If you're just going to fiatly assert unintuitive bullshit like that
If you understand the problem properly, it would be quite obvious. The problem is that you have particles which aren't peacefully lying in their atoms, but freely moving and destroying everything around. You have to put a hard enough coating to stop them. The problem is that they will continue going against whatever material over and over and over, until finally passing through it. You have to increase the chances of the coating to last for as long as possible (+ being able to replace it when required). To not mention a plan B in case that your estimates fail and the particle go throw before expected (e.g., being in a remote place surrounded by hard rock). I see water as pretty much the opposite of a hard wall able to contain a so dangerous reality. Also I know what is the usual proceeding for these cases (as said, isolated rocky places, usually created after having done some digging), what kind of corroborates my assumption. In any case, I can confirm that I haven't done any detailed analysis about the best conditions for a nuclear waste storage.
with no citation or back of the napkin estimates to back it up, I think we're done here.
Up to you. In any case, you might be right and perhaps I should have answered that part differently. Additionally, I found this page which mentions oceans (actually, ocean floors) as a possibility.
Probably. I didn't click it, but if it's some grand and expensive nuclear materials repository then yes, that's moronic.
And the best part is that it cannot even deal with the most dangerous products (the long-lived ones, virtually all what comes from a fission reactor)! Regarding being moronic, I don't know what to say, other than: according to the link above, Spain, together with France, UK, Japan and Sweden, is being moronic just once, Finland twice and the USA 5 times moronic. Lots of morons, hopefully they will learn from you and your comments.
Lock 3 MIT grad students in a room
Pfff...
pharaohs built the pyramids; doesn't mean it helped them out in the afterlife
White noise propaganda, i.e. the entire premise is constructed for people who've never thought critically about anything
I knew about all this while studying for my MEng specialising in energy, mostly focused on turbines, engines and power plants (especially in nuclear ones). Are you saying that the engineers learning how to build/operate/design nuclear reactors are only hearing propaganda? Are you saying that throwing neutrons to unstable atoms to provoke a chain reaction of particles bouncing everywhere doesn't increase their instability further? Are you saying that all the literature, studies, research, work, etc. done on nuclear physics during the last 75 years is all a smoke screen? That all these crazily long half-lives (up to 15.7 M years!!!) of nuclear waste are just made up numbers?
Even better: are you saying that this (sorry, there is no English version) is fake? Part of a big conspiracy of the (nuclear agency of the) Spanish government? This is the storage facility which deals with all the low-/medium-lived nuclear products of Spain (the long-lived ones are sent abroad, to France I think), which I visited and where I knew about their plans for the next hundreds of years.
Toxic mercury compounds from coal burning and gold mining is lowering the IQs of hundreds of millions of children around the globe right this very second. I'd much, much rather us deal with the possibility of very slightly higher cancer rates (maybe) than live with that.
So, I guess that you are implying that this isn't propaganda. Additionally, I don't recall having proposed coal as a better alternative. I would have also criticised anyone claiming that coal plants are clean. But, in any case, this and long-term nuclear waste are completely different stories.
Meanwhile, the entire Earth is one giant fission reactor [scientificamerican.com], orbiting a fusion reactor that puts out dangerous amounts of UV radiation
Do you know what fission is? Just separating (atoms, in this case). There are many different types of fission, under many different conditions and with different effects. What a nuclear fission plant does is basically converting very unstable atoms (radioactive) in extremely unstable by throwing particles to them. Unstable means that the particles are freely flying destroying anything around (e.g., your body). Before entering in a reactor, a person might even touch uranium or other radioactive materials without risk (although long exposures might provoke cancer). After being in a reactor during months or years, that uranium (+ many other products) becomes so unstable that any living thing near it would die almost immediately.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand what the time value of money [wikipedia.org] is
I speak only as a person who has a quite good technical understanding about this situation and isn't short-sighted (or egoist or hypocrite or similar).
you are still describing a finite sum of money
Yes, logically. But an indeterminately big one; what is even worse: a prone-to-problems indeterminately big one. Just one accident every 100 years might provoke tremendous costs or damages against health/environment. One thing is trying to predict the costs of storing harmless goods like money for very long; in that case, even unpredictable issues like inflation might be somehow accounted. But nuclear waste is a completely different story.
drop it in an ocean trench
This isn't possible, you would contaminate the ocean and kill lots of things. As explained above, some of the outputs of the fission reactors are extremely aggressive during quite a few years and have to be contained under very specific conditions. At the moment, these repositories are located in rock
Fission reactors convert slightly harmful raw material into extremely dangerous products which will remain like this for hundreds/thousands of years. This nuclear waste is also associated with immeasurable costs. Bear in mind that our great, great, great, great, etc. grandsons will have still to maintain and fix the containers storing some of the products which our plants are currently generating.
Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean, unless you redefine both concepts in a very short-sighted way. It isn't the worst alternative either. It is an acceptably-bad output of our evolution which should be corrected as soon as possible.
The person who executed the command -is- their high-level admin person
If this is the case, the fact of these files being deletable would certainly make (some) sense.
Although there are many alternatives to further constrain certain deletions (even the ones done by the most-privileged users) and to minimise the chances of problems. For example, by asking for additional confirmation or (as suggested in various posts above) always keeping a copy of the deleted items for some days or always checking whether an actual backup of the deleted files exists before going ahead with the deletion, etc. I am not saying that it is impossible, but with a proper system in place giving a very special treatment to the most important parts, it would be really difficult.
Their database replication stopped because the replicating server....
Nothing of this sounds as a valid excuse to me. A proper backup system shouldn't be affected by almost anything. Some examples to minimise these risks: automatically duplicating each user input in the moment, always having backups to the backups to the backups (e.g., programs running 24/7 checking that the main backup is OK and, if not, starting using the alternative 1 and then 2, etc. After having clearly warned everyone about such an issue!), etc.
I don't know the exact situation and that's why cannot deliver a worthy enough assessment. Additionally, I don't like talking in abstract terms and do firmly believe that there are lots of exceptions everywhere and every time. But even by bearing all this in mind, I cannot think of many good reasons for a company, whose main business is dealing with user data, to not be able to avoid a data lost by doing everything properly. I can even add that if I were ever personally involved in such a situation, I would feel really ashamed and wouldn't even think about trying to (somehow) justify my behaviour.
I see another problem on top of failing backups (really?) and a tired system admin deleting the wrong files (not precisely ideal, but within the kind of errors which should be expected): allowing to delete these files at all.
If your whole business is about dealing with the data which a big number of users generate at any point, you should (after having made completely sure that your backup system is rock solid) restrict as much as possible the access to such valuable information; not just to avoid unintended deletions, but also to account for other potential problems (e.g., privacy protection). There are many ways to do so, even after having developed the whole system; for example, giving read-only access unless strictly required like high-level admin personnel (who can use these credentials only after passing through a further validation step) or automated applications (whose credentials are regularly generated and nobody knows).
These problems are usually provoked when developing/dealing with a system without putting the whole focus on technical aspects/what is best for it from a technical perspective. They shouldn't exist at all when doing everything properly at each stage from development to deployment, administration, general policies, etc.
direct police statistics that african immigrants, per capita, are about 5-10x (depending on city) more likely to commit a crime compared to slav immigrants (read white immigrants)
I see various problems with this sentence:
- Referring to an abstract authority ("direct police statistics") without providing any kind of tangible evidence seems, at least, unreliable. What is even worse: your conclusion (African immigrants more prone to crime) seem to be exclusively supported by this non-existent (at least, from the point of view of this conversation) data. What begs the question: is also your knowledge about all this exclusively based upon equivalent general statements?
