I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.
It looks more like the sort of inane nonsense daesh like to boast about: "Look how incredibly impressive and deadly we are, also, it's cool to fly a killer drone".
Your comments make a lot of sense, I think. What I don't understand is, well, American politics: this tendency to either idolise or demonise everybody. It makes no sense at all, especially since politicians, even when running for president, are simply humans, no much different from you and me, and if you know anything about yourself, you wouldn't be surprised or disappointed about their little dirty secrets. When you are rich and privileged, you will come to think that you are entitled to ignore what is legally or morally right, because that is what most people would do; denying it would be sanctimonious.
Politicians today are not, as far as I can see, any more dishonest than they have always been, and I wonder why there is such a wild hysteria about them now. I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect somewhere somebody has an agenda that makes it desirable.
But to return to the candidates - is Ms Clinton really as throughly evil as she is portrayed, a criminal mastermind? Of course not, give me a break; criminal masterminds prefer to enjoy the high life and pull strings without getting their hands dirty, and being the president isn't actually a very comfortable job: you are constantly reviled and everything you do is opposed at every turn. And is Mr Trump really nothing more than a loudmouthed self-aggrandiser and manipulator? It's hard for me to tell - I loathe him - but I have heard what seemed like reliable witnesses say that he is actually a nice person in private, we just dont see any of that.
The point is, politics is a strange game, where everybody is an opponent (including your best friends), and you need a lot of experience to know when you can risk trusting anybody and when you absolutely shouldn't, and need to understand what to say, when to say it and especially when to just shut up. Politicians can't just speak their mind openly, because everybody is going to jump on it and use it against you. IMO, objectively speaking, I think Clinton is far more up to this than Trump, and the rest of them aren't even in the game. Do I like the two? Not really, but I don't have to, they are not going to come over for dinner any time soon, but there is no doubt that Clinton can be a better president than Trump ever could.
Are we finally entering an era of fully homeopathic politics: where the issues are diluted until the point where there is no trace of substance and it is all 'magic water'? Where are the discussions about real problems, like the wars in the Middle East, or the several migrations crises, or the declining economy? Where are the realistic proposals for American politics over the next decade? Certainly not here; apparently it is much more interesting to groom one's personal navel fluff and gossip about the favourite celebs - in this case Clinton and Trump. So, when are we going to spend some real quality time talking about Clinton's choice of dresses and make-up (or the same for Trump, why not?)
Just making an observation in passing, and I may be completely wrong, of course, in which case somebody can earn a few, cheap points by correcting me; but over the recent years there has been a number of similar articles about "Chinese Hackers", and the majority view has always appeared to be that this was undoubtedly true. Now we have seen a few articles saying exactly the same abour "Russian Hackers", with more or less the same level of authority behind, but now, apparently, it is "obviously wrong". Why is that?
What does that actually mean? Is it "improved" as in "reducing the amount of crap advertising that is pushed to the user", or is it "improved" as in "New, Improved Recipe", which basically means they have found a new way of adulterating a product, so it is cheaper to produce?
The "average" user has no idea and that's why they put IOT shit on their unsecured network in the first place, duh.
The average user has no idea that there is something like "IoT" and that it is in any way different from the rest of "the internet". All they know is that it is "smart" to have an app on your phone that can turn on the heating and tell you the fridge is empty, and a TV that seems to understand what you want to watch, or a smart meter that tells you (and the utility company) how much gas and electricity you use up to the last minute. They won't know or care about the security implications until it goes badly wrong.
Although one Democrat criticized the extension by arguing that nuclear power "does better in a socialist economy than in a capitalist one, because nuclear energy prefers to have the public do the cleanup, do the insurance, cover all of the losses and it only wants the profits."
I remember in the beginning how refreshing it was to find Slashdot, where you could quite often find intelligent discourse about technical subjects and where Linux was often portrayed in a positive light at a time when the consensus in the IT industry produced such catchy phrases as "You get what you pay for" and other goodies. It feels quite disappointing to see that we are now becoming little more than a sort tabloid outlet, whose main editorial line is to post anything that stirs up controversy, because that attracts more commentators, who we can sell as potetial eyes that look at our adverts.
I've picked out this particular sentence, not because I feel that socialism needs defending, but because it once again portrays Americans as being stereotypically crude, uninformed and astoundingly stupid. So, is there actually 'one Democrat' that spews out this sort of tripe about socialism? Probably - just as there are Republicans and Americans of any denomination, who tend to hold a similarly uninformed view of the world. And for that matter, people from any nation. I happen to know quite a few Americans - and I have only ever come across 1 in the flesh, who matched the sterotype; to compare, I know loads of Britons that appear to be functionally braindead.
