I don't have to feel sympathy for someone to want them to be treated properly. I don't have any sympathy for thieves, but I don't think they should be put to death either.
1) "Assault rifles" are not a thing. Certain specific firearms were banned by a piece of legislation colloquially known as the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban," but that doesn't make it a thing any more than the PATRIOT ACT makes it patriotic to eavesdrop. It was passed in 1994 and expired in 2004.
2) California has its own wacky gun laws. I don't know or care what they are.
3) The thing you're talking about is the also ironically-named "Firearm Owners Protection Act" of 1986, and it sort of banned machine guns, but only those manufactured after passage. It's still perfectly legal to buy/own a machine gun built before 1986.
4) In fact, the FOPA did not ban machine guns; it simply requires people to pay a one-time Federal Excise Tax fee. Search for "how to buy a class 3 firearm," for details. The only real hurdle is sometimes getting approval from the local authorities, and it may require some persistence, unless you have a criminal record, and then you can forget about it.
State law may vary. IANAL, and this is not legal advice, etc...
They aren't going to do either of those things. The won't regulate CNC mills, and they won't drop restrictions on manufacturing -- they will just enforce existing laws using existing methods: get the guy you catch to roll over on his source for a reduced sentence. This isn't some new crisis for investigators.
Unlike cars, there is no public record of when they're resold, at least not in most states.
And it's not the receiver that would be matched anyway; it's the barrel.. and guess what? It's perfectly legal to replace the barrel on a gun, and then it won't match either. Regardless, that match can't be made unless the gun has been obtained, and you can't magically match a bullet to a registered gun and then track down the registered owner.
Guns are not traceable. They can possibly be matched, if recovered, but not excluded on anything other than calibur. It's more like blood type evidence than fingerprint.
See my other post, AC. A female name is an asset, not a liability.
Plus women have their first child in their 30s these days, on average, and most tech jobs last less than two years. It's a non-issue that you're speculating that someone else is speculating exists. If you're not getting hired, it's because there are people who are significantly more qualified, or you're living in an area with too few jobs, in which case the solution is not to get a sex change, it's to move.
Do you think the marketing guys at Coke say "until more people device to drink Coke, getting more people to buy our product would have to mean poisoning all the wells and reservoirs"? Or do they perhaps try to encourage people to drink Coke, because historically that has worked quite well?
When is the last time you saw a woman drink a non-diet soda? Do you think diet sodas exist because CocaCola decided to spend time and money to create and manufacture a new product line that tastes inferior to the original and then persuade people to drink it, or because they realized that women want to watch their weight and they could make a shitload of money by catering to that? Because, historically, creating products and trying to convince people that they need it when they don't is a good way to fail. Check out Shark Tank and see how many billionaires are *really* trying that approach. The answer is zero.
The problem with a lot of tech people is that they think their jobs are this mysterious "X" that for some reason only white males can do, and that tech companies therefore have some sort of exemption from behaving like everyone else.
That's just not true. Law is the biggest boy's club in the world. Ask almost any female lawyer, and they will tell you that they bone up on typical male interests like sports, cigars, bourbon, etc. So it must be dominated by men, right? It's not. Law is almost an even distribution by gender now, even while all of the stereotypically male aspects of the culture remain in place. (Including a lot of sexual harassment, to be honest.)
Read my lips: women do not like tech! If you want to know what matters to women, ask the people who sell to them. You will *never* sell a car to a woman by talking about its technical specifications. They don't care. What does it look like, how comfortable is it, will it go in the snow, how many people does it fit, and maybe how many MPG does it get, if they're budget conscious. That's it. Men want to know about horsepower, 0-60, skidpad data, what's the towing capacity, etc. You could sell a car to a man without ever mentioning the color. The color is an afterthought, and if black and white were the only choices, they'd simply choose one or the other to get the vehicle they want with the right specs.
Yes, of course there are exceptions, but it should be no surprise that there are differences between men and women. If anyone's been "programmed by society," it's people who believe that there is no difference. It's not that women are less capable, it's that they do not give a shit about tech.
you choose what seems ok with the norms of the society you live in.
That's only true to an extent. Do you have kids? I never encouraged my daughter to like clothes, or dolls, she just did. (And video games too!) Kids may be subject to peer pressure, and wanting to fit in, but it starts well before peers matter, at age 2 or 3, when mom and dad are still the center of the universe.
