"The fact that she wants to get guns off the streets is the main thing. If the US follows in Australia's lead, it will bring the country out of the Wild West and into the modern world. "
So that we can be defenseless, as the Europeans are now finding out to their chagrin? At least Australia is an island, with no permeable land borders or with the whole ISIS guerrilla army just a few island hops away.
What, as opposed to the US, which is isolated by two oceans and even farther away than Australia is? Also, your gun policy is pretty weak for fighting terrorists - not only are people without practice horrible shots, they're not going to carry a pump action shot gun to the grocery store, and terrorists attack soft targets like schools or public squares, where not only will people be unlikely to carry them but even if you had one you'd be unable to effectively utilize it.
To give you guys some perspective, if you have a 20mbps connection a 600GB cap, that's approximately 60 or 70 hours, or about 3 day's worth. If you only use that connection speed during your 9-5 workday, that's still only about 8 days, or a little over a week. I understand that Slashdot and code merges don't eat that much, but any kind of streaming or video would do a connection like this in in about two or maybe three weeks if you're careful. Imagine if we had three major companies who made cars, all of which come with a driving cap of 200 miles and cost $50 for every 50 miles after. That's what we live in.
You got it. If the British had won, George Washington and the founding fathers would have gone down in history as "terrorists".
But they didn't win, and thus the truth remains well known. The British were the ones acting in tyrannical ways, not the colonists. Resisting the tyrannical urges of a government that puts their troops in your home, deprives you of self defense, refuses you a voice in parliament, arrests you for manufacturing finished goods and so on - resisting such is not "terrorism" even if the tyrant in question wants to call it that. Terrorism isn't in the eyes of the beholder, it's in the act of the beheader - the person who kills school teachers for teaching girls to read. Who send drugged young women into vegetable markets with bombs strapped to them. Who slaughter villages full of people for being insufficiently the right way about some particular twist or turn of believing in magic and some specific flavor of fantasy mythology.
Nobody cares if Taliban wants to call school teachers terrorists, because we know, and they know that's bullshit. We just care what they DO, and what they do is try to scare people into conducting their lives the way their religious say they should. Beard police! No dancing! Fly kites and die!
But see? You're absolutly dead set. You realize the Americans started the war because the the British lowered taxes, which damaged the smuggler's trade? They didn't object to the treaty keeping them west of the mountains because they ran out of space, but because the land was a few cents cheaper? That they were offered a representative, but refused because England was unwilling to move the British Parliment overseas? That George Washington looked down on his own militias as an unorganized bunch of idiots until a German commander put in the order and authority that he didn't/couldn't?
All of that was probably new information to you, and that's my point - conciously or not, we all live in our bubbles of how we percieve the world, and we tune out anything that doesn't fit that. I wouldn't mind at all had they narrowed it down a bit more, but simply preventing "terrorist content" is extremely vague and not at all helpful, and opens up the door to many kinds of abuse. This is especially so in a corporation, where there is no accountability, and our current political climate has seen all sorts of content labled as "terrorist" without any further explanation. War criminal? Terrorist. Petty criminal? Terrorist. Protester? Terrorist. Me, a slashdot commentator? Terrorist. I have no problem with them actually targeting the bastards who recruit and all, but the continuing trend towards labelling everything as terrorism because it's easier and doesn't have to be defended scares me far more than some idiot shouting Allah Akbar in a comment. How free is our society, really, when we have political prisoners imprisoned as - yup, you guessed it - terrorists? And before you say they're all from the middle east, or that they don't exist at all, take a look.
I only said that God is great. My thought and pray are with the victims and their family. Allahu akbar.
Why are you so racist?...assuming it meant a terrorist battle cry. You disgust me. Doing Islam apology so early without even knowing the facts.
You know damn well what you're insinuating, and you've been doing it all over this thread. It shows an extreme lack of taste or respect on your part, and what's even more sad is that you apparently have nothing better to do. You're the same kind of person that would think it funny to run around wearing swastikas, but if you'd ever survived any of these conflicts (which you almost certainly wouldn't), it wouldn't be nearly so funny. You're probably among the younger population of this world, and you should be very very thankful you never had to live through something like WWII or the Vietnam War, or the wars in the Middle East. While I don't like saying the gift of life is a waste, you have absolutely no appreciation for how lucky you are that you can piss around and post shit like this all day, without living in fear that this is the last day you're alive.
I wouldn't be too quick to put this is a terrorist attack. As someone else mentioned, it's much easier for them to bomb it at the airport, and terrorists crave media coverage - why would they blow it up in the middle of nowhere, especially if it's going to take a while to find? They could just be the stupid kind, but my bet would be on something else, perhaps an electrical failure of some sort. Them not having telemetric data is very very odd, most planes come loaded with it, and that furthers the case of this not being a bomb - I doubt a bomb could take out every single part of the aircraft, or rather, I don't think they could have snuck an explosive powerful enough to do that onboard. I would wait until we have more data to draw any conclusions.
What is up with not being able to disable ads on/.? If you are removing this feature, announce it. Don't just break it.
Interesting. The last several weeks it wasn't working for me, but it started to do so again about maybe a week ago. It appears to be broken for some users then, and work for others, although pretty arbitrairly...
Al-Qaeda killed thousands on 9/11 and is calling for more attacks. ISIL is also carrying out tremendous amounts of violence in the Middle East. Yet anyone who points out that Islam is inherently violent is called a bigot.
However, Christians who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding are put out of business and have threats made against their lives. Somehow society thinks it's okay to threaten Christians and claim that Christianity isn't a religion of peace.
Why is there a double standard?
Islam is inherently violent. Christianity is inherently peaceful. Christianity says to love your enemy. Islam says to kill Jews and Christians.
But anyone who points out these facts is labeled a bigot.
This is so out of touch it's painful to read. If Christianity is inherently peaceful, why did the crusades happen? Why did the Spanish Inquisition happen? Why does the Klu Klux Klan exist? Christianity is no more innherently peaceful than Islam is, but we are fortunate enough to live in the nicer parts of the world where we don't have to kill each other for control over the region's only watering hole. Back to the KKK, that's right, they claim to represent Protestants, and more generally see themselves as the righteous savoirs of Christianity. If someone dennounced Christianity as a religion of hatred based on the actions of the KKK, would you accept that? If not, then why the hell are terrorists claiming to represent muslims different?