As for the comment on itself: the behaviour desribed matches very closely what we have grown up to expect from businesses, especially big businesses, under glorous Capitalism: acid rain, dead rivers, corrupt companies paying corrupt researchers (they don't really deserve being called scientists) to tweak their results, pollutants poured out in the environment with the excuse that "it hasn't been proven that these chemicals, which cause deformities in frogs are harmful to humans" - and so on. Plus, of course, they do all they can to avoid paying taxes, so who gets to pay the bill for cleaning up the mess for their reckless profiteering? Societies all over the world are still paying the bill for the tobacco industry's profitmaking - they make money from selling a drug that is proven to cause cancer, but they don't pay the expenses for cancer treatments, nor do they compensate for the loss of production or any of the other significant costs associated with their business. All in all, I think it has absolutely nothing to do with socialism when the public has to foot the bill for the mindless greed of Big Capitalism.
They might discover lost Greek texts or other works of antiquity
Or much more interesting: Etruscan texts, of which there woefully few. The Estruscan language appears to be unrelated to any other known language, from the very few inscriptions we do have.
When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.
Indeed. Nowhere else in the world has the robust guarantees of free speech that America has.
Sure, why not? However, and correct me if I am wrong, what we are talking about is "the transfer of oversight of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN", who administrates what (top level) domain names can be used in DNS, and coordinate who uses what, to we can avoid name clashes and that sort of things. I find it really hard to see that it will have any impact on free speech in general, whether they will allow you to use domains ending in.xxx or whatever; of much greater importance is the operation of the root domain servers, but since disrupting them in any way will hurt everybody, I can't see that happening, no matter who oversees the operation of ICANN. The only real importance of this transfer is symbolic, in that it puts the US on the same level as the rest of the world (nominally), but in practical terms, it makes no difference at all. Speaking loudly and forcefully about it is no more than posturing - like picking a fight over which shade of grey you prefer.
The language is deliberately vague, because of course this is mostly a marketing stunt for Microsoft; after all, what does 'solve cancer' mean? But to be fair, we are in fact beginning to understand many of the factors that make up several cancer diseases, and sometimes it is beneficial to focus on a far away goal, even if it isn't entirely realistic in the timeframe.
Cancer, I think, will always be with us - in a snes it always IS; some would say that all of us have cancer, all the time, because there is always a certain proportion of new cells that have genetic faults, and some of them have the potential to become cancerous - what saves us is a good immune system. It makes intuitive sense, I think, because as we get older, our immune system becomes less efficient, and then we are less likely to stop all cancer cells, which explains why cancer is much more common in older people.
There is, however, reasons to hope that we can at some point find a single or a few common traits that unite all types of cancer and make them curable; I have certainly seen articles that hint at something that could give us that. But in 10 years? I don't know.
It's not a paper bag, you fool - it is a modular, physical containerisation system, a completely different concept. Paper bag indeed - young people now a days. I throw up my hands*.
(*makes you wonder how I managed to swallow them in the first place, doesn't it?)
- and soon they will have to recall them because they can explode in certain conditions, like when pressure builds up on the inside and suddenly applied externally.
Indeed - even if you compare the amount of energy used in America per inhabitant with the same for Europe, you can see a significant difference, and I don't think most Americans would feel life was uncortably primitive if they wen't to stay here. To think that only something like 150 years ago, Americans were incredibly tough pioneers, who survived on next to nothing and still managed to build up a great nation; things have gone downhill somewhat, it appears.
It is perfectly possible to live good, comfortable lives wasting next to nothing in terms of resources - you just have to be open minded and inventive.
Spending too much time texting? About STFU: St Mary Fu was a Chinese, Catholic saint - rumour has it that she took a vow of silence and was never heard from again.
The thing that caught my eye here was the mention of Reddit - is that a good forum to discuss techie things? Maybe I'll have to go and check it out - I always just dismissed it as yet another social media thing.
Oh, Clinton and Trump, yeah right, what's the fuss? Clinton is without doubt the most evil, criminal mastermind in history (based on hearsay on the gossip channels), and Trump is the spoiled son of a family that made it's fortune from brothels and gambling, apparently (if one can believe this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...). To be honest, I don't think it is only the political classes in the US that are sick - from the noises, it sounds like the whole nation is in the grip of severe, mental illness. I hope I'm wrong - I think any sane person would dismiss the more obviously stupid noises and look up fact for themselves, like what are the track records of the two candidates, what have they achieved that is relevant to the job they are applying for and so on. I mean, those things are in fact quite important, since the President holds real power, unlike some other heads of state. Has anybody of you guys with the loud voices even thought about what qualifications are desirable in a president? Or does it just boil down to "whatever seems to fit the description of our candidate"?