And nobody ever questions men's interests. If a boy likes cars or Legos, nobody accuses him of being programmed by society, but somehow everything women do is a result of social programming. It's incredibly subversive, because it sends the message that women can't think for themselves.
I have as well, and I loved my experience (I mean, aside from the fact that I was injured and had to be in the hospital). It was one of the only things that made me wish I had retired instead of getting out. Are there administrative problems? Sure. Yes. At the same time, I've had civilian hospitals lose my files too. Administrative problems exist everywhere. The level of care I got at the VA hospital far exceeded anything I've experienced at a typical hospital, both in quality of service and in staff bedside manner and caring. If I could use the VA hospital for everything, I would.
Look, my experience as someone with a first name that is gender neutral, but trends female with the spelling, has been awesome. Many of the emails from recruiters address me as Ms., not Mr.
Overall, it is an advantage for me, because I get calls that I otherwise would not. I was told flat out after getting one job that I had been targeted initially because they thought I was a woman. I also know a guy named Brooke, and he gets tons of calls.
If you are a woman in tech, you pretty much have it made, because companies will compete for you. They *are* competing for you. Your biggest challenge is deciding which offer(s) to accept, and while that can be daunting, it's still an enviable position. Complaining about it to men is like complaining about the buffet selection to a homeless person. If you're a woman in tech that's not getting hired, it's *not* because you are a woman, it's because you're .
All else being equal, I *much* prefer to work with women too. They're usually tactful, often have insights that I lack, and they typically have better hygiene to boot. What I don't like is listening to people complain about problems that do not exist. The problem isn't that women are being kept out of tech -- they are being welcomed with open arms -- it's that they don't want to be there, and it's an insult to their autonomy to tell them they *should* want to be there when they don't.
Yeah, sorry, the Pauls take great positions on one or two issues and the rest of them are batshit crazy. That's a reflection of reality, not a conspiracy theory.
That said, I might actually vote for Rand, because I think it's time for the pendulum to swing back to the other end of the spectrum for a while. Not all of the changes will be for the best, assuming he manages to make any, but we really need to take a break from the national security/world police routine.
Wrong. That sound you just heard was the NSA's head asploding. These guys are *not* fans of end-to-end encryption by the public, or any entity other than themselves. It doesn't matter if they supposedly know who to focus on if they don't have the ability to decrypt the communications (unless they manage endpoint intrusion, but that's a separate problem). They want communications to be either a) unencrypted, or b) encrypted with a backdoor. Nevermind the fact that criminals and black hats would be just as happy to intercept communications, and are only slightly less well positioned to do so. The NSA is leaning heavily on tech companies to abandon end-to-end encryption; even Apple's version, which was intentionally made vulnerable to MITM.
But even if you don't care if the NSA intercepts your communications -- many people don't, and I respect that position -- let's agree that that's the very best case. It could just as easily be China, Russia, or Joe Hacker. Any one of them would be happy to lean on you if they can piece together that you have access to anything they want. Interception of communications is just as big of a risk to national security as it is a tool to protect it. It's a double-edged sword, and I don't think we're respecting that to the degree that we should. So far, by most indications, we've managed to stay ahead of most of the world, but past performance is no guarantee of future results. You don't bet on a team to win the Super Bowl next year just because they won last year.
Physical security (standing watch) is one of the most monotonous, thankless, and just plain boring jobs. At best you may be have spurts of attentiveness, but the rest of the time you're faking it. Fake badges (as tests) would get through at least 90% of the time, unless you saw someone coming who you knew was likely to test your attentiveness, or it happened to be during a spurt of attentiveness. The toughest physical security is going to be a bouncer, because he knows with 100% certainty that multiple underage patrons are going to try to sneak in on his watch, but even then dozens will, even without a bribe.
The most unrealistic aspect of first person shooters isn't the shitty AI, it's the AI's hypervigilance and flawless ability to instantly identify a threat on sight.
Right. In my mind, I was replying to a post about not upgrading from 7, so there was no need to address 8. I can see how my post would be confusing.
The new task manager was the only thing I found compelling about 8/8.1. Client Hyper-V is more supra-OS, and it's not necessary to use Win8+ to install a hypervisor. And as mentioned above, multiple desktops have been a part of Windows for a while, though must be enabled through external tools.
