It's FUNNY! It is written by someone with an extensive knowledge of English colloquial expressions, or copied from someone with that knowledge. MOD PARENT UP!
If you have to explain it, the clearly the author missed the mark and there post is a damp squid.
I think the statement here is that all 3 branches of the government who are responsible for protecting your civil rights disagree with your interpretation of your Constitutional rights.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I think I know several people who had high hopes for Obama, being very excited with his election to only end up disappointed, calling him "Bush the Third".
I can appreciate your concern, since the recent history with Skype and some other acquisitions left a bit of a bad taste, but this article from ArsTechnica suggests that Microsoft might have been the best option:
I understand that, but in the 90's Windows 3.1 was considered "the best option" for an operating system. Fortunately a lot of people didn't consider it an adequate option and chose not to settle.
The Microsoft of today is not the same Microsoft as in the days of Ballmer and Gates.
There are a few running memes over the history of Microsoft. One I never not tired of is someone popping up to assure the world that today's Microsoft is not same Microsoft that did all the bad things that earned them their unpleasant reputation. I don't pay enough attention to know if they are the same people who stick up for Microsoft when it's been discovered that they've added some new underhanded practice to their repertoire.
New? How new? Do you mean the guy who was going to increase protections for whistle-blowers, stop warrant-less surveillance and close Guantanamo Bay?
Or are you thinking of the fellow who was "a uniter and not a divider" that was going to keep America out of quagmires that don't have a clear exit strategy?
Are you reaching back to the gregarious fellow who's appearance, including his hair color changed almost as much as his contradictory campaign promises based on the audience he was going to appear before?
Or are you reaching back even further for the start of this "new" trend? Because this isn't getting any more difficult. Admittedly the latest specimen doesn't exhibit the refined, cultured quality of deceit that his predecessors had developed. But I'd be hard pressed to call it any more weaselly.
Heck, he's so bad at lying he's arguably more transparent than what we are used to seeing in Washington. I guess it's a matter of whether you want to see the lie coming or if you'd rather a lie you can believe in.
Someone will implement OpenGL as a wrapper over Vulkan. Then developers will start bypassing the wrapper when they need the better optimizations Vulkan will allow. Developers who don't need the better performance will stick to easier higher level APIs.
One would think that the homes of diplomatic workers are as well monitored for sound, RF, and radiation attacks as the office building.
Why? I mean why the trouble? If you are that concerned about the well being of the diplomats and staff, why not just build apartments into an embassy compound? I would assume that if it was believed to be safe enough for embassy workers to live outside the embassy, then that would mean we didn't feel it was necessary to build radiation attack detection systems into the homes.
Why can't FB issue a utility to the users to process their own images and generate a hash for the images they don't want shown?
... and someone will start submitting hashes of pictures that embarrass a politician they like and for pictures that show a politician from the other party in a favorable way. Unfettered access to Facebook's ban hammer.
For what it's worth, I'm not an atheist, I'm not disgusted and I know the Constitution is not the idealistic ramblings of religious zealots. But they were somewhat idealistic for their time. Radicals too. Are they correct in their determination everyone's Rights? Where their definition might conflict with the EU's definition of Rights, which is correct?
When dealing with conflicting "Rights" as have been discussed in this thread (such as the EU's people's Right to Privacy and the US company's right to use the information they posses) who is correct? There is not some inherent absolute for you to tied yourself to. The coward I was responding to made it clear that God wasn't something you can expect everyone to anchor their axioms to. What would you expect everyone to anchor to so they see your "TRUTH" & "MORAL" justification as correct? Just that you capitalized them? (Ya, I know, but really, capitalizing them makes it seem like you think you've written something beyond dispute, even though people when to war to dispute it. Saying "everybody knows these things" doesn't mean everybody knows these things.)
I believe there are things that are right and true, but yammering about my "Rights", especially in international matters is about as silly as my declaring "It's God's will! We'll fight you if you disagree!"
