Orwell was talking about authoritarians, you know... the other axis. A lot of people forget that there's more than the left/right spectrum, and just pretend that the left is libertarian and the right is authoritarian. Authoritarian Left exists, Libertarian Right exists.
You'll find that as far as politics goes, most people are much more willing to get along on the left/right divide than they are on the authoritarian/libertarian divide. Turns out that authoritarians hate people that prefer personal freedoms and people that prefer personal freedoms disagree with people that want overreaching governments.
Definitely inflammatory in TFA, obviously on purpose.
Positive selfishness is also called self preservation, not giving away more than you can afford to lose.
Humanity discriminates constantly. Everybody has probably discriminated at least one person TODAY. Being able to choose the right people for the right job is a huge part of success, and that's absolutely being discriminatory.
Finally, the vast majority of people would probably lead healthier and would definitely have happier lives if they weren't so self-critical. Too many people allow others the freedom to make mistakes and still deserve love and respect, but don't afford themselves that same safety net. Reduced self-criticism doesn't mean not striving for perfection, it just means you allow yourself to fail without it ruining your self-worth.
I've heard few successful people that have not attributed their success to being in the right place at the right time, with the right knowledge. Part of the reason that many successful people emphasize the role of merit over the role of luck is because luck presented the situation but merit gained the reward.
Further, if you actually talk with a successful person about their success, they're going to tell you that it's built on a pile of failures. The trick that most successful people (regardless of what success you're measuring) is that they keep trying until they succeed.
If you want to talk about the worst part of successful people and how they talk about something, it's survivor bias. "Keep trying and you'll succeed!" REALLY means "keep trying, focus on where the puck is going rather than where it is, watch trends, know when something is failing and don't allow yourself to fall prey to sunk cost fallacy, know what you're doing, put yourself out there, try over and over but don't keep doing exactly the same thing, and you'll create a situation where luck finds you. Luck is the spark, hard work is the kindling."
OLEDs have their flaws, but so do all other display options. Somewhere along the line every display technology we have has a flaw that you could use to call it rubbish. Size, resolution/DPI, cost, resilience, total life of product, power consumption, color gamut, etc.
OLEDs have low power consumption, size limited only by how many LEDs you want to string in/pay for, fair resilience, decent DPI, excellent blacks with passable whites and an overall exceptional color capability especially in low light. Their downsides are they're expensive and you can cause uneven wear causing the life of the product to be shorter.
As a counter, LCDs have higher power consumption (but still lower than other options), size limited by the fragility of the liquid crystal matrix, poor resilience (even minor bending of the crystal matrix can cause a fairly large amount of damage), decent DPI, excellent whites with poor blacks and overall exceptional color capability in high light with poor low light color. Their best positive is that if you are gentle with them they'll likely outlast their usefulness.
Didn't someone tell the AU government that they were asking the impossible with something like "you can't change the laws of physics" to which the Aussies replied "The only law we follow is Australian law"?
I'm actually completely surprised that both Google AND Apple haven't yet been sued for anti-competitive things in their mobile devices: Google for the tight bundling of the Google Play Services and Apple for preventing competing products appearing on the App Store.
The only thing I can figure is that nobody has been willing to take the L in the court of public opinion, Google and Apple have fanatical users. I'm wondering if the recent push toward privacy and the backlash Facebook and Google get for their hoovering of personal data isn't partly responsible for the EU fine. There's enough negative press to make a move so they did.
That's what Google wants, but that's also exactly what the EU is fining them for. What the EU wants is Google to be forced to sell devices completely divested from Google's other products. A closed source OS that was forced to use Google services would still violate this, and would probably incur an even larger fine since as things currently stand you're still allowed to find alternatives. Further, it's possible that creating a closed source OS that forced the use of Google's services would bring back the 90's anti-Microsoft lawsuit for bundling (and forcing) use of Internet Explorer.
The best option for Google is making it so Android can use non-Google apps by default, and then making those devices more expensive to purchase. The only way out of this for Google is increasing user choice, not restricting it.
Personally, I don't "trust" anything from the big news outlets and probably never will. That said, I can consume their views and process it through the filter of knowing how those outlets spin a story. They all tend to conveniently ignore things that are against the narrative they're spinning, so it's generally a bad idea to use only one source for a story anyway, especially if it portrays one side in a particularly positive or negative way.