I'll upgrade to whatever's current when they EOL 7, but not before.
Almost anything can be brought up at sentencing. If we limit things in sentencing to only what was presented at trial, then people could not make supportive statements either.
I agree that it's pushing the limits of propriety (and necessity) to factor in allegations for which there will be a separate trial, especially if he is found not guilty, but I also don't think the bar you set is necessarily the correct one.
None of the other things you mention are inherent features of an OS. Edge (codename Spartan) will almost certainly be available on older OSes. Cortana will probably be tightly integrated, but there's no reason it has to be except to drive adoption. Not impressed.
Developers decide the level of detail and effects they want to be the max settings in their games, and they can always make this higher than the current state of the art, regardless of what that state is. Generally, they're going to be targeting 1920x1080 displays, since that's what the overwhelming majority of users have right now, even with the best video cards. And this has *always* been the case. Back when I had a 21" CRT with "MultiSync," I would never be able to run the latest games in 1600x1200 (max res) on the latest hardware. It was unthinkable. 1280x1024 was usually the best I could do.
If you, as a user, want higher resolution, you're going to have to either make a tradeoff in detail/effects, or wait a few years for hardware to exceed the performance that was available when the developers wrote the game. As 4k becomes more popular, developers may change their performance targets as well (at the expense of improvements in quality other than resolution), but probably not until adoption exceeds 50% of the market.
By the way, you can safely improve performance without sacrificing any quality by reducing anti-aliasing by 1/2 in 4k, since the resolution is twice that of 1080p. Granted, it would look even better to keep AA maxed, but the picture will still be sharper than 1080p because you will be viewing actual pixels instead of virtual pixels.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's really the perfect market since it's already inundated with driverless vehicles.
I don't have to feel sympathy for someone to want them to be treated properly. I don't have any sympathy for thieves, but I don't think they should be put to death either.
Woohoo! Finally something good about living near DC.
1) "Assault rifles" are not a thing. Certain specific firearms were banned by a piece of legislation colloquially known as the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban," but that doesn't make it a thing any more than the PATRIOT ACT makes it patriotic to eavesdrop. It was passed in 1994 and expired in 2004.
2) California has its own wacky gun laws. I don't know or care what they are.
3) The thing you're talking about is the also ironically-named "Firearm Owners Protection Act" of 1986, and it sort of banned machine guns, but only those manufactured after passage. It's still perfectly legal to buy/own a machine gun built before 1986.
4) In fact, the FOPA did not ban machine guns; it simply requires people to pay a one-time Federal Excise Tax fee. Search for "how to buy a class 3 firearm," for details. The only real hurdle is sometimes getting approval from the local authorities, and it may require some persistence, unless you have a criminal record, and then you can forget about it.
State law may vary. IANAL, and this is not legal advice, etc...
They aren't going to do either of those things. The won't regulate CNC mills, and they won't drop restrictions on manufacturing -- they will just enforce existing laws using existing methods: get the guy you catch to roll over on his source for a reduced sentence. This isn't some new crisis for investigators.
Unlike cars, there is no public record of when they're resold, at least not in most states.
And it's not the receiver that would be matched anyway; it's the barrel.. and guess what? It's perfectly legal to replace the barrel on a gun, and then it won't match either. Regardless, that match can't be made unless the gun has been obtained, and you can't magically match a bullet to a registered gun and then track down the registered owner.
Guns are not traceable. They can possibly be matched, if recovered, but not excluded on anything other than calibur. It's more like blood type evidence than fingerprint.
A finding that surprised even him? Who wouldn't be surprised in that scenario? Maybe Kim Kardashian, and that's the entire list.
See my other post, AC. A female name is an asset, not a liability.
Plus women have their first child in their 30s these days, on average, and most tech jobs last less than two years. It's a non-issue that you're speculating that someone else is speculating exists. If you're not getting hired, it's because there are people who are significantly more qualified, or you're living in an area with too few jobs, in which case the solution is not to get a sex change, it's to move.
Do you think the marketing guys at Coke say "until more people device to drink Coke, getting more people to buy our product would have to mean poisoning all the wells and reservoirs"? Or do they perhaps try to encourage people to drink Coke, because historically that has worked quite well?