I don't really believe in religion, so this debate isn't central to my life, but watching both sides go on and on about how evil the other is is absolutely stupid. We live in an area where we're supposed to be better educated about the world than ever before, and yet it's the same as always, the same irrational fear of outsiders that humans still suffer from. Where the hell is the tolerance and peacefulness you claim to practice?
I'm just so sick and tired of problems without solutions, and the google's abuse of YOUR privacy is an ENORMOUS problem, and it's only getting worse. However, there is an obvious solution, if only the google weren't so EVIL and would consider implementing it. Remember the google's new motto: "All your attention belong to us", but...
The solution would be an option to invert email storage while still supporting ads. Here is one obvious way to implement it:
The email is stored on your computer and analyzed on your computer. Candidate ads are available and your computer decides which ads to download in accord with YOUR preferences, not the google's.
That's just a short elevator-speech summary, but there are lots of options that could be added, and by clever use of the defaults, I'm sure that the google will still control us anyway. Notwithstanding, by offering the options, at least the google could defend itself from the lawsuit.
Let me give a pie-in-the-sky configuration that I would like: All my email would be copied to each of my computers that is large enough to hold it, but all encryption and decryption for the syncing would be done on my computers, and the google would only handle the message exchanges. If one of my computers (such as a smartphone) is too small, then the latest (or whitelisted) email would be stored on that device and I would be able to choose where that device would get older email if it needs to. I might want to leave one of my larger computers on line for that purpose, or I might choose to let google hold the email (with or without encryption), or I might choose to put the email database on an independent server that I trust (and in a country that I also trust, which would certainly NOT be Donald Trump's America).
The next optional improvement would fix the in-your-face model of advertising by auctioning a SMALL amount of my time for ads, but the google is way too EVIL to go there. Why would the google risk changing the game they are already winning? I think we have to pray for the google's destruction at this point... That seems to be the only real solution to the cancerous monster the google has become.
I believe a solution that's sort of similar to what you're going after already exists: Proton Mail. It's an email service that encrypts and decrypts mail locally, and only uses the mail part of the service to store it. As a bonus, it actually lacks ads completely - the only drawback is that space is somewhat limited. If Google bothers you, it's worth checking out.
Other than the guys doing things like CAD, you know office work... sure.
AutoCAD ran just fine on 32-bit computers with "older CPUs" for many years.
Um, a Pentium MMX? With 64 MB of RAM? The oldest version I can find official info on is AutoCAD 2004, which recommends (at minimum, mind you) 4x the RAM and a Pentium 4. Did you use the same version of AutoCAD for 20+ years, or what? They aren't obsoleting 32 bit processors, they're obsoleting a very small group of processors that can't even handle Windows XP.
It always worked reliably for me, very rarely it'd uncheck itself, but then I'd just recheck it and it'd be good for another 8 months. It's pretty irksome that it's useless now.
"If your teens would prefer writing poetry, alone, as opposed to going out to the theater, meeting friends for rolls or any of the other ways that teens build camaraderie, you may have a problem." - ancient Rome ~ 0AD
If you're addicted, by all means seek treatment, but honestly, most of this is simply another round of how decadent kids are, and this has been going for many thousands of years, probably since the first ever sucessful hunt. Furthermore, most of this is pales to a real addiction - if your symptoms are that you don't like being around others, how about we talk about being addicted to books? Being addicted to movies? Being addicted to schoolwork? Hell, being addicted to being an introvert? The symptoms are all the same. Undoubtly there are people who truly suffer from this, I'm not saying there aren't, but I suspect much of this to be overblown out of proportions.
I feel ashamed to think of all the years when I went on believing there was some distinction between predestination and free will. In fact, I'm now sure it's just a matter - once again - of us being fooled by our own language.
Imagine the universe from a God's eye point of view. Think of it as a four-dimensional space, with one dimension being time. (Physics suggests there are probably a lot more dimensions, but this simple model is sufficient). Now when (apologies for the meaningless use of "when", as time is a dimension within the universe) God creates the universe, it is complete: it contains, in His mind, everything that will ever happen. (Please note that this mental experiment does not depend at all on the existance of God). What does this do to free will? Well, it obviously destroys it completely. Imagine the Mississippi River, which notoriously meanders and turns back on itself for hundreds of miles. It creates curves, which become oxbow lakes, and then disappear again. Do you think the river has free will? Or could all of its elaborate changes be predicted, with enough knowledge of the physics and the initial conditions? Yet maybe if you were the river, you might like to think you had free will.
There is no contradiction here. We feel as if we have free will, yet our actions are mostly quite predictable. Ask yourself, "who is it that has free will?" Isn't it a rather old-fashioned picture that comes to mind, of a little person or imp sitting inside your head, choosing and making decisions for you? But even introspection shows (as David Hume testified) that there is no such little imp of identity. Our actions arise from the state of the whole organism from moment to moment. And if there seems to be an element of freedom, of indeterminacy, to them that may be because so very much of our thinking is unconscious.
I predict a very similar model, in that humans are ultimately made up of atoms, the building block of our universe. If you had the unlimited ability to see and know everything, then you would in theory be able to calculate each and every pulse of electricity to the brain, each and every counterpulse. In this manner, it would be possible for an omnipotent being to predict every single action, and so of course wouldn't have free will. However, what if such a being doesn't exist? If the universe truly is just pure existence, and there is no higher being watching, do we still have a set path? If there is no possible way for any individual being in our universe to know exactly what's going to happen, do we still have free will? In that case, I'd say yes - if there is no complete set of information on what exactly is going to happen when, then the knowledge for that doesn't exist, because information can only come into existence when someone knows it. If nobody has access to it, then we must have free will, because it can't be possible to predict the future correctly, and we can't follow a future that doesn't exist.