- Let's imagine that you have high quality datasets undoubtedly proving that people from certain countries tend to commit more crimes. In that case, I would wonder about the applicability of this information. For example: does it refer to the last year or to 10 years ago? Which city/region/country is it about? Are there lots of crimes in this area? Is it a rich/poor area? What types of crime are more common?, etc. It isn't the same a conflictive neighbourhood in a poor country than in a rich one; or minor shop-lifting vs. homicides. "Crimes anywhere by anyone" includes a huge amount of completely unrelated information whose global understanding seems impossible. Something like "petty crime in city X in summer" would make much more sense to me. But even in that case, you wouldn't be able to reliably extrapolate these conclusions to a completely different situation (e.g., "homicides in city Y during the whole year"). I think that the most logical next step (after having defined the aforementioned more adequate subset of information) would be to properly analyse this information with the sole goal of getting some worthy insights which might, eventually, be applicable under different conditions. Or, even better, they might be put together with other conclusions extracted from different situations to get some preliminary general ideas.
- I might even ignore the previous point too and ask about the criminals being analysed. Are all they coming from the same country? From which region/city in that country? What about their personality? Have they families? And their motivations to go to a different country? What are their options in the new country? Can they speak the language there? Do they like/accept the local culture and traditions? What about their education, motivations, beliefs, etc.? Generic features like race or gender or physical appearance make only sense within a given context like country/culture, social status, etc. People with similar generic features tend to have a similar personality in equivalent contexts, but completely different in other places. What is common in your neighbourhood (for a reason) might be a complete nonsense (also for a reason there) just 500 km away. Even in the same neighbourhood, some people are different than others with similar features (always for a reason). Even the same person might show a completely different behaviour some years later (again for a reason).
You can know something about me by reading this post or what I wrote somewhere else. Even just some abstract information about me might be enough to get some worthy ideas about my personality. But the best way you have to know what I am/want/expect, would do, how I would react, whether I would like you or not, etc. would be by knowing me really well. And even in that case the best result you could get is a reasonably-good estimate of what might be my future behaviour under certain conditions.
I am a man, like around half of global population. I am white, like 1.3k million (first reference I found in internet). I am a Spaniard, like 45 million, etc. I have nothing in common with most of the other members of any of these groups. Do you prefer sub-groups? Like white-man-Spaniard, we are still around 20 million and I feel equally unrepresented. I can go like this forever, by being more
will be fully responsible for each single action you have ever performed based upon your distorted perception of reality
It seems that the actions of some dishonest, unfair and misinterpretation-prone fanatics have had a negative effect on me. I am looking forward to these “people” to realise about what they did + pay for it (if not fully-compensating me for their nonsense, at least be shown as what they truly are). If you have doubts about you being one of these fanatics, you should take a look at the relevant amount of information which I have been writing during the last months (i.e., anything about Custom Solvers 2.0 or varocarbas in both English and Spanish). If you have an idea about me which is somehow incompatible with all these references and you did something on account of such a wrong understanding which affected me in any way, you shouldn't have doubts about what I think of you (again: no hate or anger or similar; just looking for justice and for getting what you owe me. I can be extremely patient and will not forget anything). Bear in mind that all this information is extremely honest (I don't lie, tell half-truths, hide anything and currently am not even writing sarcastic/ironic/jokish references without a clear explanation) and that I (as clearly defined in the signature of this post or my bio here or anywhere else) am the sole author of all of them.
Hopefully, readers will understand the difference between the aforementioned rant-like posts (not too serious, because I will never take seriously the kind of extremely-nonsensical, coward "behaviours" being addressed/ridiculed by them) and my last posts about Trump, which (at least, IMHO) might potentially become a serious problem.
All my calls to resistance in this set of comments were meant to be based upon honesty and good-for-everyone basic principles. Becoming a bully as a way to fight a bully back is a tremendously bad idea. Any version of fanaticism, blind/hateful group-thinking, unfair/invasive/pushy actions (even by being reactions to a previous one) is equally bad.
I have seen quite a few attacks against Trump and their supporters on those lines, which are plainly helping them (an overall dishonest opposition was IMHO the main reason why Trump got elected). Nobody likes dishonesty/unfairness, not even the most dishonest/unfair people. There are lots of reasonable, fair and honest reasons to be against Trump. All the impatient, misinterpretation-based, dishonest actions against Trump give him and his supporters all what they need: new excuses to justify their otherwise-unjustifiable actions for a bit longer. They feed from the most basic fears (e.g., bad people = those lying), proven in the most basic and childish ways. And what is the point of bringing attacks to a personal level? This is the bulliest behaviour ever! Why don't you just focus on attacking his actions, motivations, expectations, etc.? What is the point of criticising anything else?
Don't feed the bullies! Don't be a bully yourself! Be fair and honest! Don't attack arbitrarily! Be rational and see it as a problem which has to be solved! Forget about irrational hates, make sure that each single lie around comes from them and then just be patient.
but nothing either of us says will have any effect.
Only small drops in the sea, no doubt on that. But thanks to internet, it is possible to create something very big from small drops easily and quickly. The problem is different than ever before, but also the weapons to fight it. I am sure that public opinion (in the USA and worldwide), social media, citizen actions, etc. will have a very important effect on the way in which this whole Trump situation will evolve.
As said, I think that we should better stop the chat because our positions are very clear and no (further) agreement seems possible. It was nice.
Certainly, but there are some things which can be changed. For example, if a meteorite will hit the Earth in 10 years and kill half of the population no matter what anyone does. Better not knowing about it or trying to just ignore a so inevitable destiny and living happy lives. What Trump (or any other person) can do is perfectly avoidable. I don't need to convince or reason with Trump, because he has some power but not all the power.
People have much more power than what Trump or any other person will ever have. Not just citizens in the USA, but also in any other country who, through their representatives, might avoid Trump doing what he shouldn't. My comments can be a small (insignificant) contribution, but might also be helpful.
(Apparently, the right indentation of nested Slashdot comments stops being applied at some point. I didn't know about that because this is my “deepest” Slashdot conversation ever. LOL.)
Without coming into the assessment of all this (including media coverage), my point is that things can happen very quickly and with the sole participation of Trump.
I have already written a lot (other comments in this thread) and think that my position is very clear. So, I hope that you will not mind me stopping the chat here.
The people who fall for bluster are the ones who are responsible for their own stupidity
So, if you think that you can avoid a person to make a mistake, you wouldn't do it. You would let that person make the mistake and learn from the error? In principle, this seems an acceptable proceeding to me in quite a few scenarios; but when talking about potentially very serious global-scale problems, I do prefer to be in the safest side and warn, just in case.
The sky is not falling
Not saying the contrary. Just highlighting that everything is getting weird, what isn’t precisely ideal when talking about something which might potentially affect so many people. It seems like an excellent context to be over-cautious and warn ASAP. You know? All the serious problems which have ever happened started and grew inadvertently, while people was thinking that this wasn't that important! What is the worst thing which can happen to me? Being proven wrong? Too alarmist? OK, I can live with that. I am not planning to start a rampage against Trump by writing posts in all the Slashdot articles. This was a one-time thing. I might share my thoughts about all this at a different point, but "attention! Weird things ahead" posts like this one aren't likely to be repeated again.
His push to get ahead of the non-threat of...