Can we get a setting that allows me to use my computer the way I want to? I know how to not wreck myself and would maybe like to not be beholden to Google's strategy tax.
Oh well, I never got on the Chrome bandwagon, this just ensures I never will.
It also often requires long hours (often over weekends and holidays), poor job security (the best paying work is contract, and you're in constant competition to do it for the lowest cost), poor benefits (as contract work the company has no requirement to offer any services), and the taxes are hell to do (and worse to pay).
Men trend toward high pay above all else, including their own safety and sanity. Women trend toward job safety and benefits. If you assume the bell curve, it makes sense that there'd be no more than 25% of women that go outside the general trend. I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that women only have about 25% representation in tech vs population. If anything, this could be pointing to an already inflated number of women in tech, as it implies that all the outlier women go into tech as opposed to another risk sensitive endeavor like opening a business
You could make the work more appealing to average women, but then you're not going to be seeing the large income figures because it's going toward the other benefits. It would be great to see more women in tech, but until the job changes I doubt it will happen, and by the time the job changes the wages will reflect the new normal.
Discrimination In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person based on the group, class, or category to which the person is perceived to belong.
You can claim it's "good discrimination" but it's still discrimination.
My sister in law just rear ended a semi, an autonomous car would have completely avoided the collision. She was looking to pass and when she checked her mirror the semi slowed down and she ran square into the back of it.
A human driver could have avoided the death, but they also could have made it much worse. These experts are massive wastes of money.
Your carefully cultivated echo chamber is not representative of most of anything. If you actually go out and talk to people, and then actually listen to those that don't share your political ideology, you might realize that most people are individuals that have opinions that don't always follow party lines. Someone who on the grand scale could be Liberal or Conservative can very easily have opinions on specific things that are drastically different from other Liberals/Conservatives.
No matter how they implement a backdoor, it will automatically make encryption weaker. Not to mention that anybody could then use additional encryption to prevent anybody from reading it. Then you get "You wouldn't use more encryption unless you were guilty of something" courtroom nonsense that we already have, just with an additional layer of waste on top.
That and your setup also suggests that we don't already have tons of issues with companies making things like IoT devices vulnerable without even needing the backdoor. Leaving the telnet port open by default with no way of changing a default password rings a bell. They're getting better but this sort of thing still happens. I can't imagine this will be an exception.
I also question if those involved were expecting promotions/raises or if they were aiming for promotions/raises. Expecting promotions/raises for working is expecting a relationship because you're a "nice guy/girl". Aiming for promotions/raises is going out on a limb and asking people you're interested in out for coffee.
You have to put in effort and leave yourself open to being hurt to aim for something, and a lot of people aren't willing to do it. Being a nice guy/coming in to work on time everyday are the minimums. That person over there manages to do that and plays the guitar. What extra thing do you provide?
Default is king. It could be argued that this is an abuse of Google's power as the default app provider. IE got in trouble because it couldn't be removed and was the default available option. You can even use IE to get an alternative to IE, while I don't see Amazon's store or F-Droid in Google Play's listings. Even if they were, it would bank on people knowing that alternatives are possible (which most don't, unlike browsers).
It's entirely possible that Gab could make this argument, it's not wholly unreasonable and it's not that dissimilar to the IE case. The thing most in Google's favor is that people don't hate Google like they did Microsoft, and even then they're getting a reputation for being creepy even among the tech illiterate.
Most people cannot remove Play though, as it's completely unremovable without modifying the device to allow root access. You may be able to disable it, I've never tried, but that leads to further issues as it has positioned itself as the supplier of GPS location information. Many map apps won't work without Play installed as a result.
I'm hopeful that "you technically can operate the device without this, if you're willing to jump through hoops and void your warranty" doesn't hold up in court. In the same breath, I also know that the average public is computer stupid and Google might be able to convice a jury.
Personally, I can't imagine Gnome 3 being any good on a tablet. It might function okay with a touchscreen but I couldn't tell you as I don't use them. Gnome 3 is certainly different, but it's extremely powerful once you get used to it. That said, it's not going to be everyone's preferred DE and nobody should expect that there ever will be a perfect DE for everyone.