Furthermore, I have another point - even if the future is set, free will might still be able to exist. Free will is ultimately defined as the ability for us to choose between multiple possible outcomes. Even if you could calculate exactly which outcome would happen, humans still make the choice between possibilities. Perhaps it'd be easier to illustrate an example: imagine a boy walks into a store and is shopping for a pair of mittens. Let's say he's trying to make a decision between a pair of otherwise completely identical mittens, except that one pair is red and the other pair is dark blue. Let's say he's struggling to make the choice because his favorite color is red, but he wants to try something new and interesting. Because we're all omnipotent gods who can understand everything about this boy as well as the environment around him, we know he's going to pick the dark blue ones, but he doesn't. In his mind, he debates back and forth for several minutes, before eventually deciding on the dark blue ones. However, as observers, we never
Don't be a crybaby, it's vulgar. I'm on my second passport as I filled the first one up. Even as we speak I'm sitting in Maryland, getting ready to pack for another 24 hour journey to the other side of the world.
So child, hush when you're with your betters. You do know what a passport looks like, don't you ?
Given that I happen to own 4, I sure as hell would hope so. I'm also glad to see that apparently you're not a citizen of the United States, and yet you're passing through Maryland? You might wish to actually speak to some people there, you'd be amazed at what it can do for your (quite limited) worldview. As an exercise, given that you're supposedly traveling around the world, you perhaps might not mind sharing your destination? I'd like to know the part of Asia you live in where the work culture isn't as demanding as it is in the United States, and yes, I know what those standards are. So go ahead, feel free.
You have a pretty special degree of arrogance, that's pretty clear to me after only five sentences. I advise you to try treating people with some respect sometime, you'd be astounded how much it can improve your life.
Slashdot isn't here to cater to your personal tastes. If you're not interested in a particular story, just ignore it, you moron.
Yes, you are right of course. The users of a site (that is - the only ones who give that site any ability to make money via ads and paid accounts) should never, ever question any decision made by that site. They should certainly never question such things using the most reasonable and effective means available to them - by posting on that site using the Post button provided by the site itself. I mean, they should never get so carried away as to do something so strange and extreme!
By the way, you could apply your own logic about stories that get posted, to the comments that get posted. Perhaps posters of comments also aren't here to cater to your personal tastes, or your personal ideas of what they should or shouldn't post about. You could have ignored that.
Does that make you a moron? Or are you somehow... a special case?
You made a stupid and pointless comment, and now you're upset that some people think that? Stories that should be questioned have no relevance to technology, and this most certainly does. You haven't even backed up your point at all besides "eh, I don't like it", and guess what, that's not a good reason for a public newsfeed. Furthermore, you don't have the right to challenge him, because you begged the question:
Can anyone give me a good answer as to how this affects anyone other than the 10 year old? I don't think you can.
He was responding to your invitation, so don't even start that he should ignore you. Furthermore, as an anon, you clearly checked back to see if he wrote because you wouldn't get a notification - so not only do you care enough to read the story, not only do you care enough to write an irate comment, but you cared enough to check back and see if anyone had responded. Let's all be honest here, you're a cranky person suffering from a hangover and came here looking to pick a fight, not to contribute anything to the discussion.
If Americans actually, you know, got passpoets and travelled further than Vegas or Mexico then they might start seeing through the bullshit they get fed about USA Numba Wun !!!!
Apart from the bruised egos when they start working out how low down the world totem pole most of them actually are, it would create unrest and disatisfaction with their battery hen lives and their corporate overlords can't have that !
It's pretty rich of you to remark on the lack of world traveling experience because clearly neither of you have ever engaged in it. People take college right away because you have to write applications in the United States, which are easiest to do in your high school year with the guidance provided by your school because the college has to accept the student first. Now that colleges are increasingly embracing the idea and letting their students postpone by a year while still being accepted, you get the best of both worlds.
But no, of course you wouldn't know that, because you very clearly didn't fucking do even the most basic and cursory amount of research, which would make you a poor fit for a college in any country. US society has plenty of flaws, so it really shouldn't be too much to ask you to pick a legitimate topic out of 97,879. Of course, I could also remark how both of you write with the development of a 6 year old, but I suppose even that would an insult to the first grader.
The IWB is a well-intentioned organisation, but they have no accountability whatsoever. They publish a list of links they claim are child abuse imagery, and ISPs block what's on the list - but the list, for obvious reasons, is super-secret. The processes by which the list is generated is also secret - even those who are put on the list are not informed that they are now on the list. Some (not all) ISPs actively try to prevent those who are censored from finding out by spoofing 404 error page rather than explaining that a deliberate block is in place - they certainly aren't going to contact the site operator. Even if someone wrongly blocked finds out (as happened with Wikipedia only because the block process inadvertently broke the site) there is no appeals process in place. That's a lot of power for an unaccountable and opaque organisation.
This is my primary concern as well. Child pornography is something that should be prevented, but people are going overboard with this - it's in the same vein as the war on terrorism. Child pornography is definitely despicable, but most of the efforts against it are either extremely creepy - such as this, handing over power to an almost completely unknown organization - or evoke incredible amounts of self-righteousness, especially when people start accusing each other of this crime without any proof. Between the overreach of trying to stop, it's hard to say you support, especially when the countries most against it consume almost all of it.
Furthermore, the approach we use today is fundamentally flawed. Currently, we try to block all images of it, but we can only target those existence that we know of - and even then, it's trivial to add an extra byte here and there to through of the checksumming. This creates a drive to make more of it, which more people get, before that too gets blocked. It's very profitable for these businesses and only encourages the cycle, so with all these programs in effect we're making the problem worse and worse. Most shockingly of all, when you legalize child porn, rates of it actually go down, and sex abuse goes much farther down. Given what we know about ancient societies, where children also engaged in sex and didn't show any signs of being traumatized, it's a really hard issue to grasp, because all of the morals we grew up with are being disproved by numbers. If it weren't for the fact I'd be put on a government watchlist for the rest of my life, I might even suggest that perhaps the issue is more complex than we think.
US Spy Court Didn't Reject a Single Government Surveillance Request In 2015
Of course they didn't, why would they? This "court" is well known to be a Kangaroo Court with a specific purpose of rubber-stamping all that is put before it. This, and the continued existence of the so-called "Patriot Act" are why I, a life-long liberal who made the mistake of voting for Mr. Obama twice, will not be voting for his almost certain successor, the slimy Hilary Clinton. What a corrupt political landscape where a man like Donald Trump is truly the lessor of two evils...