Rights are granted by societies. There is nothing inherently magical about people or their origin that bestow them these rights, no matter how much you believe in faerie tales and invisible sky wizards.
I was going to point out something similar, but the coward made the point much better and far more sincerely than I would have. To address the original comment
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights..."
This only works if you believe that everyone has a common "Creator", that this "Creator" created everyone equally and endowed them with "Rights". If you don't believe any part of that, it really falls apart. You could support the idea of "Rights" out of benevolent self interest, but that only holds up as long as cooperation is in everyone's interest.
After you get past that, the question is what makes 2 people any more equal than a person and say a cow or the neanderthal? This belief in equality is only useful to create rules to protect yourself and you interests until you have enough power and influence to acquire want you want and need and to protect the things you care about without the rules. Then you are in a superior position and can create new rules to protect your interests and control those who would work against your interests.
"Rights" are a nice idea and can make a society run better. But you can't expect people to believe in your "Rights" any more than you can expect them to believe in your God. "Rights" are granted by those who are capable and willing to enforce them and rejected by those who can gain more without them.
In the context of this thread, the EU and cellphone companies are arguing incompatible "Rights". The cellphone companies are hoping the US will protect the cellphone companies' "Rights" from the EU's attempts to enforce the EU's Rights. Most other people involved and the people affected are operating at the "cow or the neanderthal" level. The Creator is letting us make our own mess.
I've found the only ones not legislating in Washington is the legislature. The president, the courts, random committees, commissions and administrative offices are making the rules. Random legislators will complain about what these others are doing, but it does irritate the legislature enough to make them actually work on legislation.
Honest question. How are folks implementing backups that comply with GDPR? Seems there would be some cases where you couldn't backup data on a per-user basis. Mutable backups just seem totally wrong.
A lot of GDPR is clearly well thought out and easy to design too as a result. Migrating a non-GDPR based design could be a pain. But the requirements to be able discard backups in a month seems like it could be tricky in certain cases without compromising backup integrity.
Well you see, they aren't actually fleeing anything... in either direction. These are bright young folks. They are out to enjoy themselves and have fun. They have a plan. They'll see if they can keep running back and forth fast enough to start the continent rocking. First it'll be a subtle wobbling, but eventually they'll find the right frequency. Then the fun will begin.
What used to cost us $60 cost over $150 when we dropped cable. We went from 20Mb to 100Mb, picked up Netflix, Hulu & Prime (commercial free, multi-viewer packages) and still came out at least $40 cheaper a month. We can't watch everything we might want, but we can always find things we actually want to watch.
Split the hair any way you like. Cable's been constantly rising in price and there's no added value for the added cost. Cable isn't worth the money any more.
Do you really want to be making Apple products better FOR FREE?
The point of Open Source is that EVERYONE gets a better product "for free" because by contributing changes Apple benefits - but so do you, or anyone else that chooses to use the code.
And the point of Open Core is to release internals of your product as Open Source to appear more open and maybe to get people to serve as your unpaid employees while making sure you don't release enough code to be useful outside of your product and to limit contributions that attempt to re-implement those parts.
Often I'll open one (or more) youtube links in other tabs. I then have to go to each of them and stop them, then pick the one I want to watch first. I'd like this if I were a chrome user. I'd like it more if it would cripple the autoplay of the next random video once the current video finishes.
Ok maybe not cripple it. Just don't make it the default. Let me turn it off and leave it off. Unless I've selected a playlist (and sometimes even if I have selected a playlist) I never want to skip to some random video. That's not just a youtube statement.
Slashdot Mirror
It's FUNNY! It is written by someone with an extensive knowledge of English colloquial expressions, or copied from someone with that knowledge. MOD PARENT UP!
If you have to explain it, the clearly the author missed the mark and there post is a damp squid.
I think the statement here is that all 3 branches of the government who are responsible for protecting your civil rights disagree with your interpretation of your Constitutional rights.
Which is why it'll be hard-mounted with no exposed wires, like the smoke detector.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I think I know several people who had high hopes for Obama, being very excited with his election to only end up disappointed, calling him "Bush the Third".