As also said in one of my other comments, what is happening now isn't similar to anything what has happened before. Corruption, egoism, tricky deals, etc. have always existed (and will always exist), but never so openly. This was the whole point of my post: fighting against the normalisation or, at least, immediate acceptation of what isn't right.
I do re-apologise for being a bit too aggressive and re-invite you to read some of my others comments, because I will not be repeating everything here.
As a way to somehow (but not completely because I still think that you shouldn't have criticised me so blindly) apologise for the too-hard-tone of my previous message, I recommend you to take a look at his last ban of refugees.
It is easy to forget (I kind of did) that the USA is a presidential system, where the president can do quite a few things. Trump is using such a power already and, what is much worse, is starting to change the way in which everything is supposed to work (I wrote some ideas in other comments in this thread that you might want to read).
This is very relative. I am too young for the Cuban missile crisis, but certainly not for the Iraq war. Additionally, I have rarely been too interested in politics (not even now). But I don't think that anything of this is relevant as far as the differences between now and always seem quite clear to me. One thing is being secretly pushy via diplomatic or even sneaky/illegal means for months and even years to impose your position; and a quite different story is giving orders openly, publicly and almost randomly up to the point of making a billionaire to feel like offering his help to negotiate in the name of a country.
Is the financial power controlling the world? No doubt on that. Actually, they are the only ones interested in controlling it. Have certain countries (like USA) a quite aggressive exterior policy, what ultimately provokes their decisions to affect other countries, companies or media? Again, no doubt on that. But the fact that all this is the reality doesn't make it an ideal reality. Don't facilitate all this crap. If they want to sneakily do whatever they want, make the process as difficult and dirty as possible. Would Slim be one of the persons (or perhaps the only one) talking to Trump to decide what to do on the wall front (= the compromise allowing both parties to not completely lose with such a stupid nonsense) anyway? OK. But don't support the already-corrupt system by allowing corruption and sneaky deals to be normalised, public and open.
Isn't asking resistance against anything the same pushy ways?
The first difference is that I am nobody whose opinion is exclusively based on reason, fairness and good-to-everyone goals. I am not imposing anything on anyone because I cannot (and wouldn't do it even in case of being in such a position). Additionally, resistance means reaction (= an action had already occurred), is a passive way to protect your interests against those trying damage them. Pushy is the starting action, not the resisting force.
Of course it is, you are asking for a foreign government to favor you against its own people.
Favor me, how exactly? By modding my comments here up? This is too much power even for the POTUS, LOL. No, I am not asking for anything; I am plainly sharing what I am seeing which might eventually be helpful to someone thinking like me who hasn't realised about it yet (again: I am mostly concerned about the means, about the general rules being jeopardised). If you mean this because of my aforementioned reference to autarky, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Note that the bigger the economy the bigger the impact of such a policy everywhere. If other countries have problems, the USA would also have problems (your companies are the most globalised ones). My concerns aren't egoist about my country/situation, but about everyone losing. In fact, I don't think that there is a real risk on this front (Trump and his friends would lose a lot with it). Out of all the empty promises made by Trump, these are the emptiest ones. This was a pretty irrelevant remark. As said, I am mostly concerned about this new way of being pushy.
If this is for me?! I don't feel hate (not now, not never or virtually never); isn't that clear in my profile bio? I am an extremely practical person (although quite passionate some times, usually with what really matters) who always accepts the reality as it is and adapts his behaviour accordingly. I never liked Trump and did expect problems since his election, but mostly secondary ones or eventually a recession (perhaps because of not being too used to how a presidential system really works). In fact, right after his win I wrote a post here against a fearful person trying to extend ignorance-based fear, because I think that (unmotivated) fear is the root of all what goes wrong everywhere (including Trump's election). I am a very patient person who will never support any kind fear-/hate-/ignorance-based whatever, but things are clearly going in a direction which is bad to everyone. Nobody is used to deal with someone like Trump in certain areas and some people don't seem to be aware of it.
Certain positions (like being the POTUS) are usually associated with a given set of positive prejudices, what makes his decisions to be almost immediately accepted (e.g., what a not-knowledgeable person does with the decisions of an expert in the given field). The problem now is that all this system doesn't work anymore. Trump is an outsider to all these positive prejudices and the (internal and external) system doesn't seem to be adapting to this reality as it should. In fact, this outsider seems to be somehow changing how the system is supposed to work. The reason why I wrote the first comment was knowing about the Slim's proposal (a billionaire offering himself to intercede for a country!!), because I understood it as a new peak in this weird direction.
want to watch the world burn instead of being proven wrong
One new quote (quite a few already, wow!) completely misunderstanding my intention and the meaning of my words?! Seriously, properly-understanding Slashdoters could you please participate in this discussion? So, I want to watch the world burn?! I see the president of the biggest economy in the world tweeting arbitrary orders to everyone (persons, companies and even countries), I call this behaviour out and that makes me to want the world burn? You mean that I was expecting Trump to be respectful to everyone and to follow the rules everywhere, his behaviour has proven me wrong and that makes me angry?! Could you please make a tiny effort to confirm that the generic sentences you use to define me are even slightly applicable to the specific situation?
Let me use a more graphic example. This is like a poker player entering in a top scientific research facility and starting using his "knowledge" with the PhDs working there. Even though they might be more knowledgeable, rational and their positions should eventually prevail, the poker player might get some starting advantage because of dealing with people who aren't used to his behaviour. That starting advantage might mean a lot and this is the whole point of my post: be aware that this person behaves differently. Your usual approaches don't work here, adapt yourself to the new rules which aren't that difficult. Is this idea clear to everyone? Excellent. Someone finds any of this helpful? Excellent too. Quite easy to understand isn't? Where is exactly the hate, the world burning, the lack of acceptation of reality, etc. in my intention? Because I used expressions like "dumb bully" and this is a hate-speech sample which invalidates everything else I wrote or what?
I am kind of lost with your comment. You don't agree with me, but not because of liking Trump or how it behaves but because of talking about a reality you don't want to listen and that makes you to attack me? Why? Ignoring my comment wouldn't have been much more sensible? I will be honest with you: I have read quite a few of your posts here and kind of thought that you were a sensible person. Now I am sure that you are a fanatic. Left-/right- fanatic doesn't matter, all of them are the same: fearful people with lots hate and frustrations who only want whatever to even in the way which they decide which should be and to attack whomever is in front of them. Sorry for the ad-hominem attack (is this is the currently political-correct expression?), but I think that you do deserve it.
And that if you believe everything he says, you need to seek help?
As what usually happens with fanatics, you don't understand things as they are meant (but as your needy requirements expect them to be). Believe what? I will do a quick summary for you (and other people with limited understanding capabilities): Trump is acting as a bully with everyone, by bluffing and threatening everyone; the ones obeying his bluffs right away (unfortunately, quite a few people) are the ones believing anything. All what I said was that nobody should fall for that and waiting for the actual actions to come (what will never happen). Lastly, another personal observation: lots of people have told you to seek for help, right? (Ironic, don't you think).
publicity for his shitty reality show
?! Sharing my opinion about something which concerns me is giving publicity to that person?!
Well yes we were treated as being that way with Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush again, Reagan, and so on.s
I don't recall any of these presidents (or any other president ever) threatening (with taxes, walls, etc.) companies, countries and media so openly and systematically.
ourselves if we are so unappreciated. The rest of the world might have to finally take responsibility for themselves
I think that quite a few people in places like the Middle East would be very happy if the USA decided to apply these ideas on the military front; not likely to happen though.