Who would you have picked in Obama's place? Mitt Romney? Obama's hardly the best president we've ever had, but he's hardly the worst either. If you want to vote for Trump, then alright, but . Trump either has absolutely no idea what he's talking about (most likely), or he's seriously talking about shutting down Twitter and Facebook, which I highly doubt. Hillary Clinton will further push spy programs down our throat, but Donald Trump would undoubtly rubberstamp any bill on it because he can't oppose everything other people do. Hillary Clinton might at least backdown if the response is strong enough because her whole campaign for 12+ years has been changing direction as soon as any hint of controversy appears. What I'm trying to say is that she might realize that most people are strongly opposed to it and stop such a program because she fears for her already battered public perception, whereas Trump has no qualms about holding a stupid view.
Quite honestly, no major candidate has a good policy towards internet privacy, there is no choice we can make this election cycle. Our best bet is to hope someone comes around in 2020 with a better view, and to continue to create a mess for the government until such a person arrives. If we're going to lose this fight, I'd at least want to win our other battles, and I think a president who has absolutely no clue how to do his job and thinks closing our borders and sticking our heads in the sand is how we improve our society is a fool.
1812 wasn't a war involving Canada-as-a-country, since it wasn't even a country back then.
It was a war between the US and the UK. The people of Canada lost, having to remain loyal subjects of a foreign crown. Canada is lucky not to have turned that bad over the years, but back then it was still a big loss for Canada, just like if the US lost its independence war.
Lol, Canada wasn't a country back then, but neither was the US. You were just a collection of loose colonies or that fact isn't taught in school anymore ? As for the people of Canada having lost, Jesus man the colonists up north didn't want regime change. That's why they sided with the crown and beat you up. They couldn't give a rat's ass about your revolutionary ideals.
The motto of the US should be : We've been in the regime change business, since 1777.
Seems nothing has changed since then eh ? Born bullies, always bullies.
You failed to understand his point. There was no "Canada" - there were British settlers who lived north of the United States. When the US rebelled, they came up with a new name and established themselves as an independant country, which the world eventually recognized. Canada at the time was simply unclaimed land and didn't become a country for many years later. Your argument makes about as much sense as saying the United States teamed up with England to fight the French in the colonial wars. It makes no sense because the United States didn't exist at the time, they were just British subjects, and the same goes for Canada at that time.
Also, might I point out something? You irrationally assume every American is aggressive and bullying, you assume this list was drafted by every citizen of the United States, and you display a sense of nationalism far greater than mine. I have met many Canadians and on the whole found them to be friendly, polite, and pretty well educated. You, however, are the exception to this - you don't see the irony in accusing Americans of being xenophobic when you're the one who started this, you have no sense of class to deliver your argument professionally, and your best attack is a pathetic barb on a healthcare system you clearly don't understand (in fact, you don't even understand your own.)
What, because they refused to bow down and enforce the US's laws in their territory? That's worthy of being placed on an international watchlist now - at the same level as Russia and China, no less?
Words cannot explain the brilliance of this post. Well done.
Nah, this is a pretty old post, I remember it being pretty popular a few years back. It's a good one, but pretty stale, I wish people put in at least enough effort to be original - or at absolute minimum, to be something more than a crappy repost. (pun most certainly intended)
As always, make sure you check haveibeenpwned to see if you're affected. For those who are, please be absolutely sure to change your passwords as md5 isn't secure anymore. If that's a huge hassle, then you've been reusing the same password - a big no-no, take this opportunity to use multiple. Not only will it make your life much more secure, but it makes situations such as these much easier, and you'll be glad you did so next time.
Yeah, if prefer mud and slush to nice powdery snow
Same. California used to be nice and warm, but some parts have become unbearably hot during the summer, and the drought devestated the area I lived in after I moved away. Furthermore, many of us quite like the rain and snow - you'd be suprised how many people leave Hawaii or Arizona after the weather gets old.
Bullshit. If kids learn critical thinking and have all the facts they turn out conservative. When they don't have the facts, they turn more liberal and later when they get older and wiser become more conservative. Why would the right wing be opposed to that?
The problem with bad teachers is that the kids aren't learning much of anything. It really is no more complicated than that.
Except for the fact that the well educated parts of the US consistently turn out more liberal people, well educated countries turn out more liberal people, and liberalism in general is much more flexible with new information that conservatism.
I'm not here to debate the two, but liberalism vs conservatism usually comes down to a matter of mental flexibility. Places which are conservative (the plain states, the south) are usually poorer states with fewer people, many of whom live in isolation. They become much less comfortable dealing with new information or ideas, and old people in general have problems with that as they advance in age.
You can debate which one is better, but saying that conservatism comes with knowing all the facts or with quality education is almost completely wrong, as the complete opposite is usually true.
NK doesn't threaten to attack the US, it says that any attack BY the US will be met will a strong defence.
Anyway, this is a great step forward for peace, surely. Mutually Assured Destruction is a key to stopping devastating conventional wars, so any state that is threatened by the US should seek long range nuclear weapons. You can't argue that only the good guys get nukes, that's not how MAD works.
Oh yes they have. I'm pretty sure I recall San Francisco being mentioned as well. Your theory also fails to take into account they're ruled by a megalomaniac dictator who's not exactly in the most stable state of mind. While I have doubts they'd actually be fired, it only takes one nationalistic soldier to press the button and BOOM! Both Koreas and a chunk of China forever destroyed.
Between the incredible amounts of money they hoard and the iron fist they exert for control, the MPAA strikes me as far closer to something resembling a pirate than the loner in his basement who downloads a movie on Friday nights. Honestly, I think the MPAA should be forced to prove their victim would have bought the material otherwise, if they didn't have the opportunity to pirate it. That's the say, I don't think it's illegal to pirate a movie that's unavailable legitimately, because then there's no loss or damage that occurs, and somebody who's on minimum wage wouldn't even be worth extorting by law anyway. Between the idiotic DMCA appeals in which they steal other people's money with no obligation to return it, this stupid game of trying to blackmail ISPs, and the outright moronic way they calculate damages and laws, I regard the MPAA as far more of a villain than the end users they're targeting, and I say this as both a content creator and as someone who dislikes piracy.
The internet is regarded as a utility in some places, and it's being considered as a possibility inside the United States; would the MPAA be interested in cutting off people's phone service next? Their electricity, perhaps?