The world is going through a very difficult time, and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Globalisation means that things like nations and capitalism are beginning to lose their relevance, and climate change means that we are going to see major conflics over mass migration, among other things. Terrorism is only a small symptom of what is likely to come, if we don't get some things sorted out rather urgently, so I would suggest that people take the issue of who governs the most powerful nation on the planet a little more seriously; this isn't a cheap "reality show".
My attention immediately shuts off any I have no respect for what that person is saying. Sounds like marketing drivel.
They are expressing an opinion, no different from saying "Linux/OSX/Windows is the best thing ever!" - nothing wrong with being excited about your favourite tool, I think, even if others have a different perspective on things.
Here's my experiences with the beast: I have, since the early days of Linux (kernel 0.9 installed wirh a huge pile of floppies) been a terminal+vi+make kind of guy; I never really liked GUI based IDEs and was not too keen on the fullscreen IDEs of the DOS era either. As everybody else with development background, I've had to use IDEs from time to time, but I still prefer to develop C and C++ without. However, since I started on working with Java EE, I suddenly found a use for an IDE, and the one that I converged on was Netbeans - I've tried Eclipse, Kdevelop and JDeveloper, but for me at least, Netbeans has all the things you need when you don't know too much about Java. It automatically suggests which things to import, and believe you me, that is a huge help in Java EE, with the enormous number of standards, annotations and what have you. Perhaps if I had lived with Java development from the beginning, I would have preferred the command line, but...
Comparing with Eclipse, for example, Netbeans was really easy to get going with, perhaps not surprisingly, because I think Java and Netbeans have grown up together for a long time, whereas Eclipse seems to be more of a universal IDE that started closer to C and C++.(in my superficial view).
There are many reasons why watching pornography may be bad, but I have never been convinced that seeing pornography is likely to traumatise anybody, especially not a child, who would have no experience against which to interpret what they saw. It seems to me that any trauma that arises comes from adults making undue fuss over it and describing it as "dangerous" and "dirty". When you have no sexual experience and have yet to develop your drives and lusts, porn is more likely to evoke feelings of confusion and perhaps some level of disgust.
First of all: "using a similar email address as Musk's"
It's "using a similar e-mail address TO Musk's" (American cretins).
And secondly - the e-mail itself is an illiterate load of rubbish, no capital letters, 'txt speak', etc. WTF?
I too sometimes find myself irritated by things that seem to be common, American usage, but the thing is - the correct form of a language is decided by the native speakers of that language, and American English is slowly becoming a different language from British English; and of course, what is taught in British schools as 'correct' is only one version of the many, equally valid, English dialects. Just because they speak Geordie in Whitehall, that doesn't mean it isn't correct. BBC Parliament would be a whole lot more fun to watch if they did.
Some of the best people I've known in life have been believers,...
Well, there are believers and there are believers. There are those, who like you describe, are good people, who put other first and so on. Then there are the ones that feel their religion is more important than people. I think the religion in question is irrelevant - like you say - but I would go further and say that whether you have religion at all is beside the point - there are people who are genuinely good in the only sense that is real, namely that they do good. Didn't Jesus say something like 'know them on their fruit'? (sorry, can't be bothered looking it up). And to counter your experience, some of the vilest creatures I have known have been people who genuinely believed and lived their faith, sometimes at great cost to themselves. This is also something that history confirms: read about Tomas de Torquemada. I don't think there is any doubt that he genuinely believed very strongly in his religion. He was also the founder of the Spanish Inquisition.
I think the way it works is like this: people are what they are - good, kind, social, or otherwise, and then they make up a God or gods to match their own personality. The good are inspired to do more good by their beliefs, and the bad use it as an excuse: 'It is God's will!' Hence the jihadists, who murder and torture innocents and rape children, or people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who seem to have major issues with sexuality and loathe themselves for it - and use religion to hide from themselves. I'm sure there are good, religious people in the world, but in my experience, good people almost never talk about their faith; they know that although it is important to themselves, it is mostly irrelevant to other people's needs.
What the hell is the connection between Samsung printers and smartphone batteries that overheat? Is this new style of non-sequiturs an attempt at looking clever without actually making a serious effort at understanding the subject? Are we going to see things like "Gravity waves have been found, as predicted by Einstein, who famously never wore socks"?
In this case there is an excellent opportunity to comment on a variety subjects:
1) HP's and Samsung's financial trouble and the future direction their products will take. 2) Compare the quality of the printer offereing from the two. 2) etc etc...
Well said. It is a bizarre fact indeed that the so-called climate skeptics (and other whatever skeptics) are so credulous, whereas scientists are the real skeptics. Climate change deniers throw out terabytes of evidence, that comes from all over the spectrum, which is one of the things that make it more believeable; but on the other hand, they are willing to believe the incoherent rantings by unqualified individuals, who have cherry-picked their eveidence (or in some cases, simply made it up). In real science, on the other hand, you actively try to disprove your theory (that is what the scientific method does), and if you fail consistently, then you start to believe it may be true - you can't get more skeptic than that. I mean, just imagine every time your wife/girlfriend comes home and says "I went shopping", you go "Yeah, I'll check the CCTV footage to see if that is true" - that is what scientists do to their theories. They are the least credulous people on the planet.