When is the last time you saw a woman drink a non-diet soda? Do you think diet sodas exist because CocaCola decided to spend time and money to create and manufacture a new product line that tastes inferior to the original and then persuade people to drink it, or because they realized that women want to watch their weight and they could make a shitload of money by catering to that? Because, historically, creating products and trying to convince people that they need it when they don't is a good way to fail. Check out Shark Tank and see how many billionaires are *really* trying that approach. The answer is zero.
The problem with a lot of tech people is that they think their jobs are this mysterious "X" that for some reason only white males can do, and that tech companies therefore have some sort of exemption from behaving like everyone else.
That's just not true. Law is the biggest boy's club in the world. Ask almost any female lawyer, and they will tell you that they bone up on typical male interests like sports, cigars, bourbon, etc. So it must be dominated by men, right? It's not. Law is almost an even distribution by gender now, even while all of the stereotypically male aspects of the culture remain in place. (Including a lot of sexual harassment, to be honest.)
Read my lips: women do not like tech! If you want to know what matters to women, ask the people who sell to them. You will *never* sell a car to a woman by talking about its technical specifications. They don't care. What does it look like, how comfortable is it, will it go in the snow, how many people does it fit, and maybe how many MPG does it get, if they're budget conscious. That's it. Men want to know about horsepower, 0-60, skidpad data, what's the towing capacity, etc. You could sell a car to a man without ever mentioning the color. The color is an afterthought, and if black and white were the only choices, they'd simply choose one or the other to get the vehicle they want with the right specs.
Yes, of course there are exceptions, but it should be no surprise that there are differences between men and women. If anyone's been "programmed by society," it's people who believe that there is no difference. It's not that women are less capable, it's that they do not give a shit about tech.
you choose what seems ok with the norms of the society you live in.
That's only true to an extent. Do you have kids? I never encouraged my daughter to like clothes, or dolls, she just did. (And video games too!) Kids may be subject to peer pressure, and wanting to fit in, but it starts well before peers matter, at age 2 or 3, when mom and dad are still the center of the universe.
And nobody ever questions men's interests. If a boy likes cars or Legos, nobody accuses him of being programmed by society, but somehow everything women do is a result of social programming. It's incredibly subversive, because it sends the message that women can't think for themselves.
I have as well, and I loved my experience (I mean, aside from the fact that I was injured and had to be in the hospital). It was one of the only things that made me wish I had retired instead of getting out. Are there administrative problems? Sure. Yes. At the same time, I've had civilian hospitals lose my files too. Administrative problems exist everywhere. The level of care I got at the VA hospital far exceeded anything I've experienced at a typical hospital, both in quality of service and in staff bedside manner and caring. If I could use the VA hospital for everything, I would.
Hahaha.. That third paragraph should have ended with, "it's because you're incompetent." Oh, irony.
Look, my experience as someone with a first name that is gender neutral, but trends female with the spelling, has been awesome. Many of the emails from recruiters address me as Ms., not Mr.
Overall, it is an advantage for me, because I get calls that I otherwise would not. I was told flat out after getting one job that I had been targeted initially because they thought I was a woman. I also know a guy named Brooke, and he gets tons of calls.
If you are a woman in tech, you pretty much have it made, because companies will compete for you. They *are* competing for you. Your biggest challenge is deciding which offer(s) to accept, and while that can be daunting, it's still an enviable position. Complaining about it to men is like complaining about the buffet selection to a homeless person. If you're a woman in tech that's not getting hired, it's *not* because you are a woman, it's because you're .
All else being equal, I *much* prefer to work with women too. They're usually tactful, often have insights that I lack, and they typically have better hygiene to boot. What I don't like is listening to people complain about problems that do not exist. The problem isn't that women are being kept out of tech -- they are being welcomed with open arms -- it's that they don't want to be there, and it's an insult to their autonomy to tell them they *should* want to be there when they don't.
This is why we can't have nice things!
I don't think you fully grasp how the Soviet Russia meme works...
Yeah, sorry, the Pauls take great positions on one or two issues and the rest of them are batshit crazy. That's a reflection of reality, not a conspiracy theory.
That said, I might actually vote for Rand, because I think it's time for the pendulum to swing back to the other end of the spectrum for a while. Not all of the changes will be for the best, assuming he manages to make any, but we really need to take a break from the national security/world police routine.