If you don't like Gnome 3, there's plenty of other flavors of Ubuntu, and certainly more than enough distros to try alternatives. Ubuntu MATE is a great spin if that's the route you want, and Martin Wimpress is a marvelous maintainer. It's official too, so you don't even have to worry about support.
Yes and no, while an ISP can trivially block certain traffic they wouldn't be able to block encryption as a whole so easily. It would be a never ending game of cat and mouse as ISPs struggle to figure out every possible way to obfusicate encryption.,Not only does it not solve the problem, it's a huge expense to the ISPs to maintain if it becomes their legal obligation to do so, and if they're not required to maintain the law then it's simply ineffective to begin with. Even using a whitelist of "approved traffic" wouldn't fix this as there's simply too many ways to wrap unapproved traffic, and a blacklist is equally easy to circumvent.
There's no true solution outside of manually monitoring every single piece of traffic for new ways of getting around the law, and as we all know: criminals don't care that your law exists and will get around it.
Just because they know what they're doing doesn't mean they understand what they're making laws about. I mean an encryption ban will never work because A) Modern life is powered by encryption and the rammifications of a ban would destroy a modern economy and B) You can't stop actual encryption at this point, it's too available and too pervasive. Government types THINK they want it because it makes spying on the citizens easier, but it will only serve to collapse that country into a quick trip to third world status. Their internet would have to be completely incompatible with the internet at large, online commerce will grind to a halt, banks would have to use paper or have a constant issue of theft.
Then again, most people make bad decisions daily because they're undereducated... forcing politicians to know what they're talking about would be unfair. Maybe we should just get rid of politicans and replace them with cats. If we're going to have a large group that does nothing, at least cats are cute.
The modern internet runs on encryption. Any time you send a login you (hopefully) are using encryption, otherwise it's trivial to steal credentials. Any time you enter your credit card information into a website you (hopefully) are using encryption, otherwise it's trivial to steal your card number. The modern world absolutely requires encryption for day-to-day activities, even if you're not using encryption on files/messages/whatever to avoid others looking at them you ARE using encryption to power your modern life.
Anybody that thinks an encryption ban isn't something to worry about doesn't know how or where encryption works. Your ignorance is obvious to anybody even slightly in the know. If you're not alarmed by the fact that your government is even considering an encryption ban then obviously you're exceptionally uneducated on the subject and you should sit down and shut up while the grown ups are talking.
Slashdot Mirror
Orwell was talking about authoritarians, you know... the other axis. A lot of people forget that there's more than the left/right spectrum, and just pretend that the left is libertarian and the right is authoritarian. Authoritarian Left exists, Libertarian Right exists.
You'll find that as far as politics goes, most people are much more willing to get along on the left/right divide than they are on the authoritarian/libertarian divide. Turns out that authoritarians hate people that prefer personal freedoms and people that prefer personal freedoms disagree with people that want overreaching governments.
Definitely inflammatory in TFA, obviously on purpose.
Positive selfishness is also called self preservation, not giving away more than you can afford to lose.
Humanity discriminates constantly. Everybody has probably discriminated at least one person TODAY. Being able to choose the right people for the right job is a huge part of success, and that's absolutely being discriminatory.
Finally, the vast majority of people would probably lead healthier and would definitely have happier lives if they weren't so self-critical. Too many people allow others the freedom to make mistakes and still deserve love and respect, but don't afford themselves that same safety net. Reduced self-criticism doesn't mean not striving for perfection, it just means you allow yourself to fail without it ruining your self-worth.
I've heard few successful people that have not attributed their success to being in the right place at the right time, with the right knowledge. Part of the reason that many successful people emphasize the role of merit over the role of luck is because luck presented the situation but merit gained the reward.
Further, if you actually talk with a successful person about their success, they're going to tell you that it's built on a pile of failures. The trick that most successful people (regardless of what success you're measuring) is that they keep trying until they succeed.
If you want to talk about the worst part of successful people and how they talk about something, it's survivor bias. "Keep trying and you'll succeed!" REALLY means "keep trying, focus on where the puck is going rather than where it is, watch trends, know when something is failing and don't allow yourself to fall prey to sunk cost fallacy, know what you're doing, put yourself out there, try over and over but don't keep doing exactly the same thing, and you'll create a situation where luck finds you. Luck is the spark, hard work is the kindling."