Oh, no, your aren't calling for censorship, no you'd never do that. You just want responsibility where your political opponents aren't allowed to speak.
I realise that nothing I say will ever change your mind, which is sad, but for the benefit of those who haven't completely closed their ears and eyes, I think I have to respond; somebody needs to stand up against this kind of stupid nonsense, whose only arguments come in the form of bullying. Let''s start with the word "Censorship" - that is when the government or similar decides whether you are allowed to say things or not; I'm not calling for that - I think this is already clear to those that are willing to listen and understand what I've already said. What I am calling for is responsibility: that is when you think about the effect your words and actions have on the world around you and hopefully decide to use words that inspire solutions to problems. Just as an aside, for those who read and think, please note that I don't get wound up by your absurd arguments; I respond calmly, and hopefully with a good deal of common sense. I'm even willing to admit that I may be wrong - prove that I am with good arguments.
As an example, most people would agree that it is not right that there is a tiny elite of incredibly rich people who get richer no matter what goes on in the world, despite having really quite modest abilities and talents, whereas a huge number of people, from the middle class down, get steadily poorer. A responsible criticism would point out that inequality will leads to social unrest and ultimately hurt even the rich, and will suggest ways to solve the problems in the least painful way. Any idiot can shout about revolution and imagine that this is quick and easy solution to everything, but the truth is that we all lose out in that scenario, and the people at the bottom of the pile will still be at the bottom - they just get new overlords who quite possibly turn out to be less pleasant.
After all, they're racist, homophobic, and xenophobic, and evil speech like that really can't be allowed.
Well, they are, and as I said before, it is necessary that decent people stad up for reason and speak out against hate speech. Should they be censored? No, of course not, but if your rantings cause actual harm to other people, by inciting or inspiring violence or by bullying vulnerable people until they harm themselves, then you should be prosecuted for your part in the crime, no doubt about it. That is all about responsibility - the fact that you don't care isn't an excuse.
The prudent course of action would be to choose a person who will be guided by a certain amount of rationality and not blinded by their own self-importance, so I guess the answer is "yes". I'm sure she isn't a saint, but who is? Politics is a dirty game, and having a naive idealist at the helm is probably not what the world needs; nor do we need somebody who is obscessed with his own "greatness" and can't stop bragging about achievements that in his own mind are incredible (but seem a bit silly to most other people).
You mention talk about shutting down Breitbart News, so I had a quick search - one of the first things I come across is the phrase "misogynist, xenophobic and racist"; not a great track record if you want to be taken serious as a source of solid facts, in my view. It also illustrates something about the internet and the world of blogging, that has the potential to become a really big problem: it is incredibly easy to set up webpages that make you look like a real, professional organisation, whether you are a bona fide news outlet or just some sad wanker in a grubby basement somewhere. Traditional news media, who employ real journalists with a real education, are regularly held to account for their mistakes - not by the evil, evil government, but by angry citizens, and the result is that even something like Fox News are forced to make sure their reporting bears some relation to reality, however tenuous. This is important, because in a democracy, voters make their decisions on how to vote based on what the news tell them, so people have to be able to trust the accuracy and truthfulness of the news.
I'm not saying that extreme views should be banned - it would be stupid even to try, really - but I'm not so credulous that I fall for the "freedom of speech trups everything" hype. Freedom comes with responsibility - you call it "self censorship", if you like, but I think it would be more accurate if we call it "growing up and taking yourself and your responsibility serious".
Another week until I do not use this slow browser....
Glad they keep going for diversity sake- but it's a sluggish pile of code. Beloved though it is.
Browser speed has always struck me as slightly irrelevant, when in the majority of cases it is the fault of the websites, when things are slow. Although there is one case where it is definitely something about Firefox: Try to load http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/ (Denmark's Radio - "the Danish BBC" if you are kind) - it loads fast enough, but the whole browser freezes for ~10 sec when you scroll down; loading the same page in Konqueror (yes, there are some that use it) displays none of these problems. I have no idea why.
But the real problems, for me at least, are: 1) The tendency in Firefox to switch to https when you activate Javascript, and then being unable to load the page, and 2) The increasing number of unwanted features, like embedded search engines that cannot be disabled and similar. I hate it when I mistype an address and get an idiotic search result from Google, Yahoo or whatever; all I want is an error message.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.
It looks more like the sort of inane nonsense daesh like to boast about: "Look how incredibly impressive and deadly we are, also, it's cool to fly a killer drone".