In any case, we currently have the small issue of the globalised economy; for example, your Lehman Brothers bankruptcy provoked problems everywhere. Now, everything affects everyone everywhere and a so big player going autarkic would cause lots of trouble, also to yourself; although this is certainly your decision (and your error). The whole point of my post was asking for resistance against the aforementioned pushy ways.
Sharing my honest concerns and asking for resistance is spamming and being hateful? This is certainly off-topic (and I do re-apologise about it), but I have written it right now after knowing about Slim's offer and I am posting it only once, here.
For some of us, everything he has been doing is beneficial.
I am not complaining about the results, but about the means. Do you consider that he has been acting right? That his behaviour so far is acceptable? This is how the POTUS should behave? The kind of image that you, as an American, want to represent you and your country? A pushy person arbitrarily imposing whatever to whomever? Do you think that this the best medium-term policy for your interests? Then, ignore my call, but some other people might like it:)
This is one of the few Slashdot threads with no Trump references which I see in some time and, unfortunately, I will go full off-topic and change that.
After seeing what is lately happening with/around Trump, I am plainly not believing what I am seeing. I am not American (neither I am living in the USA), but this can affect all of us and is looking much worse than what I ever thought. The last drop has been the whole situation with Mexico, quick summary: 1. Trump tries to follow through with the wall nonsense (including Mexico paying for it). 2. Peña Prieto does a formal (but not too relevant) gesture of cancelling his visit to USA. 3. Trump doesn't change anything (even starts talking about getting the money via border tax). 4. Both presidents talk by phone (?!). 5. Slim, the Mexican Billionaire, offers his help to negotiate with Trump (??!!!).
Before that, Trump has already openly pushed various international companies to modify their activity!! And some of them have accepted it!!! Why?! Can he, as the president of the USA, force you to do something unfair/stupid? Wait/complain as much as possible! But don't accept his nonsense right away because you are converting it into logical! You are provoking an increasingly number of stupidities to happen!! How, when, why has a billionaire negotiated in the name of a whole country?! How could such a nonsensical offer have even occurred? Because things are starting to get weird and continuing in this direction might provoke some serious problems.
The main reason for this post is calling for resistance against stupidity! Don't do what the dumb bully wants you to do! Be a (wo)man and wait for he to try to beat you up! Don't convert the pure nonsense in the new normal! Don't validate pushy bluffs by immediately accepting them! Wait, force the aggressive nonsense to go further and see how it will always fail! Be patient, claim responsibility, never forget; your moment will certain come and then you should beat back as hardly possible (and the next day again, and then the next one, and then the next one, etc.). Make sure that this bully and all his friends will learn their lesson so well that they will never again dare to come back.
Sorry for being so off-topic, but I couldn't refrain myself. Hopefully, this will be helpful to some people starting to not like all this at all either. Even Trump supporters! Should billionaires start deciding what countries have to do?! Even in case of agreeing with a given policy, do you think that it should be pushed in the way a high-school bully would do? I don't think so.
Within my efforts to slightly (I cannot do miracles) de-stupidify some extremely-ignorant-but-surprisingly-unaware-of-that-fact stupids likely to be reading this post (why? No idea. I plainly accept the reality), I will write some lines about the meaning of bot.
As everyone should know, this is the short form of robot and, in internet/software, refers to a wide variety of programs performing automated actions of different complexity. The expression crawling bots (or crawlers or spiders or search-engine bots, etc.) usually refers to the ones which navigate through internet retrieving information from a big number of websites for a search-engine or similar (e.g., domain ranking, list of domain backlinks, etc.). Usually, they are properly identified, respect sites' wishes (e.g., only retrieving information allowed by the given robots.txt file) and tend to focus on the public parts (e.g., HTML/CSS/JavaScript, documents, pictures, etc.). That is, the fake-account/captcha-solving/similar robots (the ones emulating real users for whatever reason) are also programs performing automated actions and also can be rightfully called robots, but have nothing to do with the aforementioned crawlers.
In any case and by bearing in mind that this post is addressed to a particularly-ignorant audience, I want to highlight that you can create a program to do whatever you want (at least, if you are an experienced enough programmer who is very used to develop virtually anything completely from scratch, what is the case with me), you can call that program whatever you wish (robot, application, program, virus, friend, etc.) and you can even hide its actions up to certain point (BTW, what I will never do, as far as I am honest and straightforward in both life and programming).
To finish this you-are-so-stupid-and-ignorant-that-I-have-no-idea-why-you-think-that-you-have-anything-to-with-me post, I want to highlight that the current version of the aforementioned varocarbas.com (my R&D-focused site) bots perform an extremely simple analysis and only collect domain names and count backlinks. There will be a second-stage set of bots which will perform a more complex analysis, but which will also store a minimum amount of information. Anyone interested in all this should visit that site in some weeks when I will write detailed explanations (yes, a bit of advertisement. What did you think? That I teach for free? Even my rants and stupids-get-away-from-me posts have a purpose:)).
Well, this has certainly been an unexpected answer, although it kind of addresses some of my previous doubts.
I don't want to extend this chat too much, but cannot refrain myself from commenting some of the items of the list you are linking:
"6. People’s names fit within a certain defined amount of space." -> True. There isn't a single string of characters which is big enough to not fit somewhere. So, on account of the language being considered, you can either set a big enough length or a reasonably-big one + truncating subsystem making sure that everything fits there.
"12. People’s names are case sensitive." -> Always false and nobody should assume otherwise. Names are usually capitalised, but such a fact has no influence in its definition (e.g., you should write Alvaro, my name; in any case, there is no intrinsic difference between alvaro and Alvaro, other than an eventual mistake). In this specific situation, I would always store all the strings as lower caps and, when using them, apply the grammatical rules of the given culture (upper caps or not).
"13. People’s names are case insensitive." -> Together with the previous one, it seems to confirm that there is a bug here;)
"16. People’s names are not written in ALL CAPS." and "17. People’s names are not written in all lower case letters." -> The aforementioned approach of dealing with just one format (all small caps) + applying the rules of the corresponding culture when using this information is also fine here.
"24. My system will never have to deal with names from China." -> True. The input system is the supreme ruler which should only allow in whatever the remaining parts of the system can deal with. If your system isn't prepared to deal with Chinese (or whatever) names, these inputs shouldn't be allowed (and/or an error should be triggered). So, while working on a specific system to accomplish a certain goal, I can be sure that it will never get a given type of inputs. Same ideas apply to falsehoods 25, 26, 27 and 28.
"40. People have names." -> People certainly have names, but your information gathering subsystem might be faulty. Nulls/blank entries should always be either properly accounted for or knowledgeably rejected (= triggering an error because of being completely sure that this information is essential).
I mean... I get the point that you (and this site) are trying to make. But here is mine: generic truths are usually wrong (although helpful, informative, funny, etc.) and I do rarely rely on them. That's why I never saw my initial "concerns", adequately understood within the right context, as a sure problem (or error or conspiracy or whatever) but as a likely-indicative-although-perhaps-meaning-nothing curious fact, for which I would have accepted any sensible explanation (yours were sensible, but also blind guesses) without any problem.