I can appreciate your concern, since the recent history with Skype and some other acquisitions left a bit of a bad taste, but this article from ArsTechnica suggests that Microsoft might have been the best option:
I understand that, but in the 90's Windows 3.1 was considered "the best option" for an operating system. Fortunately a lot of people didn't consider it an adequate option and chose not to settle.
The Microsoft of today is not the same Microsoft as in the days of Ballmer and Gates.
There are a few running memes over the history of Microsoft. One I never not tired of is someone popping up to assure the world that today's Microsoft is not same Microsoft that did all the bad things that earned them their unpleasant reputation. I don't pay enough attention to know if they are the same people who stick up for Microsoft when it's been discovered that they've added some new underhanded practice to their repertoire.
In many ways pigs are flying.
Of course they are.
I must have a narrower definition of integrity than you.
New? How new? Do you mean the guy who was going to increase protections for whistle-blowers, stop warrant-less surveillance and close Guantanamo Bay?
Or are you thinking of the fellow who was "a uniter and not a divider" that was going to keep America out of quagmires that don't have a clear exit strategy?
Are you reaching back to the gregarious fellow who's appearance, including his hair color changed almost as much as his contradictory campaign promises based on the audience he was going to appear before?
Or are you reaching back even further for the start of this "new" trend? Because this isn't getting any more difficult. Admittedly the latest specimen doesn't exhibit the refined, cultured quality of deceit that his predecessors had developed. But I'd be hard pressed to call it any more weaselly.
Heck, he's so bad at lying he's arguably more transparent than what we are used to seeing in Washington. I guess it's a matter of whether you want to see the lie coming or if you'd rather a lie you can believe in.
Someone will implement OpenGL as a wrapper over Vulkan. Then developers will start bypassing the wrapper when they need the better optimizations Vulkan will allow. Developers who don't need the better performance will stick to easier higher level APIs.
But Schmidt obviously do not want regulation and restraints on Google'(TM)s business model.
No, but he would like governments to "fund research and education around these technologies" so he doesn't to pay so much for his business model.
One would think that the homes of diplomatic workers are as well monitored for sound, RF, and radiation attacks as the office building.
Why? I mean why the trouble? If you are that concerned about the well being of the diplomats and staff, why not just build apartments into an embassy compound? I would assume that if it was believed to be safe enough for embassy workers to live outside the embassy, then that would mean we didn't feel it was necessary to build radiation attack detection systems into the homes.
Why can't FB issue a utility to the users to process their own images and generate a hash for the images they don't want shown?
... and someone will start submitting hashes of pictures that embarrass a politician they like and for pictures that show a politician from the other party in a favorable way. Unfettered access to Facebook's ban hammer.
More simply, is it really a public benefit or cooperate welfare? I don't know enough about the dataset and who uses it how to say for myself.
I just checked and on my computer the menu key to the left of space also brought up the spell correct list.
For what it's worth, I'm not an atheist, I'm not disgusted and I know the Constitution is not the idealistic ramblings of religious zealots. But they were somewhat idealistic for their time. Radicals too. Are they correct in their determination everyone's Rights? Where their definition might conflict with the EU's definition of Rights, which is correct?
When dealing with conflicting "Rights" as have been discussed in this thread (such as the EU's people's Right to Privacy and the US company's right to use the information they posses) who is correct? There is not some inherent absolute for you to tied yourself to. The coward I was responding to made it clear that God wasn't something you can expect everyone to anchor their axioms to. What would you expect everyone to anchor to so they see your "TRUTH" & "MORAL" justification as correct? Just that you capitalized them? (Ya, I know, but really, capitalizing them makes it seem like you think you've written something beyond dispute, even though people when to war to dispute it. Saying "everybody knows these things" doesn't mean everybody knows these things.)
I believe there are things that are right and true, but yammering about my "Rights", especially in international matters is about as silly as my declaring "It's God's will! We'll fight you if you disagree!"