Your comments make a lot of sense, I think. What I don't understand is, well, American politics: this tendency to either idolise or demonise everybody. It makes no sense at all, especially since politicians, even when running for president, are simply humans, no much different from you and me, and if you know anything about yourself, you wouldn't be surprised or disappointed about their little dirty secrets. When you are rich and privileged, you will come to think that you are entitled to ignore what is legally or morally right, because that is what most people would do; denying it would be sanctimonious.
Politicians today are not, as far as I can see, any more dishonest than they have always been, and I wonder why there is such a wild hysteria about them now. I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect somewhere somebody has an agenda that makes it desirable.
But to return to the candidates - is Ms Clinton really as throughly evil as she is portrayed, a criminal mastermind? Of course not, give me a break; criminal masterminds prefer to enjoy the high life and pull strings without getting their hands dirty, and being the president isn't actually a very comfortable job: you are constantly reviled and everything you do is opposed at every turn. And is Mr Trump really nothing more than a loudmouthed self-aggrandiser and manipulator? It's hard for me to tell - I loathe him - but I have heard what seemed like reliable witnesses say that he is actually a nice person in private, we just dont see any of that.
The point is, politics is a strange game, where everybody is an opponent (including your best friends), and you need a lot of experience to know when you can risk trusting anybody and when you absolutely shouldn't, and need to understand what to say, when to say it and especially when to just shut up. Politicians can't just speak their mind openly, because everybody is going to jump on it and use it against you. IMO, objectively speaking, I think Clinton is far more up to this than Trump, and the rest of them aren't even in the game. Do I like the two? Not really, but I don't have to, they are not going to come over for dinner any time soon, but there is no doubt that Clinton can be a better president than Trump ever could.
Are we finally entering an era of fully homeopathic politics: where the issues are diluted until the point where there is no trace of substance and it is all 'magic water'? Where are the discussions about real problems, like the wars in the Middle East, or the several migrations crises, or the declining economy? Where are the realistic proposals for American politics over the next decade? Certainly not here; apparently it is much more interesting to groom one's personal navel fluff and gossip about the favourite celebs - in this case Clinton and Trump. So, when are we going to spend some real quality time talking about Clinton's choice of dresses and make-up (or the same for Trump, why not?)
Just making an observation in passing, and I may be completely wrong, of course, in which case somebody can earn a few, cheap points by correcting me; but over the recent years there has been a number of similar articles about "Chinese Hackers", and the majority view has always appeared to be that this was undoubtedly true. Now we have seen a few articles saying exactly the same abour "Russian Hackers", with more or less the same level of authority behind, but now, apparently, it is "obviously wrong". Why is that?
What does that actually mean? Is it "improved" as in "reducing the amount of crap advertising that is pushed to the user", or is it "improved" as in "New, Improved Recipe", which basically means they have found a new way of adulterating a product, so it is cheaper to produce?
In other news, space is the the final frontier. And tab is eight spaces.
The "average" user has no idea and that's why they put IOT shit on their unsecured network in the first place, duh.
The average user has no idea that there is something like "IoT" and that it is in any way different from the rest of "the internet". All they know is that it is "smart" to have an app on your phone that can turn on the heating and tell you the fridge is empty, and a TV that seems to understand what you want to watch, or a smart meter that tells you (and the utility company) how much gas and electricity you use up to the last minute. They won't know or care about the security implications until it goes badly wrong.
Although one Democrat criticized the extension by arguing that nuclear power "does better in a socialist economy than in a capitalist one, because nuclear energy prefers to have the public do the cleanup, do the insurance, cover all of the losses and it only wants the profits."
I remember in the beginning how refreshing it was to find Slashdot, where you could quite often find intelligent discourse about technical subjects and where Linux was often portrayed in a positive light at a time when the consensus in the IT industry produced such catchy phrases as "You get what you pay for" and other goodies. It feels quite disappointing to see that we are now becoming little more than a sort tabloid outlet, whose main editorial line is to post anything that stirs up controversy, because that attracts more commentators, who we can sell as potetial eyes that look at our adverts.
I've picked out this particular sentence, not because I feel that socialism needs defending, but because it once again portrays Americans as being stereotypically crude, uninformed and astoundingly stupid. So, is there actually 'one Democrat' that spews out this sort of tripe about socialism? Probably - just as there are Republicans and Americans of any denomination, who tend to hold a similarly uninformed view of the world. And for that matter, people from any nation. I happen to know quite a few Americans - and I have only ever come across 1 in the flesh, who matched the sterotype; to compare, I know loads of Britons that appear to be functionally braindead.