Slashdot Mirror
"The fact that she wants to get guns off the streets is the main thing. If the US follows in Australia's lead, it will bring the country out of the Wild West and into the modern world. "
So that we can be defenseless, as the Europeans are now finding out to their chagrin? At least Australia is an island, with no permeable land borders or with the whole ISIS guerrilla army just a few island hops away.
What, as opposed to the US, which is isolated by two oceans and even farther away than Australia is? Also, your gun policy is pretty weak for fighting terrorists - not only are people without practice horrible shots, they're not going to carry a pump action shot gun to the grocery store, and terrorists attack soft targets like schools or public squares, where not only will people be unlikely to carry them but even if you had one you'd be unable to effectively utilize it.
To give you guys some perspective, if you have a 20mbps connection a 600GB cap, that's approximately 60 or 70 hours, or about 3 day's worth. If you only use that connection speed during your 9-5 workday, that's still only about 8 days, or a little over a week. I understand that Slashdot and code merges don't eat that much, but any kind of streaming or video would do a connection like this in in about two or maybe three weeks if you're careful. Imagine if we had three major companies who made cars, all of which come with a driving cap of 200 miles and cost $50 for every 50 miles after. That's what we live in.
You got it. If the British had won, George Washington and the founding fathers would have gone down in history as "terrorists".
But they didn't win, and thus the truth remains well known. The British were the ones acting in tyrannical ways, not the colonists. Resisting the tyrannical urges of a government that puts their troops in your home, deprives you of self defense, refuses you a voice in parliament, arrests you for manufacturing finished goods and so on - resisting such is not "terrorism" even if the tyrant in question wants to call it that. Terrorism isn't in the eyes of the beholder, it's in the act of the beheader - the person who kills school teachers for teaching girls to read. Who send drugged young women into vegetable markets with bombs strapped to them. Who slaughter villages full of people for being insufficiently the right way about some particular twist or turn of believing in magic and some specific flavor of fantasy mythology. Nobody cares if Taliban wants to call school teachers terrorists, because we know, and they know that's bullshit. We just care what they DO, and what they do is try to scare people into conducting their lives the way their religious say they should. Beard police! No dancing! Fly kites and die!
But see? You're absolutly dead set. You realize the Americans started the war because the the British lowered taxes, which damaged the smuggler's trade? They didn't object to the treaty keeping them west of the mountains because they ran out of space, but because the land was a few cents cheaper? That they were offered a representative, but refused because England was unwilling to move the British Parliment overseas? That George Washington looked down on his own militias as an unorganized bunch of idiots until a German commander put in the order and authority that he didn't/couldn't?
All of that was probably new information to you, and that's my point - conciously or not, we all live in our bubbles of how we percieve the world, and we tune out anything that doesn't fit that. I wouldn't mind at all had they narrowed it down a bit more, but simply preventing "terrorist content" is extremely vague and not at all helpful, and opens up the door to many kinds of abuse. This is especially so in a corporation, where there is no accountability, and our current political climate has seen all sorts of content labled as "terrorist" without any further explanation. War criminal? Terrorist. Petty criminal? Terrorist. Protester? Terrorist. Me, a slashdot commentator? Terrorist. I have no problem with them actually targeting the bastards who recruit and all, but the continuing trend towards labelling everything as terrorism because it's easier and doesn't have to be defended scares me far more than some idiot shouting Allah Akbar in a comment. How free is our society, really, when we have political prisoners imprisoned as - yup, you guessed it - terrorists? And before you say they're all from the middle east, or that they don't exist at all, take a look.
I only said that God is great. My thought and pray are with the victims and their family. Allahu akbar.
Why are you so racist? ...assuming it meant a terrorist battle cry. You disgust me. Doing Islam apology so early without even knowing the facts.
You know damn well what you're insinuating, and you've been doing it all over this thread. It shows an extreme lack of taste or respect on your part, and what's even more sad is that you apparently have nothing better to do. You're the same kind of person that would think it funny to run around wearing swastikas, but if you'd ever survived any of these conflicts (which you almost certainly wouldn't), it wouldn't be nearly so funny. You're probably among the younger population of this world, and you should be very very thankful you never had to live through something like WWII or the Vietnam War, or the wars in the Middle East. While I don't like saying the gift of life is a waste, you have absolutely no appreciation for how lucky you are that you can piss around and post shit like this all day, without living in fear that this is the last day you're alive.
I wouldn't be too quick to put this is a terrorist attack. As someone else mentioned, it's much easier for them to bomb it at the airport, and terrorists crave media coverage - why would they blow it up in the middle of nowhere, especially if it's going to take a while to find? They could just be the stupid kind, but my bet would be on something else, perhaps an electrical failure of some sort. Them not having telemetric data is very very odd, most planes come loaded with it, and that furthers the case of this not being a bomb - I doubt a bomb could take out every single part of the aircraft, or rather, I don't think they could have snuck an explosive powerful enough to do that onboard. I would wait until we have more data to draw any conclusions.
What is up with not being able to disable ads on /.? If you are removing this feature, announce it. Don't just break it.
Interesting. The last several weeks it wasn't working for me, but it started to do so again about maybe a week ago. It appears to be broken for some users then, and work for others, although pretty arbitrairly...
Al-Qaeda killed thousands on 9/11 and is calling for more attacks. ISIL is also carrying out tremendous amounts of violence in the Middle East. Yet anyone who points out that Islam is inherently violent is called a bigot.
However, Christians who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding are put out of business and have threats made against their lives. Somehow society thinks it's okay to threaten Christians and claim that Christianity isn't a religion of peace.
Why is there a double standard?
Islam is inherently violent. Christianity is inherently peaceful. Christianity says to love your enemy. Islam says to kill Jews and Christians.
But anyone who points out these facts is labeled a bigot.
This is so out of touch it's painful to read. If Christianity is inherently peaceful, why did the crusades happen? Why did the Spanish Inquisition happen? Why does the Klu Klux Klan exist? Christianity is no more innherently peaceful than Islam is, but we are fortunate enough to live in the nicer parts of the world where we don't have to kill each other for control over the region's only watering hole. Back to the KKK, that's right, they claim to represent Protestants, and more generally see themselves as the righteous savoirs of Christianity. If someone dennounced Christianity as a religion of hatred based on the actions of the KKK, would you accept that? If not, then why the hell are terrorists claiming to represent muslims different?