It seems that both of us did misunderstand the other one (intention, knowledge, expectations, etc.), although it has been a nice chat:)
Slashdot Mirror
If you're just going to fiatly assert unintuitive bullshit like that
If you understand the problem properly, it would be quite obvious. The problem is that you have particles which aren't peacefully lying in their atoms, but freely moving and destroying everything around. You have to put a hard enough coating to stop them. The problem is that they will continue going against whatever material over and over and over, until finally passing through it. You have to increase the chances of the coating to last for as long as possible (+ being able to replace it when required). To not mention a plan B in case that your estimates fail and the particle go throw before expected (e.g., being in a remote place surrounded by hard rock). I see water as pretty much the opposite of a hard wall able to contain a so dangerous reality. Also I know what is the usual proceeding for these cases (as said, isolated rocky places, usually created after having done some digging), what kind of corroborates my assumption. In any case, I can confirm that I haven't done any detailed analysis about the best conditions for a nuclear waste storage.
with no citation or back of the napkin estimates to back it up, I think we're done here.
Up to you. In any case, you might be right and perhaps I should have answered that part differently. Additionally, I found this page which mentions oceans (actually, ocean floors) as a possibility.
Probably. I didn't click it, but if it's some grand and expensive nuclear materials repository then yes, that's moronic.
And the best part is that it cannot even deal with the most dangerous products (the long-lived ones, virtually all what comes from a fission reactor)! Regarding being moronic, I don't know what to say, other than: according to the link above, Spain, together with France, UK, Japan and Sweden, is being moronic just once, Finland twice and the USA 5 times moronic. Lots of morons, hopefully they will learn from you and your comments.
Lock 3 MIT grad students in a room
Pfff...
pharaohs built the pyramids; doesn't mean it helped them out in the afterlife
Pfff, pfff, pfff...
Yes, I think that we should better stop it here.
White noise propaganda, i.e. the entire premise is constructed for people who've never thought critically about anything
I knew about all this while studying for my MEng specialising in energy, mostly focused on turbines, engines and power plants (especially in nuclear ones). Are you saying that the engineers learning how to build/operate/design nuclear reactors are only hearing propaganda? Are you saying that throwing neutrons to unstable atoms to provoke a chain reaction of particles bouncing everywhere doesn't increase their instability further? Are you saying that all the literature, studies, research, work, etc. done on nuclear physics during the last 75 years is all a smoke screen? That all these crazily long half-lives (up to 15.7 M years!!!) of nuclear waste are just made up numbers?
Even better: are you saying that this (sorry, there is no English version) is fake? Part of a big conspiracy of the (nuclear agency of the) Spanish government? This is the storage facility which deals with all the low-/medium-lived nuclear products of Spain (the long-lived ones are sent abroad, to France I think), which I visited and where I knew about their plans for the next hundreds of years.
Toxic mercury compounds from coal burning and gold mining is lowering the IQs of hundreds of millions of children around the globe right this very second. I'd much, much rather us deal with the possibility of very slightly higher cancer rates (maybe) than live with that.
So, I guess that you are implying that this isn't propaganda. Additionally, I don't recall having proposed coal as a better alternative. I would have also criticised anyone claiming that coal plants are clean. But, in any case, this and long-term nuclear waste are completely different stories.
Meanwhile, the entire Earth is one giant fission reactor [scientificamerican.com], orbiting a fusion reactor that puts out dangerous amounts of UV radiation
Do you know what fission is? Just separating (atoms, in this case). There are many different types of fission, under many different conditions and with different effects. What a nuclear fission plant does is basically converting very unstable atoms (radioactive) in extremely unstable by throwing particles to them. Unstable means that the particles are freely flying destroying anything around (e.g., your body). Before entering in a reactor, a person might even touch uranium or other radioactive materials without risk (although long exposures might provoke cancer). After being in a reactor during months or years, that uranium (+ many other products) becomes so unstable that any living thing near it would die almost immediately.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand what the time value of money [wikipedia.org] is
I speak only as a person who has a quite good technical understanding about this situation and isn't short-sighted (or egoist or hypocrite or similar).
you are still describing a finite sum of money
Yes, logically. But an indeterminately big one; what is even worse: a prone-to-problems indeterminately big one. Just one accident every 100 years might provoke tremendous costs or damages against health/environment. One thing is trying to predict the costs of storing harmless goods like money for very long; in that case, even unpredictable issues like inflation might be somehow accounted. But nuclear waste is a completely different story.
drop it in an ocean trench
This isn't possible, you would contaminate the ocean and kill lots of things. As explained above, some of the outputs of the fission reactors are extremely aggressive during quite a few years and have to be contained under very specific conditions. At the moment, these repositories are located in rock
rather cheap and rather clean
Fission reactors convert slightly harmful raw material into extremely dangerous products which will remain like this for hundreds/thousands of years. This nuclear waste is also associated with immeasurable costs. Bear in mind that our great, great, great, great, etc. grandsons will have still to maintain and fix the containers storing some of the products which our plants are currently generating.
Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean, unless you redefine both concepts in a very short-sighted way. It isn't the worst alternative either. It is an acceptably-bad output of our evolution which should be corrected as soon as possible.
The person who executed the command -is- their high-level admin person
If this is the case, the fact of these files being deletable would certainly make (some) sense.
Although there are many alternatives to further constrain certain deletions (even the ones done by the most-privileged users) and to minimise the chances of problems. For example, by asking for additional confirmation or (as suggested in various posts above) always keeping a copy of the deleted items for some days or always checking whether an actual backup of the deleted files exists before going ahead with the deletion, etc. I am not saying that it is impossible, but with a proper system in place giving a very special treatment to the most important parts, it would be really difficult.
Their database replication stopped because the replicating server....
Nothing of this sounds as a valid excuse to me. A proper backup system shouldn't be affected by almost anything. Some examples to minimise these risks: automatically duplicating each user input in the moment, always having backups to the backups to the backups (e.g., programs running 24/7 checking that the main backup is OK and, if not, starting using the alternative 1 and then 2, etc. After having clearly warned everyone about such an issue!), etc.
I don't know the exact situation and that's why cannot deliver a worthy enough assessment. Additionally, I don't like talking in abstract terms and do firmly believe that there are lots of exceptions everywhere and every time. But even by bearing all this in mind, I cannot think of many good reasons for a company, whose main business is dealing with user data, to not be able to avoid a data lost by doing everything properly. I can even add that if I were ever personally involved in such a situation, I would feel really ashamed and wouldn't even think about trying to (somehow) justify my behaviour.
I see another problem on top of failing backups (really?) and a tired system admin deleting the wrong files (not precisely ideal, but within the kind of errors which should be expected): allowing to delete these files at all.
If your whole business is about dealing with the data which a big number of users generate at any point, you should (after having made completely sure that your backup system is rock solid) restrict as much as possible the access to such valuable information; not just to avoid unintended deletions, but also to account for other potential problems (e.g., privacy protection). There are many ways to do so, even after having developed the whole system; for example, giving read-only access unless strictly required like high-level admin personnel (who can use these credentials only after passing through a further validation step) or automated applications (whose credentials are regularly generated and nobody knows).
These problems are usually provoked when developing/dealing with a system without putting the whole focus on technical aspects/what is best for it from a technical perspective. They shouldn't exist at all when doing everything properly at each stage from development to deployment, administration, general policies, etc.
direct police statistics that african immigrants, per capita, are about 5-10x (depending on city) more likely to commit a crime compared to slav immigrants (read white immigrants)
I see various problems with this sentence:
- Referring to an abstract authority ("direct police statistics") without providing any kind of tangible evidence seems, at least, unreliable. What is even worse: your conclusion (African immigrants more prone to crime) seem to be exclusively supported by this non-existent (at least, from the point of view of this conversation) data. What begs the question: is also your knowledge about all this exclusively based upon equivalent general statements?