OLEDs have their flaws, but so do all other display options. Somewhere along the line every display technology we have has a flaw that you could use to call it rubbish. Size, resolution/DPI, cost, resilience, total life of product, power consumption, color gamut, etc.
OLEDs have low power consumption, size limited only by how many LEDs you want to string in/pay for, fair resilience, decent DPI, excellent blacks with passable whites and an overall exceptional color capability especially in low light. Their downsides are they're expensive and you can cause uneven wear causing the life of the product to be shorter.
As a counter, LCDs have higher power consumption (but still lower than other options), size limited by the fragility of the liquid crystal matrix, poor resilience (even minor bending of the crystal matrix can cause a fairly large amount of damage), decent DPI, excellent whites with poor blacks and overall exceptional color capability in high light with poor low light color. Their best positive is that if you are gentle with them they'll likely outlast their usefulness.
All display tech has compromises.
Didn't someone tell the AU government that they were asking the impossible with something like "you can't change the laws of physics" to which the Aussies replied "The only law we follow is Australian law"?
https://www.popehat.com/2012/0...
I'm actually completely surprised that both Google AND Apple haven't yet been sued for anti-competitive things in their mobile devices: Google for the tight bundling of the Google Play Services and Apple for preventing competing products appearing on the App Store.
The only thing I can figure is that nobody has been willing to take the L in the court of public opinion, Google and Apple have fanatical users. I'm wondering if the recent push toward privacy and the backlash Facebook and Google get for their hoovering of personal data isn't partly responsible for the EU fine. There's enough negative press to make a move so they did.
That's what Google wants, but that's also exactly what the EU is fining them for. What the EU wants is Google to be forced to sell devices completely divested from Google's other products. A closed source OS that was forced to use Google services would still violate this, and would probably incur an even larger fine since as things currently stand you're still allowed to find alternatives. Further, it's possible that creating a closed source OS that forced the use of Google's services would bring back the 90's anti-Microsoft lawsuit for bundling (and forcing) use of Internet Explorer.
The best option for Google is making it so Android can use non-Google apps by default, and then making those devices more expensive to purchase. The only way out of this for Google is increasing user choice, not restricting it.
Fuchsia appears to be under a more permissive license, so it cannot be based on Linux as the GPL wouldn't allow it.
Personally, I don't "trust" anything from the big news outlets and probably never will. That said, I can consume their views and process it through the filter of knowing how those outlets spin a story. They all tend to conveniently ignore things that are against the narrative they're spinning, so it's generally a bad idea to use only one source for a story anyway, especially if it portrays one side in a particularly positive or negative way.
Can we get a setting that allows me to use my computer the way I want to? I know how to not wreck myself and would maybe like to not be beholden to Google's strategy tax.
Oh well, I never got on the Chrome bandwagon, this just ensures I never will.
It also often requires long hours (often over weekends and holidays), poor job security (the best paying work is contract, and you're in constant competition to do it for the lowest cost), poor benefits (as contract work the company has no requirement to offer any services), and the taxes are hell to do (and worse to pay).
Men trend toward high pay above all else, including their own safety and sanity. Women trend toward job safety and benefits. If you assume the bell curve, it makes sense that there'd be no more than 25% of women that go outside the general trend. I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that women only have about 25% representation in tech vs population. If anything, this could be pointing to an already inflated number of women in tech, as it implies that all the outlier women go into tech as opposed to another risk sensitive endeavor like opening a business
You could make the work more appealing to average women, but then you're not going to be seeing the large income figures because it's going toward the other benefits. It would be great to see more women in tech, but until the job changes I doubt it will happen, and by the time the job changes the wages will reflect the new normal.
It's the text book definition of discrimination.
Discrimination
In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person based on the group, class, or category to which the person is perceived to belong.
You can claim it's "good discrimination" but it's still discrimination.
My sister in law just rear ended a semi, an autonomous car would have completely avoided the collision. She was looking to pass and when she checked her mirror the semi slowed down and she ran square into the back of it.
A human driver could have avoided the death, but they also could have made it much worse. These experts are massive wastes of money.
Your carefully cultivated echo chamber is not representative of most of anything. If you actually go out and talk to people, and then actually listen to those that don't share your political ideology, you might realize that most people are individuals that have opinions that don't always follow party lines. Someone who on the grand scale could be Liberal or Conservative can very easily have opinions on specific things that are drastically different from other Liberals/Conservatives.