I don't really believe in religion, so this debate isn't central to my life, but watching both sides go on and on about how evil the other is is absolutely stupid. We live in an area where we're supposed to be better educated about the world than ever before, and yet it's the same as always, the same irrational fear of outsiders that humans still suffer from. Where the hell is the tolerance and peacefulness you claim to practice?
I'm just so sick and tired of problems without solutions, and the google's abuse of YOUR privacy is an ENORMOUS problem, and it's only getting worse. However, there is an obvious solution, if only the google weren't so EVIL and would consider implementing it. Remember the google's new motto: "All your attention belong to us", but...
The solution would be an option to invert email storage while still supporting ads. Here is one obvious way to implement it:
The email is stored on your computer and analyzed on your computer. Candidate ads are available and your computer decides which ads to download in accord with YOUR preferences, not the google's.
That's just a short elevator-speech summary, but there are lots of options that could be added, and by clever use of the defaults, I'm sure that the google will still control us anyway. Notwithstanding, by offering the options, at least the google could defend itself from the lawsuit.
Let me give a pie-in-the-sky configuration that I would like: All my email would be copied to each of my computers that is large enough to hold it, but all encryption and decryption for the syncing would be done on my computers, and the google would only handle the message exchanges. If one of my computers (such as a smartphone) is too small, then the latest (or whitelisted) email would be stored on that device and I would be able to choose where that device would get older email if it needs to. I might want to leave one of my larger computers on line for that purpose, or I might choose to let google hold the email (with or without encryption), or I might choose to put the email database on an independent server that I trust (and in a country that I also trust, which would certainly NOT be Donald Trump's America).
The next optional improvement would fix the in-your-face model of advertising by auctioning a SMALL amount of my time for ads, but the google is way too EVIL to go there. Why would the google risk changing the game they are already winning? I think we have to pray for the google's destruction at this point... That seems to be the only real solution to the cancerous monster the google has become.
I believe a solution that's sort of similar to what you're going after already exists: Proton Mail. It's an email service that encrypts and decrypts mail locally, and only uses the mail part of the service to store it. As a bonus, it actually lacks ads completely - the only drawback is that space is somewhat limited. If Google bothers you, it's worth checking out.
Other than the guys doing things like CAD, you know office work... sure.
AutoCAD ran just fine on 32-bit computers with "older CPUs" for many years.
Um, a Pentium MMX? With 64 MB of RAM? The oldest version I can find official info on is AutoCAD 2004, which recommends (at minimum, mind you) 4x the RAM and a Pentium 4. Did you use the same version of AutoCAD for 20+ years, or what? They aren't obsoleting 32 bit processors, they're obsoleting a very small group of processors that can't even handle Windows XP.
To be fair, it never actually worked. Not for me.
It always worked reliably for me, very rarely it'd uncheck itself, but then I'd just recheck it and it'd be good for another 8 months. It's pretty irksome that it's useless now.
"If your teens would prefer writing poetry, alone, as opposed to going out to the theater, meeting friends for rolls or any of the other ways that teens build camaraderie, you may have a problem." - ancient Rome ~ 0AD
If you're addicted, by all means seek treatment, but honestly, most of this is simply another round of how decadent kids are, and this has been going for many thousands of years, probably since the first ever sucessful hunt. Furthermore, most of this is pales to a real addiction - if your symptoms are that you don't like being around others, how about we talk about being addicted to books? Being addicted to movies? Being addicted to schoolwork? Hell, being addicted to being an introvert? The symptoms are all the same. Undoubtly there are people who truly suffer from this, I'm not saying there aren't, but I suspect much of this to be overblown out of proportions.
I feel ashamed to think of all the years when I went on believing there was some distinction between predestination and free will. In fact, I'm now sure it's just a matter - once again - of us being fooled by our own language.
Imagine the universe from a God's eye point of view. Think of it as a four-dimensional space, with one dimension being time. (Physics suggests there are probably a lot more dimensions, but this simple model is sufficient). Now when (apologies for the meaningless use of "when", as time is a dimension within the universe) God creates the universe, it is complete: it contains, in His mind, everything that will ever happen. (Please note that this mental experiment does not depend at all on the existance of God). What does this do to free will? Well, it obviously destroys it completely. Imagine the Mississippi River, which notoriously meanders and turns back on itself for hundreds of miles. It creates curves, which become oxbow lakes, and then disappear again. Do you think the river has free will? Or could all of its elaborate changes be predicted, with enough knowledge of the physics and the initial conditions? Yet maybe if you were the river, you might like to think you had free will.
There is no contradiction here. We feel as if we have free will, yet our actions are mostly quite predictable. Ask yourself, "who is it that has free will?" Isn't it a rather old-fashioned picture that comes to mind, of a little person or imp sitting inside your head, choosing and making decisions for you? But even introspection shows (as David Hume testified) that there is no such little imp of identity. Our actions arise from the state of the whole organism from moment to moment. And if there seems to be an element of freedom, of indeterminacy, to them that may be because so very much of our thinking is unconscious.
I predict a very similar model, in that humans are ultimately made up of atoms, the building block of our universe. If you had the unlimited ability to see and know everything, then you would in theory be able to calculate each and every pulse of electricity to the brain, each and every counterpulse. In this manner, it would be possible for an omnipotent being to predict every single action, and so of course wouldn't have free will. However, what if such a being doesn't exist? If the universe truly is just pure existence, and there is no higher being watching, do we still have a set path? If there is no possible way for any individual being in our universe to know exactly what's going to happen, do we still have free will? In that case, I'd say yes - if there is no complete set of information on what exactly is going to happen when, then the knowledge for that doesn't exist, because information can only come into existence when someone knows it. If nobody has access to it, then we must have free will, because it can't be possible to predict the future correctly, and we can't follow a future that doesn't exist.