As for the comment on itself: the behaviour desribed matches very closely what we have grown up to expect from businesses, especially big businesses, under glorous Capitalism: acid rain, dead rivers, corrupt companies paying corrupt researchers (they don't really deserve being called scientists) to tweak their results, pollutants poured out in the environment with the excuse that "it hasn't been proven that these chemicals, which cause deformities in frogs are harmful to humans" - and so on. Plus, of course, they do all they can to avoid paying taxes, so who gets to pay the bill for cleaning up the mess for their reckless profiteering? Societies all over the world are still paying the bill for the tobacco industry's profitmaking - they make money from selling a drug that is proven to cause cancer, but they don't pay the expenses for cancer treatments, nor do they compensate for the loss of production or any of the other significant costs associated with their business. All in all, I think it has absolutely nothing to do with socialism when the public has to foot the bill for the mindless greed of Big Capitalism.
They might discover lost Greek texts or other works of antiquity
Or much more interesting: Etruscan texts, of which there woefully few. The Estruscan language appears to be unrelated to any other known language, from the very few inscriptions we do have.
When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.
Indeed. Nowhere else in the world has the robust guarantees of free speech that America has.
Sure, why not? However, and correct me if I am wrong, what we are talking about is "the transfer of oversight of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN", who administrates what (top level) domain names can be used in DNS, and coordinate who uses what, to we can avoid name clashes and that sort of things. I find it really hard to see that it will have any impact on free speech in general, whether they will allow you to use domains ending in .xxx or whatever; of much greater importance is the operation of the root domain servers, but since disrupting them in any way will hurt everybody, I can't see that happening, no matter who oversees the operation of ICANN. The only real importance of this transfer is symbolic, in that it puts the US on the same level as the rest of the world (nominally), but in practical terms, it makes no difference at all. Speaking loudly and forcefully about it is no more than posturing - like picking a fight over which shade of grey you prefer.
The language is deliberately vague, because of course this is mostly a marketing stunt for Microsoft; after all, what does 'solve cancer' mean? But to be fair, we are in fact beginning to understand many of the factors that make up several cancer diseases, and sometimes it is beneficial to focus on a far away goal, even if it isn't entirely realistic in the timeframe.
Cancer, I think, will always be with us - in a snes it always IS; some would say that all of us have cancer, all the time, because there is always a certain proportion of new cells that have genetic faults, and some of them have the potential to become cancerous - what saves us is a good immune system. It makes intuitive sense, I think, because as we get older, our immune system becomes less efficient, and then we are less likely to stop all cancer cells, which explains why cancer is much more common in older people.
There is, however, reasons to hope that we can at some point find a single or a few common traits that unite all types of cancer and make them curable; I have certainly seen articles that hint at something that could give us that. But in 10 years? I don't know.
It's not a paper bag, you fool - it is a modular, physical containerisation system, a completely different concept. Paper bag indeed - young people now a days. I throw up my hands*.
(*makes you wonder how I managed to swallow them in the first place, doesn't it?)
- and soon they will have to recall them because they can explode in certain conditions, like when pressure builds up on the inside and suddenly applied externally.
None of them require us to live like the Amish.
Indeed - even if you compare the amount of energy used in America per inhabitant with the same for Europe, you can see a significant difference, and I don't think most Americans would feel life was uncortably primitive if they wen't to stay here. To think that only something like 150 years ago, Americans were incredibly tough pioneers, who survived on next to nothing and still managed to build up a great nation; things have gone downhill somewhat, it appears.
It is perfectly possible to live good, comfortable lives wasting next to nothing in terms of resources - you just have to be open minded and inventive.
u arent fooling any1 w ur bulsheet pope
Spending too much time texting? About STFU: St Mary Fu was a Chinese, Catholic saint - rumour has it that she took a vow of silence and was never heard from again.
The thing that caught my eye here was the mention of Reddit - is that a good forum to discuss techie things? Maybe I'll have to go and check it out - I always just dismissed it as yet another social media thing.
Oh, Clinton and Trump, yeah right, what's the fuss? Clinton is without doubt the most evil, criminal mastermind in history (based on hearsay on the gossip channels), and Trump is the spoiled son of a family that made it's fortune from brothels and gambling, apparently (if one can believe this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...). To be honest, I don't think it is only the political classes in the US that are sick - from the noises, it sounds like the whole nation is in the grip of severe, mental illness. I hope I'm wrong - I think any sane person would dismiss the more obviously stupid noises and look up fact for themselves, like what are the track records of the two candidates, what have they achieved that is relevant to the job they are applying for and so on. I mean, those things are in fact quite important, since the President holds real power, unlike some other heads of state. Has anybody of you guys with the loud voices even thought about what qualifications are desirable in a president? Or does it just boil down to "whatever seems to fit the description of our candidate"?