- Let's imagine that you have high quality datasets undoubtedly proving that people from certain countries tend to commit more crimes. In that case, I would wonder about the applicability of this information. For example: does it refer to the last year or to 10 years ago? Which city/region/country is it about? Are there lots of crimes in this area? Is it a rich/poor area? What types of crime are more common?, etc.
It isn't the same a conflictive neighbourhood in a poor country than in a rich one; or minor shop-lifting vs. homicides. "Crimes anywhere by anyone" includes a huge amount of completely unrelated information whose global understanding seems impossible. Something like "petty crime in city X in summer" would make much more sense to me. But even in that case, you wouldn't be able to reliably extrapolate these conclusions to a completely different situation (e.g., "homicides in city Y during the whole year"). I think that the most logical next step (after having defined the aforementioned more adequate subset of information) would be to properly analyse this information with the sole goal of getting some worthy insights which might, eventually, be applicable under different conditions. Or, even better, they might be put together with other conclusions extracted from different situations to get some preliminary general ideas.
- I might even ignore the previous point too and ask about the criminals being analysed. Are all they coming from the same country? From which region/city in that country? What about their personality? Have they families? And their motivations to go to a different country? What are their options in the new country? Can they speak the language there? Do they like/accept the local culture and traditions? What about their education, motivations, beliefs, etc.?
Generic features like race or gender or physical appearance make only sense within a given context like country/culture, social status, etc. People with similar generic features tend to have a similar personality in equivalent contexts, but completely different in other places. What is common in your neighbourhood (for a reason) might be a complete nonsense (also for a reason there) just 500 km away. Even in the same neighbourhood, some people are different than others with similar features (always for a reason). Even the same person might show a completely different behaviour some years later (again for a reason).
You can know something about me by reading this post or what I wrote somewhere else. Even just some abstract information about me might be enough to get some worthy ideas about my personality. But the best way you have to know what I am/want/expect, would do, how I would react, whether I would like you or not, etc. would be by knowing me really well. And even in that case the best result you could get is a reasonably-good estimate of what might be my future behaviour under certain conditions.
I am a man, like around half of global population. I am white, like 1.3k million (first reference I found in internet). I am a Spaniard, like 45 million, etc. I have nothing in common with most of the other members of any of these groups. Do you prefer sub-groups? Like white-man-Spaniard, we are still around 20 million and I feel equally unrepresented. I can go like this forever, by being more
will be fully responsible for each single action you have ever performed based upon your distorted perception of reality
It seems that the actions of some dishonest, unfair and misinterpretation-prone fanatics have had a negative effect on me. I am looking forward to these “people” to realise about what they did + pay for it (if not fully-compensating me for their nonsense, at least be shown as what they truly are). If you have doubts about you being one of these fanatics, you should take a look at the relevant amount of information which I have been writing during the last months (i.e., anything about Custom Solvers 2.0 or varocarbas in both English and Spanish). If you have an idea about me which is somehow incompatible with all these references and you did something on account of such a wrong understanding which affected me in any way, you shouldn't have doubts about what I think of you (again: no hate or anger or similar; just looking for justice and for getting what you owe me. I can be extremely patient and will not forget anything). Bear in mind that all this information is extremely honest (I don't lie, tell half-truths, hide anything and currently am not even writing sarcastic/ironic/jokish references without a clear explanation) and that I (as clearly defined in the signature of this post or my bio here or anywhere else) am the sole author of all of them.
Hopefully, readers will understand the difference between the aforementioned rant-like posts (not too serious, because I will never take seriously the kind of extremely-nonsensical, coward "behaviours" being addressed/ridiculed by them) and my last posts about Trump, which (at least, IMHO) might potentially become a serious problem.
All my calls to resistance in this set of comments were meant to be based upon honesty and good-for-everyone basic principles. Becoming a bully as a way to fight a bully back is a tremendously bad idea. Any version of fanaticism, blind/hateful group-thinking, unfair/invasive/pushy actions (even by being reactions to a previous one) is equally bad.
I have seen quite a few attacks against Trump and their supporters on those lines, which are plainly helping them (an overall dishonest opposition was IMHO the main reason why Trump got elected). Nobody likes dishonesty/unfairness, not even the most dishonest/unfair people. There are lots of reasonable, fair and honest reasons to be against Trump. All the impatient, misinterpretation-based, dishonest actions against Trump give him and his supporters all what they need: new excuses to justify their otherwise-unjustifiable actions for a bit longer. They feed from the most basic fears (e.g., bad people = those lying), proven in the most basic and childish ways. And what is the point of bringing attacks to a personal level? This is the bulliest behaviour ever! Why don't you just focus on attacking his actions, motivations, expectations, etc.? What is the point of criticising anything else?
Don't feed the bullies! Don't be a bully yourself! Be fair and honest! Don't attack arbitrarily! Be rational and see it as a problem which has to be solved! Forget about irrational hates, make sure that each single lie around comes from them and then just be patient.
but nothing either of us says will have any effect.
Only small drops in the sea, no doubt on that. But thanks to internet, it is possible to create something very big from small drops easily and quickly. The problem is different than ever before, but also the weapons to fight it. I am sure that public opinion (in the USA and worldwide), social media, citizen actions, etc. will have a very important effect on the way in which this whole Trump situation will evolve.
As said, I think that we should better stop the chat because our positions are very clear and no (further) agreement seems possible. It was nice.
but it will be what it will be
Certainly, but there are some things which can be changed. For example, if a meteorite will hit the Earth in 10 years and kill half of the population no matter what anyone does. Better not knowing about it or trying to just ignore a so inevitable destiny and living happy lives. What Trump (or any other person) can do is perfectly avoidable. I don't need to convince or reason with Trump, because he has some power but not all the power.
People have much more power than what Trump or any other person will ever have. Not just citizens in the USA, but also in any other country who, through their representatives, might avoid Trump doing what he shouldn't. My comments can be a small (insignificant) contribution, but might also be helpful.
(Better: the negative right indentation or positive left indentation or indentation towards right)
(Apparently, the right indentation of nested Slashdot comments stops being applied at some point. I didn't know about that because this is my “deepest” Slashdot conversation ever. LOL.)
I wrote my answer below.
- Green-card holders included in ban.
- Muslim travellers turned away from US after Donald Trump's ban as Google 'recalls overseas staff'.
- President Trump's Muslim ban excludes countries linked to his sprawling business empire.
- Donald Trump bans citizens of seven Muslim majority countries as visa-holding travellers are turned away from US borders.
- In Twitter, #muslimban has been quite active during the whole day (although its worldwide trend status is a bit unstable).
Without coming into the assessment of all this (including media coverage), my point is that things can happen very quickly and with the sole participation of Trump.
I have already written a lot (other comments in this thread) and think that my position is very clear. So, I hope that you will not mind me stopping the chat here.
The people who fall for bluster are the ones who are responsible for their own stupidity
So, if you think that you can avoid a person to make a mistake, you wouldn't do it. You would let that person make the mistake and learn from the error? In principle, this seems an acceptable proceeding to me in quite a few scenarios; but when talking about potentially very serious global-scale problems, I do prefer to be in the safest side and warn, just in case.