Furthermore, I have another point - even if the future is set, free will might still be able to exist. Free will is ultimately defined as the ability for us to choose between multiple possible outcomes. Even if you could calculate exactly which outcome would happen, humans still make the choice between possibilities. Perhaps it'd be easier to illustrate an example: imagine a boy walks into a store and is shopping for a pair of mittens. Let's say he's trying to make a decision between a pair of otherwise completely identical mittens, except that one pair is red and the other pair is dark blue. Let's say he's struggling to make the choice because his favorite color is red, but he wants to try something new and interesting. Because we're all omnipotent gods who can understand everything about this boy as well as the environment around him, we know he's going to pick the dark blue ones, but he doesn't. In his mind, he debates back and forth for several minutes, before eventually deciding on the dark blue ones. However, as observers, we never
Don't be a crybaby, it's vulgar. I'm on my second passport as I filled the first one up. Even as we speak I'm sitting in Maryland, getting ready to pack for another 24 hour journey to the other side of the world.
So child, hush when you're with your betters. You do know what a passport looks like, don't you ?
Given that I happen to own 4, I sure as hell would hope so. I'm also glad to see that apparently you're not a citizen of the United States, and yet you're passing through Maryland? You might wish to actually speak to some people there, you'd be amazed at what it can do for your (quite limited) worldview. As an exercise, given that you're supposedly traveling around the world, you perhaps might not mind sharing your destination? I'd like to know the part of Asia you live in where the work culture isn't as demanding as it is in the United States, and yes, I know what those standards are. So go ahead, feel free.
You have a pretty special degree of arrogance, that's pretty clear to me after only five sentences. I advise you to try treating people with some respect sometime, you'd be astounded how much it can improve your life.
Slashdot isn't here to cater to your personal tastes. If you're not interested in a particular story, just ignore it, you moron.
Yes, you are right of course. The users of a site (that is - the only ones who give that site any ability to make money via ads and paid accounts) should never, ever question any decision made by that site. They should certainly never question such things using the most reasonable and effective means available to them - by posting on that site using the Post button provided by the site itself. I mean, they should never get so carried away as to do something so strange and extreme!
By the way, you could apply your own logic about stories that get posted, to the comments that get posted. Perhaps posters of comments also aren't here to cater to your personal tastes, or your personal ideas of what they should or shouldn't post about. You could have ignored that.
Does that make you a moron? Or are you somehow ... a special case?
You made a stupid and pointless comment, and now you're upset that some people think that? Stories that should be questioned have no relevance to technology, and this most certainly does. You haven't even backed up your point at all besides "eh, I don't like it", and guess what, that's not a good reason for a public newsfeed. Furthermore, you don't have the right to challenge him, because you begged the question:
Can anyone give me a good answer as to how this affects anyone other than the 10 year old? I don't think you can.
He was responding to your invitation, so don't even start that he should ignore you. Furthermore, as an anon, you clearly checked back to see if he wrote because you wouldn't get a notification - so not only do you care enough to read the story, not only do you care enough to write an irate comment, but you cared enough to check back and see if anyone had responded. Let's all be honest here, you're a cranky person suffering from a hangover and came here looking to pick a fight, not to contribute anything to the discussion.
This.
If Americans actually, you know, got passpoets and travelled further than Vegas or Mexico then they might start seeing through the bullshit they get fed about USA Numba Wun !!!!
Apart from the bruised egos when they start working out how low down the world totem pole most of them actually are, it would create unrest and disatisfaction with their battery hen lives and their corporate overlords can't have that !
It's pretty rich of you to remark on the lack of world traveling experience because clearly neither of you have ever engaged in it. People take college right away because you have to write applications in the United States, which are easiest to do in your high school year with the guidance provided by your school because the college has to accept the student first. Now that colleges are increasingly embracing the idea and letting their students postpone by a year while still being accepted, you get the best of both worlds.
But no, of course you wouldn't know that, because you very clearly didn't fucking do even the most basic and cursory amount of research, which would make you a poor fit for a college in any country. US society has plenty of flaws, so it really shouldn't be too much to ask you to pick a legitimate topic out of 97,879. Of course, I could also remark how both of you write with the development of a 6 year old, but I suppose even that would an insult to the first grader.
The IWB is a well-intentioned organisation, but they have no accountability whatsoever. They publish a list of links they claim are child abuse imagery, and ISPs block what's on the list - but the list, for obvious reasons, is super-secret. The processes by which the list is generated is also secret - even those who are put on the list are not informed that they are now on the list. Some (not all) ISPs actively try to prevent those who are censored from finding out by spoofing 404 error page rather than explaining that a deliberate block is in place - they certainly aren't going to contact the site operator. Even if someone wrongly blocked finds out (as happened with Wikipedia only because the block process inadvertently broke the site) there is no appeals process in place. That's a lot of power for an unaccountable and opaque organisation.
This is my primary concern as well. Child pornography is something that should be prevented, but people are going overboard with this - it's in the same vein as the war on terrorism. Child pornography is definitely despicable, but most of the efforts against it are either extremely creepy - such as this, handing over power to an almost completely unknown organization - or evoke incredible amounts of self-righteousness, especially when people start accusing each other of this crime without any proof. Between the overreach of trying to stop, it's hard to say you support, especially when the countries most against it consume almost all of it.
Furthermore, the approach we use today is fundamentally flawed. Currently, we try to block all images of it, but we can only target those existence that we know of - and even then, it's trivial to add an extra byte here and there to through of the checksumming. This creates a drive to make more of it, which more people get, before that too gets blocked. It's very profitable for these businesses and only encourages the cycle, so with all these programs in effect we're making the problem worse and worse. Most shockingly of all, when you legalize child porn, rates of it actually go down, and sex abuse goes much farther down. Given what we know about ancient societies, where children also engaged in sex and didn't show any signs of being traumatized, it's a really hard issue to grasp, because all of the morals we grew up with are being disproved by numbers. If it weren't for the fact I'd be put on a government watchlist for the rest of my life, I might even suggest that perhaps the issue is more complex than we think.
US Spy Court Didn't Reject a Single Government Surveillance Request In 2015
Of course they didn't, why would they? This "court" is well known to be a Kangaroo Court with a specific purpose of rubber-stamping all that is put before it. This, and the continued existence of the so-called "Patriot Act" are why I, a life-long liberal who made the mistake of voting for Mr. Obama twice, will not be voting for his almost certain successor, the slimy Hilary Clinton. What a corrupt political landscape where a man like Donald Trump is truly the lessor of two evils...