The world is going through a very difficult time, and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Globalisation means that things like nations and capitalism are beginning to lose their relevance, and climate change means that we are going to see major conflics over mass migration, among other things. Terrorism is only a small symptom of what is likely to come, if we don't get some things sorted out rather urgently, so I would suggest that people take the issue of who governs the most powerful nation on the planet a little more seriously; this isn't a cheap "reality show".
My attention immediately shuts off any I have no respect for what that person is saying. Sounds like marketing drivel.
They are expressing an opinion, no different from saying "Linux/OSX/Windows is the best thing ever!" - nothing wrong with being excited about your favourite tool, I think, even if others have a different perspective on things.
Here's my experiences with the beast: I have, since the early days of Linux (kernel 0.9 installed wirh a huge pile of floppies) been a terminal+vi+make kind of guy; I never really liked GUI based IDEs and was not too keen on the fullscreen IDEs of the DOS era either. As everybody else with development background, I've had to use IDEs from time to time, but I still prefer to develop C and C++ without. However, since I started on working with Java EE, I suddenly found a use for an IDE, and the one that I converged on was Netbeans - I've tried Eclipse, Kdevelop and JDeveloper, but for me at least, Netbeans has all the things you need when you don't know too much about Java. It automatically suggests which things to import, and believe you me, that is a huge help in Java EE, with the enormous number of standards, annotations and what have you. Perhaps if I had lived with Java development from the beginning, I would have preferred the command line, but ...
Comparing with Eclipse, for example, Netbeans was really easy to get going with, perhaps not surprisingly, because I think Java and Netbeans have grown up together for a long time, whereas Eclipse seems to be more of a universal IDE that started closer to C and C++.(in my superficial view).
There are many reasons why watching pornography may be bad, but I have never been convinced that seeing pornography is likely to traumatise anybody, especially not a child, who would have no experience against which to interpret what they saw. It seems to me that any trauma that arises comes from adults making undue fuss over it and describing it as "dangerous" and "dirty". When you have no sexual experience and have yet to develop your drives and lusts, porn is more likely to evoke feelings of confusion and perhaps some level of disgust.
First of all: "using a similar email address as Musk's"
It's "using a similar e-mail address TO Musk's" (American cretins).
And secondly - the e-mail itself is an illiterate load of rubbish, no capital letters, 'txt speak', etc. WTF?
I too sometimes find myself irritated by things that seem to be common, American usage, but the thing is - the correct form of a language is decided by the native speakers of that language, and American English is slowly becoming a different language from British English; and of course, what is taught in British schools as 'correct' is only one version of the many, equally valid, English dialects. Just because they speak Geordie in Whitehall, that doesn't mean it isn't correct. BBC Parliament would be a whole lot more fun to watch if they did.
Some of the best people I've known in life have been believers,...
Well, there are believers and there are believers. There are those, who like you describe, are good people, who put other first and so on. Then there are the ones that feel their religion is more important than people. I think the religion in question is irrelevant - like you say - but I would go further and say that whether you have religion at all is beside the point - there are people who are genuinely good in the only sense that is real, namely that they do good. Didn't Jesus say something like 'know them on their fruit'? (sorry, can't be bothered looking it up). And to counter your experience, some of the vilest creatures I have known have been people who genuinely believed and lived their faith, sometimes at great cost to themselves. This is also something that history confirms: read about Tomas de Torquemada. I don't think there is any doubt that he genuinely believed very strongly in his religion. He was also the founder of the Spanish Inquisition.
I think the way it works is like this: people are what they are - good, kind, social, or otherwise, and then they make up a God or gods to match their own personality. The good are inspired to do more good by their beliefs, and the bad use it as an excuse: 'It is God's will!' Hence the jihadists, who murder and torture innocents and rape children, or people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who seem to have major issues with sexuality and loathe themselves for it - and use religion to hide from themselves. I'm sure there are good, religious people in the world, but in my experience, good people almost never talk about their faith; they know that although it is important to themselves, it is mostly irrelevant to other people's needs.
What the hell is the connection between Samsung printers and smartphone batteries that overheat? Is this new style of non-sequiturs an attempt at looking clever without actually making a serious effort at understanding the subject? Are we going to see things like "Gravity waves have been found, as predicted by Einstein, who famously never wore socks"?
In this case there is an excellent opportunity to comment on a variety subjects:
1) HP's and Samsung's financial trouble and the future direction their products will take. ...
2) Compare the quality of the printer offereing from the two.
2) etc etc
In stead we get this idle chit-chat.