Wrong. That sound you just heard was the NSA's head asploding. These guys are *not* fans of end-to-end encryption by the public, or any entity other than themselves. It doesn't matter if they supposedly know who to focus on if they don't have the ability to decrypt the communications (unless they manage endpoint intrusion, but that's a separate problem). They want communications to be either a) unencrypted, or b) encrypted with a backdoor. Nevermind the fact that criminals and black hats would be just as happy to intercept communications, and are only slightly less well positioned to do so. The NSA is leaning heavily on tech companies to abandon end-to-end encryption; even Apple's version, which was intentionally made vulnerable to MITM.
But even if you don't care if the NSA intercepts your communications -- many people don't, and I respect that position -- let's agree that that's the very best case. It could just as easily be China, Russia, or Joe Hacker. Any one of them would be happy to lean on you if they can piece together that you have access to anything they want. Interception of communications is just as big of a risk to national security as it is a tool to protect it. It's a double-edged sword, and I don't think we're respecting that to the degree that we should. So far, by most indications, we've managed to stay ahead of most of the world, but past performance is no guarantee of future results. You don't bet on a team to win the Super Bowl next year just because they won last year.
Physical security (standing watch) is one of the most monotonous, thankless, and just plain boring jobs. At best you may be have spurts of attentiveness, but the rest of the time you're faking it. Fake badges (as tests) would get through at least 90% of the time, unless you saw someone coming who you knew was likely to test your attentiveness, or it happened to be during a spurt of attentiveness. The toughest physical security is going to be a bouncer, because he knows with 100% certainty that multiple underage patrons are going to try to sneak in on his watch, but even then dozens will, even without a bribe.
The most unrealistic aspect of first person shooters isn't the shitty AI, it's the AI's hypervigilance and flawless ability to instantly identify a threat on sight.
I take it you weren't in favor of 8 or 8.1 ?
Right. In my mind, I was replying to a post about not upgrading from 7, so there was no need to address 8. I can see how my post would be confusing.
The new task manager was the only thing I found compelling about 8/8.1. Client Hyper-V is more supra-OS, and it's not necessary to use Win8+ to install a hypervisor. And as mentioned above, multiple desktops have been a part of Windows for a while, though must be enabled through external tools.
I'll upgrade to whatever's current when they EOL 7, but not before.
Almost anything can be brought up at sentencing. If we limit things in sentencing to only what was presented at trial, then people could not make supportive statements either.
I agree that it's pushing the limits of propriety (and necessity) to factor in allegations for which there will be a separate trial, especially if he is found not guilty, but I also don't think the bar you set is necessarily the correct one.
On the upside, there is a finite limit to how long stupidity can exist in the universe!
No, it is not always wrong to compare them, nor to use them as keys.
That's like saying that it's not always wrong to kill someone. While it's technically true, it's still probably wrong if you're thinking of doing it.
Virtual desktops are already supported. http://www.howtogeek.com/19596...
None of the other things you mention are inherent features of an OS. Edge (codename Spartan) will almost certainly be available on older OSes. Cortana will probably be tightly integrated, but there's no reason it has to be except to drive adoption. Not impressed.
Define "handle."
Developers decide the level of detail and effects they want to be the max settings in their games, and they can always make this higher than the current state of the art, regardless of what that state is. Generally, they're going to be targeting 1920x1080 displays, since that's what the overwhelming majority of users have right now, even with the best video cards. And this has *always* been the case. Back when I had a 21" CRT with "MultiSync," I would never be able to run the latest games in 1600x1200 (max res) on the latest hardware. It was unthinkable. 1280x1024 was usually the best I could do.
If you, as a user, want higher resolution, you're going to have to either make a tradeoff in detail/effects, or wait a few years for hardware to exceed the performance that was available when the developers wrote the game. As 4k becomes more popular, developers may change their performance targets as well (at the expense of improvements in quality other than resolution), but probably not until adoption exceeds 50% of the market.
By the way, you can safely improve performance without sacrificing any quality by reducing anti-aliasing by 1/2 in 4k, since the resolution is twice that of 1080p. Granted, it would look even better to keep AA maxed, but the picture will still be sharper than 1080p because you will be viewing actual pixels instead of virtual pixels.