Who would you have picked in Obama's place? Mitt Romney? Obama's hardly the best president we've ever had, but he's hardly the worst either. If you want to vote for Trump, then alright, but . Trump either has absolutely no idea what he's talking about (most likely), or he's seriously talking about shutting down Twitter and Facebook, which I highly doubt. Hillary Clinton will further push spy programs down our throat, but Donald Trump would undoubtly rubberstamp any bill on it because he can't oppose everything other people do. Hillary Clinton might at least backdown if the response is strong enough because her whole campaign for 12+ years has been changing direction as soon as any hint of controversy appears. What I'm trying to say is that she might realize that most people are strongly opposed to it and stop such a program because she fears for her already battered public perception, whereas Trump has no qualms about holding a stupid view.
Quite honestly, no major candidate has a good policy towards internet privacy, there is no choice we can make this election cycle. Our best bet is to hope someone comes around in 2020 with a better view, and to continue to create a mess for the government until such a person arrives. If we're going to lose this fight, I'd at least want to win our other battles, and I think a president who has absolutely no clue how to do his job and thinks closing our borders and sticking our heads in the sand is how we improve our society is a fool.
1812 wasn't a war involving Canada-as-a-country, since it wasn't even a country back then. It was a war between the US and the UK. The people of Canada lost, having to remain loyal subjects of a foreign crown. Canada is lucky not to have turned that bad over the years, but back then it was still a big loss for Canada, just like if the US lost its independence war.
Lol, Canada wasn't a country back then, but neither was the US. You were just a collection of loose colonies or that fact isn't taught in school anymore ? As for the people of Canada having lost, Jesus man the colonists up north didn't want regime change. That's why they sided with the crown and beat you up. They couldn't give a rat's ass about your revolutionary ideals.
The motto of the US should be : We've been in the regime change business, since 1777. Seems nothing has changed since then eh ? Born bullies, always bullies.
You failed to understand his point. There was no "Canada" - there were British settlers who lived north of the United States. When the US rebelled, they came up with a new name and established themselves as an independant country, which the world eventually recognized. Canada at the time was simply unclaimed land and didn't become a country for many years later. Your argument makes about as much sense as saying the United States teamed up with England to fight the French in the colonial wars. It makes no sense because the United States didn't exist at the time, they were just British subjects, and the same goes for Canada at that time. Also, might I point out something? You irrationally assume every American is aggressive and bullying, you assume this list was drafted by every citizen of the United States, and you display a sense of nationalism far greater than mine. I have met many Canadians and on the whole found them to be friendly, polite, and pretty well educated. You, however, are the exception to this - you don't see the irony in accusing Americans of being xenophobic when you're the one who started this, you have no sense of class to deliver your argument professionally, and your best attack is a pathetic barb on a healthcare system you clearly don't understand (in fact, you don't even understand your own.)
What, because they refused to bow down and enforce the US's laws in their territory? That's worthy of being placed on an international watchlist now - at the same level as Russia and China, no less?
Words cannot explain the brilliance of this post. Well done.
Nah, this is a pretty old post, I remember it being pretty popular a few years back. It's a good one, but pretty stale, I wish people put in at least enough effort to be original - or at absolute minimum, to be something more than a crappy repost. (pun most certainly intended)
As always, make sure you check haveibeenpwned to see if you're affected. For those who are, please be absolutely sure to change your passwords as md5 isn't secure anymore. If that's a huge hassle, then you've been reusing the same password - a big no-no, take this opportunity to use multiple. Not only will it make your life much more secure, but it makes situations such as these much easier, and you'll be glad you did so next time.
Yeah, if prefer mud and slush to nice powdery snow
Same. California used to be nice and warm, but some parts have become unbearably hot during the summer, and the drought devestated the area I lived in after I moved away. Furthermore, many of us quite like the rain and snow - you'd be suprised how many people leave Hawaii or Arizona after the weather gets old.
Bullshit. If kids learn critical thinking and have all the facts they turn out conservative. When they don't have the facts, they turn more liberal and later when they get older and wiser become more conservative. Why would the right wing be opposed to that?
The problem with bad teachers is that the kids aren't learning much of anything. It really is no more complicated than that.
Except for the fact that the well educated parts of the US consistently turn out more liberal people, well educated countries turn out more liberal people, and liberalism in general is much more flexible with new information that conservatism.
I'm not here to debate the two, but liberalism vs conservatism usually comes down to a matter of mental flexibility. Places which are conservative (the plain states, the south) are usually poorer states with fewer people, many of whom live in isolation. They become much less comfortable dealing with new information or ideas, and old people in general have problems with that as they advance in age.
You can debate which one is better, but saying that conservatism comes with knowing all the facts or with quality education is almost completely wrong, as the complete opposite is usually true.
NK doesn't threaten to attack the US, it says that any attack BY the US will be met will a strong defence.
Anyway, this is a great step forward for peace, surely. Mutually Assured Destruction is a key to stopping devastating conventional wars, so any state that is threatened by the US should seek long range nuclear weapons. You can't argue that only the good guys get nukes, that's not how MAD works.
Oh yes they have. I'm pretty sure I recall San Francisco being mentioned as well. Your theory also fails to take into account they're ruled by a megalomaniac dictator who's not exactly in the most stable state of mind. While I have doubts they'd actually be fired, it only takes one nationalistic soldier to press the button and BOOM! Both Koreas and a chunk of China forever destroyed.
Between the incredible amounts of money they hoard and the iron fist they exert for control, the MPAA strikes me as far closer to something resembling a pirate than the loner in his basement who downloads a movie on Friday nights. Honestly, I think the MPAA should be forced to prove their victim would have bought the material otherwise, if they didn't have the opportunity to pirate it. That's the say, I don't think it's illegal to pirate a movie that's unavailable legitimately, because then there's no loss or damage that occurs, and somebody who's on minimum wage wouldn't even be worth extorting by law anyway. Between the idiotic DMCA appeals in which they steal other people's money with no obligation to return it, this stupid game of trying to blackmail ISPs, and the outright moronic way they calculate damages and laws, I regard the MPAA as far more of a villain than the end users they're targeting, and I say this as both a content creator and as someone who dislikes piracy.
The internet is regarded as a utility in some places, and it's being considered as a possibility inside the United States; would the MPAA be interested in cutting off people's phone service next? Their electricity, perhaps?