Well said. It is a bizarre fact indeed that the so-called climate skeptics (and other whatever skeptics) are so credulous, whereas scientists are the real skeptics. Climate change deniers throw out terabytes of evidence, that comes from all over the spectrum, which is one of the things that make it more believeable; but on the other hand, they are willing to believe the incoherent rantings by unqualified individuals, who have cherry-picked their eveidence (or in some cases, simply made it up). In real science, on the other hand, you actively try to disprove your theory (that is what the scientific method does), and if you fail consistently, then you start to believe it may be true - you can't get more skeptic than that. I mean, just imagine every time your wife/girlfriend comes home and says "I went shopping", you go "Yeah, I'll check the CCTV footage to see if that is true" - that is what scientists do to their theories. They are the least credulous people on the planet.
Oh, no, your aren't calling for censorship, no you'd never do that. You just want responsibility where your political opponents aren't allowed to speak.
I realise that nothing I say will ever change your mind, which is sad, but for the benefit of those who haven't completely closed their ears and eyes, I think I have to respond; somebody needs to stand up against this kind of stupid nonsense, whose only arguments come in the form of bullying. Let''s start with the word "Censorship" - that is when the government or similar decides whether you are allowed to say things or not; I'm not calling for that - I think this is already clear to those that are willing to listen and understand what I've already said. What I am calling for is responsibility: that is when you think about the effect your words and actions have on the world around you and hopefully decide to use words that inspire solutions to problems. Just as an aside, for those who read and think, please note that I don't get wound up by your absurd arguments; I respond calmly, and hopefully with a good deal of common sense. I'm even willing to admit that I may be wrong - prove that I am with good arguments.
As an example, most people would agree that it is not right that there is a tiny elite of incredibly rich people who get richer no matter what goes on in the world, despite having really quite modest abilities and talents, whereas a huge number of people, from the middle class down, get steadily poorer. A responsible criticism would point out that inequality will leads to social unrest and ultimately hurt even the rich, and will suggest ways to solve the problems in the least painful way. Any idiot can shout about revolution and imagine that this is quick and easy solution to everything, but the truth is that we all lose out in that scenario, and the people at the bottom of the pile will still be at the bottom - they just get new overlords who quite possibly turn out to be less pleasant.
After all, they're racist, homophobic, and xenophobic, and evil speech like that really can't be allowed.
Well, they are, and as I said before, it is necessary that decent people stad up for reason and speak out against hate speech. Should they be censored? No, of course not, but if your rantings cause actual harm to other people, by inciting or inspiring violence or by bullying vulnerable people until they harm themselves, then you should be prosecuted for your part in the crime, no doubt about it. That is all about responsibility - the fact that you don't care isn't an excuse.
Do you really want Hillary in charge?
The prudent course of action would be to choose a person who will be guided by a certain amount of rationality and not blinded by their own self-importance, so I guess the answer is "yes". I'm sure she isn't a saint, but who is? Politics is a dirty game, and having a naive idealist at the helm is probably not what the world needs; nor do we need somebody who is obscessed with his own "greatness" and can't stop bragging about achievements that in his own mind are incredible (but seem a bit silly to most other people).
You mention talk about shutting down Breitbart News, so I had a quick search - one of the first things I come across is the phrase "misogynist, xenophobic and racist"; not a great track record if you want to be taken serious as a source of solid facts, in my view. It also illustrates something about the internet and the world of blogging, that has the potential to become a really big problem: it is incredibly easy to set up webpages that make you look like a real, professional organisation, whether you are a bona fide news outlet or just some sad wanker in a grubby basement somewhere. Traditional news media, who employ real journalists with a real education, are regularly held to account for their mistakes - not by the evil, evil government, but by angry citizens, and the result is that even something like Fox News are forced to make sure their reporting bears some relation to reality, however tenuous. This is important, because in a democracy, voters make their decisions on how to vote based on what the news tell them, so people have to be able to trust the accuracy and truthfulness of the news.
I'm not saying that extreme views should be banned - it would be stupid even to try, really - but I'm not so credulous that I fall for the "freedom of speech trups everything" hype. Freedom comes with responsibility - you call it "self censorship", if you like, but I think it would be more accurate if we call it "growing up and taking yourself and your responsibility serious".
Another week until I do not use this slow browser....
Glad they keep going for diversity sake- but it's a sluggish pile of code. Beloved though it is.
Browser speed has always struck me as slightly irrelevant, when in the majority of cases it is the fault of the websites, when things are slow. Although there is one case where it is definitely something about Firefox: Try to load http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/ (Denmark's Radio - "the Danish BBC" if you are kind) - it loads fast enough, but the whole browser freezes for ~10 sec when you scroll down; loading the same page in Konqueror (yes, there are some that use it) displays none of these problems. I have no idea why.
But the real problems, for me at least, are: 1) The tendency in Firefox to switch to https when you activate Javascript, and then being unable to load the page, and 2) The increasing number of unwanted features, like embedded search engines that cannot be disabled and similar. I hate it when I mistype an address and get an idiotic search result from Google, Yahoo or whatever; all I want is an error message.