The sky is not falling
Not saying the contrary. Just highlighting that everything is getting weird, what isn’t precisely ideal when talking about something which might potentially affect so many people. It seems like an excellent context to be over-cautious and warn ASAP. You know? All the serious problems which have ever happened started and grew inadvertently, while people was thinking that this wasn't that important! What is the worst thing which can happen to me? Being proven wrong? Too alarmist? OK, I can live with that. I am not planning to start a rampage against Trump by writing posts in all the Slashdot articles. This was a one-time thing. I might share my thoughts about all this at a different point, but "attention! Weird things ahead" posts like this one aren't likely to be repeated again.
His push to get ahead of the non-threat of...
As also said in one of my other comments, what is happening now isn't similar to anything what has happened before. Corruption, egoism, tricky deals, etc. have always existed (and will always exist), but never so openly. This was the whole point of my post: fighting against the normalisation or, at least, immediate acceptation of what isn't right.
I do re-apologise for being a bit too aggressive and re-invite you to read some of my others comments, because I will not be repeating everything here.
As a way to somehow (but not completely because I still think that you shouldn't have criticised me so blindly) apologise for the too-hard-tone of my previous message, I recommend you to take a look at his last ban of refugees.
It is easy to forget (I kind of did) that the USA is a presidential system, where the president can do quite a few things. Trump is using such a power already and, what is much worse, is starting to change the way in which everything is supposed to work (I wrote some ideas in other comments in this thread that you might want to read).
Perhaps you are too young
This is very relative. I am too young for the Cuban missile crisis, but certainly not for the Iraq war. Additionally, I have rarely been too interested in politics (not even now). But I don't think that anything of this is relevant as far as the differences between now and always seem quite clear to me. One thing is being secretly pushy via diplomatic or even sneaky/illegal means for months and even years to impose your position; and a quite different story is giving orders openly, publicly and almost randomly up to the point of making a billionaire to feel like offering his help to negotiate in the name of a country.
Is the financial power controlling the world? No doubt on that. Actually, they are the only ones interested in controlling it. Have certain countries (like USA) a quite aggressive exterior policy, what ultimately provokes their decisions to affect other countries, companies or media? Again, no doubt on that. But the fact that all this is the reality doesn't make it an ideal reality. Don't facilitate all this crap. If they want to sneakily do whatever they want, make the process as difficult and dirty as possible. Would Slim be one of the persons (or perhaps the only one) talking to Trump to decide what to do on the wall front (= the compromise allowing both parties to not completely lose with such a stupid nonsense) anyway? OK. But don't support the already-corrupt system by allowing corruption and sneaky deals to be normalised, public and open.
Isn't asking resistance against anything the same pushy ways?
The first difference is that I am nobody whose opinion is exclusively based on reason, fairness and good-to-everyone goals. I am not imposing anything on anyone because I cannot (and wouldn't do it even in case of being in such a position). Additionally, resistance means reaction (= an action had already occurred), is a passive way to protect your interests against those trying damage them. Pushy is the starting action, not the resisting force.
Of course it is, you are asking for a foreign government to favor you against its own people.
Favor me, how exactly? By modding my comments here up? This is too much power even for the POTUS, LOL. No, I am not asking for anything; I am plainly sharing what I am seeing which might eventually be helpful to someone thinking like me who hasn't realised about it yet (again: I am mostly concerned about the means, about the general rules being jeopardised). If you mean this because of my aforementioned reference to autarky, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Note that the bigger the economy the bigger the impact of such a policy everywhere. If other countries have problems, the USA would also have problems (your companies are the most globalised ones). My concerns aren't egoist about my country/situation, but about everyone losing. In fact, I don't think that there is a real risk on this front (Trump and his friends would lose a lot with it). Out of all the empty promises made by Trump, these are the emptiest ones. This was a pretty irrelevant remark. As said, I am mostly concerned about this new way of being pushy.
The recent hour of hate against
If this is for me?! I don't feel hate (not now, not never or virtually never); isn't that clear in my profile bio? I am an extremely practical person (although quite passionate some times, usually with what really matters) who always accepts the reality as it is and adapts his behaviour accordingly. I never liked Trump and did expect problems since his election, but mostly secondary ones or eventually a recession (perhaps because of not being too used to how a presidential system really works). In fact, right after his win I wrote a post here against a fearful person trying to extend ignorance-based fear, because I think that (unmotivated) fear is the root of all what goes wrong everywhere (including Trump's election). I am a very patient person who will never support any kind fear-/hate-/ignorance-based whatever, but things are clearly going in a direction which is bad to everyone. Nobody is used to deal with someone like Trump in certain areas and some people don't seem to be aware of it.
Certain positions (like being the POTUS) are usually associated with a given set of positive prejudices, what makes his decisions to be almost immediately accepted (e.g., what a not-knowledgeable person does with the decisions of an expert in the given field). The problem now is that all this system doesn't work anymore. Trump is an outsider to all these positive prejudices and the (internal and external) system doesn't seem to be adapting to this reality as it should. In fact, this outsider seems to be somehow changing how the system is supposed to work. The reason why I wrote the first comment was knowing about the Slim's proposal (a billionaire offering himself to intercede for a country!!), because I understood it as a new peak in this weird direction.
want to watch the world burn instead of being proven wrong
One new quote (quite a few already, wow!) completely misunderstanding my intention and the meaning of my words?! Seriously, properly-understanding Slashdoters could you please participate in this discussion? So, I want to watch the world burn?! I see the president of the biggest economy in the world tweeting arbitrary orders to everyone (persons, companies and even countries), I call this behaviour out and that makes me to want the world burn? You mean that I was expecting Trump to be respectful to everyone and to follow the rules everywhere, his behaviour has proven me wrong and that makes me angry?! Could you please make a tiny effort to confirm that the generic sentences you use to define me are even slightly applicable to the specific situation?
Let me use a more graphic example. This is like a poker player entering in a top scientific research facility and starting using his "knowledge" with the PhDs working there. Even though they might be more knowledgeable, rational and their positions should eventually prevail, the poker player might get some starting advantage because of dealing with people who aren't used to his behaviour. That starting advantage might mean a lot and this is the whole point of my post: be aware that this person behaves differently. Your usual approaches don't work here, adapt yourself to the new rules which aren't that difficult. Is this idea clear to everyone? Excellent. Someone finds any of this helpful? Excellent too. Quite easy to understand isn't? Where is exactly the hate, the world burning, the lack of acceptation of reality, etc. in my intention? Because I used expressions like "dumb bully" and this is a hate-speech sample which invalidates everything else I wrote or what?
And that if you believe everything he says, you need to seek help?
As what usually happens with fanatics, you don't understand things as they are meant (but as your needy requirements expect them to be). Believe what? I will do a quick summary for you (and other people with limited understanding capabilities): Trump is acting as a bully with everyone, by bluffing and threatening everyone; the ones obeying his bluffs right away (unfortunately, quite a few people) are the ones believing anything. All what I said was that nobody should fall for that and waiting for the actual actions to come (what will never happen). Lastly, another personal observation: lots of people have told you to seek for help, right? (Ironic, don't you think).
publicity for his shitty reality show
?! Sharing my opinion about something which concerns me is giving publicity to that person?!
Well yes we were treated as being that way with Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush again, Reagan, and so on.s
I don't recall any of these presidents (or any other president ever) threatening (with taxes, walls, etc.) companies, countries and media so openly and systematically.
ourselves if we are so unappreciated. The rest of the world might have to finally take responsibility for themselves
I think that quite a few people in places like the Middle East would be very happy if the USA decided to apply these ideas on the military front; not likely to happen though.
