well, you need farmland and farmers to eat.
This shit needs to just stop. Every god damn election there's this stupid talk about either going to Canada or seceding, and it's all a bunch of stupid bullshit, and I'm sick of it.
Besides, Shervin Pishevar is a first generation Iranian immigrant. Coming over here and then just demanding that we split up the country just because he doesn't like its politics is a real asshole move, and it's exactly this kind of asshole attitude that got an asshole like Trump elected.
but because the left was so quick to label anyone that supported him as a deplorable, racist, sexist, bigoted misogynist. People that are not any of those things don't like being labeled that. What we're seeing is the attempted suppression of opposition by the left failed and likely actually fueled votes that may not have happened otherwise.
The word for this is bigotry.
https://www.google.com/search?...
The democrats, and especially the social justice crowd, has been highly bigoted against people who don't share their viewpoint. In my opinion, the most egregious example of it was this:
http://the-toast.net/2013/08/2...
Which only took two years to turn into this:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
TL;DR: Kid gets denied heart transplant because of bad grades and long rap sheet. Doctors were accused of being racist, so he gets heart transplant anyways in spite of this happening to everybody, regardless of race (I personally was initially denied kidney transplant listing myself, though for health reasons which I later resolved.) Two years later, in a criminal rampage, the kid attempts to shoot an old lady in the head during a robery, flees the cops in a high speed chase, strikes a pedestrian, and then dies in a high speed collision with a lightpost. Meanwhile somebody else likely died while waiting for a heart transplant that should have been theirs. Thank you social justice.
This election will be the defining moment for these online millennials as they learn to deal and grow the fuck up.
I'm still wondering when slashdot will do that. Literally every summary posted somehow can't deal with the reality that its (obviously) favored side just fucking lost. In this case it blames facebook, of all fucking things.