I've heard good things about Cisco very recently. They put out lot of fixes.
If he goes to trial on the leak charges, a defense attorney can request documents. Confidential information could be force into the public record.
Rights are granted by societies. There is nothing inherently magical about people or their origin that bestow them these rights, no matter how much you believe in faerie tales and invisible sky wizards.
I was going to point out something similar, but the coward made the point much better and far more sincerely than I would have. To address the original comment
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights..."
This only works if you believe that everyone has a common "Creator", that this "Creator" created everyone equally and endowed them with "Rights". If you don't believe any part of that, it really falls apart. You could support the idea of "Rights" out of benevolent self interest, but that only holds up as long as cooperation is in everyone's interest.
After you get past that, the question is what makes 2 people any more equal than a person and say a cow or the neanderthal? This belief in equality is only useful to create rules to protect yourself and you interests until you have enough power and influence to acquire want you want and need and to protect the things you care about without the rules. Then you are in a superior position and can create new rules to protect your interests and control those who would work against your interests.
"Rights" are a nice idea and can make a society run better. But you can't expect people to believe in your "Rights" any more than you can expect them to believe in your God. "Rights" are granted by those who are capable and willing to enforce them and rejected by those who can gain more without them.
In the context of this thread, the EU and cellphone companies are arguing incompatible "Rights". The cellphone companies are hoping the US will protect the cellphone companies' "Rights" from the EU's attempts to enforce the EU's Rights. Most other people involved and the people affected are operating at the "cow or the neanderthal" level. The Creator is letting us make our own mess.
I've found the only ones not legislating in Washington is the legislature. The president, the courts, random committees, commissions and administrative offices are making the rules. Random legislators will complain about what these others are doing, but it does irritate the legislature enough to make them actually work on legislation.
Do pager companies have to track pagers?
Save you the time. The answer is no. Next question. Did the pager companies master magic?
Honest question. How are folks implementing backups that comply with GDPR? Seems there would be some cases where you couldn't backup data on a per-user basis. Mutable backups just seem totally wrong.
A lot of GDPR is clearly well thought out and easy to design too as a result. Migrating a non-GDPR based design could be a pain. But the requirements to be able discard backups in a month seems like it could be tricky in certain cases without compromising backup integrity.
Well you see, they aren't actually fleeing anything ... in either direction. These are bright young folks. They are out to enjoy themselves and have fun. They have a plan. They'll see if they can keep running back and forth fast enough to start the continent rocking. First it'll be a subtle wobbling, but eventually they'll find the right frequency. Then the fun will begin.
2) Something, possibly Trump, possibly waning support from China, has him scared shitless.
You miss read the situation. That's not fear, that's just him.
What used to cost us $60 cost over $150 when we dropped cable. We went from 20Mb to 100Mb, picked up Netflix, Hulu & Prime (commercial free, multi-viewer packages) and still came out at least $40 cheaper a month. We can't watch everything we might want, but we can always find things we actually want to watch.
Split the hair any way you like. Cable's been constantly rising in price and there's no added value for the added cost. Cable isn't worth the money any more.
Do you really want to be making Apple products better FOR FREE?
The point of Open Source is that EVERYONE gets a better product "for free" because by contributing changes Apple benefits - but so do you, or anyone else that chooses to use the code.
And the point of Open Core is to release internals of your product as Open Source to appear more open and maybe to get people to serve as your unpaid employees while making sure you don't release enough code to be useful outside of your product and to limit contributions that attempt to re-implement those parts.
See Open Darwin as a successful example.
Often I'll open one (or more) youtube links in other tabs. I then have to go to each of them and stop them, then pick the one I want to watch first. I'd like this if I were a chrome user. I'd like it more if it would cripple the autoplay of the next random video once the current video finishes. Ok maybe not cripple it. Just don't make it the default. Let me turn it off and leave it off. Unless I've selected a playlist (and sometimes even if I have selected a playlist) I never want to skip to some random video. That's not just a youtube statement.