In any case, we currently have the small issue of the globalised economy; for example, your Lehman Brothers bankruptcy provoked problems everywhere. Now, everything affects everyone everywhere and a so big player going autarkic would cause lots of trouble, also to yourself; although this is certainly your decision (and your error). The whole point of my post was asking for resistance against the aforementioned pushy ways.
stop spamming threads with your nonsense and hate
Sharing my honest concerns and asking for resistance is spamming and being hateful? This is certainly off-topic (and I do re-apologise about it), but I have written it right now after knowing about Slim's offer and I am posting it only once, here.
For some of us, everything he has been doing is beneficial.
I am not complaining about the results, but about the means. Do you consider that he has been acting right? That his behaviour so far is acceptable? This is how the POTUS should behave? The kind of image that you, as an American, want to represent you and your country? A pushy person arbitrarily imposing whatever to whomever? Do you think that this the best medium-term policy for your interests? Then, ignore my call, but some other people might like it :)
Then feel free to STFU.
So, cannot I have an opinion then? Cannot I talk to the USA citizens? Not even required: I can talk to everyone else around the USA/Trump.
This is one of the few Slashdot threads with no Trump references which I see in some time and, unfortunately, I will go full off-topic and change that.
After seeing what is lately happening with/around Trump, I am plainly not believing what I am seeing. I am not American (neither I am living in the USA), but this can affect all of us and is looking much worse than what I ever thought. The last drop has been the whole situation with Mexico, quick summary:
1. Trump tries to follow through with the wall nonsense (including Mexico paying for it).
2. Peña Prieto does a formal (but not too relevant) gesture of cancelling his visit to USA.
3. Trump doesn't change anything (even starts talking about getting the money via border tax).
4. Both presidents talk by phone (?!).
5. Slim, the Mexican Billionaire, offers his help to negotiate with Trump (??!!!).
Before that, Trump has already openly pushed various international companies to modify their activity!! And some of them have accepted it!!! Why?! Can he, as the president of the USA, force you to do something unfair/stupid? Wait/complain as much as possible! But don't accept his nonsense right away because you are converting it into logical! You are provoking an increasingly number of stupidities to happen!! How, when, why has a billionaire negotiated in the name of a whole country?! How could such a nonsensical offer have even occurred? Because things are starting to get weird and continuing in this direction might provoke some serious problems.
The main reason for this post is calling for resistance against stupidity! Don't do what the dumb bully wants you to do! Be a (wo)man and wait for he to try to beat you up! Don't convert the pure nonsense in the new normal! Don't validate pushy bluffs by immediately accepting them! Wait, force the aggressive nonsense to go further and see how it will always fail! Be patient, claim responsibility, never forget; your moment will certain come and then you should beat back as hardly possible (and the next day again, and then the next one, and then the next one, etc.). Make sure that this bully and all his friends will learn their lesson so well that they will never again dare to come back.
Sorry for being so off-topic, but I couldn't refrain myself. Hopefully, this will be helpful to some people starting to not like all this at all either. Even Trump supporters! Should billionaires start deciding what countries have to do?! Even in case of agreeing with a given policy, do you think that it should be pushed in the way a high-school bully would do? I don't think so.
Within my efforts to slightly (I cannot do miracles) de-stupidify some extremely-ignorant-but-surprisingly-unaware-of-that-fact stupids likely to be reading this post (why? No idea. I plainly accept the reality), I will write some lines about the meaning of bot.
:)).
As everyone should know, this is the short form of robot and, in internet/software, refers to a wide variety of programs performing automated actions of different complexity. The expression crawling bots (or crawlers or spiders or search-engine bots, etc.) usually refers to the ones which navigate through internet retrieving information from a big number of websites for a search-engine or similar (e.g., domain ranking, list of domain backlinks, etc.). Usually, they are properly identified, respect sites' wishes (e.g., only retrieving information allowed by the given robots.txt file) and tend to focus on the public parts (e.g., HTML/CSS/JavaScript, documents, pictures, etc.). That is, the fake-account/captcha-solving/similar robots (the ones emulating real users for whatever reason) are also programs performing automated actions and also can be rightfully called robots, but have nothing to do with the aforementioned crawlers.
In any case and by bearing in mind that this post is addressed to a particularly-ignorant audience, I want to highlight that you can create a program to do whatever you want (at least, if you are an experienced enough programmer who is very used to develop virtually anything completely from scratch, what is the case with me), you can call that program whatever you wish (robot, application, program, virus, friend, etc.) and you can even hide its actions up to certain point (BTW, what I will never do, as far as I am honest and straightforward in both life and programming).
To finish this you-are-so-stupid-and-ignorant-that-I-have-no-idea-why-you-think-that-you-have-anything-to-with-me post, I want to highlight that the current version of the aforementioned varocarbas.com (my R&D-focused site) bots perform an extremely simple analysis and only collect domain names and count backlinks. There will be a second-stage set of bots which will perform a more complex analysis, but which will also store a minimum amount of information. Anyone interested in all this should visit that site in some weeks when I will write detailed explanations (yes, a bit of advertisement. What did you think? That I teach for free? Even my rants and stupids-get-away-from-me posts have a purpose
Well, this has certainly been an unexpected answer, although it kind of addresses some of my previous doubts.
;)
:)
I don't want to extend this chat too much, but cannot refrain myself from commenting some of the items of the list you are linking:
"6. People’s names fit within a certain defined amount of space." -> True. There isn't a single string of characters which is big enough to not fit somewhere. So, on account of the language being considered, you can either set a big enough length or a reasonably-big one + truncating subsystem making sure that everything fits there.
"12. People’s names are case sensitive." -> Always false and nobody should assume otherwise. Names are usually capitalised, but such a fact has no influence in its definition (e.g., you should write Alvaro, my name; in any case, there is no intrinsic difference between alvaro and Alvaro, other than an eventual mistake). In this specific situation, I would always store all the strings as lower caps and, when using them, apply the grammatical rules of the given culture (upper caps or not).
"13. People’s names are case insensitive." -> Together with the previous one, it seems to confirm that there is a bug here
"16. People’s names are not written in ALL CAPS." and "17. People’s names are not written in all lower case letters." -> The aforementioned approach of dealing with just one format (all small caps) + applying the rules of the corresponding culture when using this information is also fine here.
"24. My system will never have to deal with names from China." -> True. The input system is the supreme ruler which should only allow in whatever the remaining parts of the system can deal with. If your system isn't prepared to deal with Chinese (or whatever) names, these inputs shouldn't be allowed (and/or an error should be triggered). So, while working on a specific system to accomplish a certain goal, I can be sure that it will never get a given type of inputs. Same ideas apply to falsehoods 25, 26, 27 and 28.
"40. People have names." -> People certainly have names, but your information gathering subsystem might be faulty. Nulls/blank entries should always be either properly accounted for or knowledgeably rejected (= triggering an error because of being completely sure that this information is essential).
I mean... I get the point that you (and this site) are trying to make. But here is mine: generic truths are usually wrong (although helpful, informative, funny, etc.) and I do rarely rely on them. That's why I never saw my initial "concerns", adequately understood within the right context, as a sure problem (or error or conspiracy or whatever) but as a likely-indicative-although-perhaps-meaning-nothing curious fact, for which I would have accepted any sensible explanation (yours were sensible, but also blind guesses) without any problem.
It seems that both of us did misunderstand the other one (intention, knowledge, expectations, etc.), although it has been a nice chat