Right, this is really the issue.
No matter how they implement a backdoor, it will automatically make encryption weaker. Not to mention that anybody could then use additional encryption to prevent anybody from reading it. Then you get "You wouldn't use more encryption unless you were guilty of something" courtroom nonsense that we already have, just with an additional layer of waste on top.
That and your setup also suggests that we don't already have tons of issues with companies making things like IoT devices vulnerable without even needing the backdoor. Leaving the telnet port open by default with no way of changing a default password rings a bell. They're getting better but this sort of thing still happens. I can't imagine this will be an exception.
I also question if those involved were expecting promotions/raises or if they were aiming for promotions/raises. Expecting promotions/raises for working is expecting a relationship because you're a "nice guy/girl". Aiming for promotions/raises is going out on a limb and asking people you're interested in out for coffee.
You have to put in effort and leave yourself open to being hurt to aim for something, and a lot of people aren't willing to do it. Being a nice guy/coming in to work on time everyday are the minimums. That person over there manages to do that and plays the guitar. What extra thing do you provide?
Default is king. It could be argued that this is an abuse of Google's power as the default app provider. IE got in trouble because it couldn't be removed and was the default available option. You can even use IE to get an alternative to IE, while I don't see Amazon's store or F-Droid in Google Play's listings. Even if they were, it would bank on people knowing that alternatives are possible (which most don't, unlike browsers).
It's entirely possible that Gab could make this argument, it's not wholly unreasonable and it's not that dissimilar to the IE case. The thing most in Google's favor is that people don't hate Google like they did Microsoft, and even then they're getting a reputation for being creepy even among the tech illiterate.
Most people cannot remove Play though, as it's completely unremovable without modifying the device to allow root access. You may be able to disable it, I've never tried, but that leads to further issues as it has positioned itself as the supplier of GPS location information. Many map apps won't work without Play installed as a result.
I'm hopeful that "you technically can operate the device without this, if you're willing to jump through hoops and void your warranty" doesn't hold up in court. In the same breath, I also know that the average public is computer stupid and Google might be able to convice a jury.
Personally, I can't imagine Gnome 3 being any good on a tablet. It might function okay with a touchscreen but I couldn't tell you as I don't use them. Gnome 3 is certainly different, but it's extremely powerful once you get used to it. That said, it's not going to be everyone's preferred DE and nobody should expect that there ever will be a perfect DE for everyone.
If you don't like Gnome 3, there's plenty of other flavors of Ubuntu, and certainly more than enough distros to try alternatives. Ubuntu MATE is a great spin if that's the route you want, and Martin Wimpress is a marvelous maintainer. It's official too, so you don't even have to worry about support.
Yes and no, while an ISP can trivially block certain traffic they wouldn't be able to block encryption as a whole so easily. It would be a never ending game of cat and mouse as ISPs struggle to figure out every possible way to obfusicate encryption.,Not only does it not solve the problem, it's a huge expense to the ISPs to maintain if it becomes their legal obligation to do so, and if they're not required to maintain the law then it's simply ineffective to begin with. Even using a whitelist of "approved traffic" wouldn't fix this as there's simply too many ways to wrap unapproved traffic, and a blacklist is equally easy to circumvent.
There's no true solution outside of manually monitoring every single piece of traffic for new ways of getting around the law, and as we all know: criminals don't care that your law exists and will get around it.
Just because they know what they're doing doesn't mean they understand what they're making laws about. I mean an encryption ban will never work because A) Modern life is powered by encryption and the rammifications of a ban would destroy a modern economy and B) You can't stop actual encryption at this point, it's too available and too pervasive. Government types THINK they want it because it makes spying on the citizens easier, but it will only serve to collapse that country into a quick trip to third world status. Their internet would have to be completely incompatible with the internet at large, online commerce will grind to a halt, banks would have to use paper or have a constant issue of theft.
Then again, most people make bad decisions daily because they're undereducated... forcing politicians to know what they're talking about would be unfair. Maybe we should just get rid of politicans and replace them with cats. If we're going to have a large group that does nothing, at least cats are cute.
The modern internet runs on encryption. Any time you send a login you (hopefully) are using encryption, otherwise it's trivial to steal credentials. Any time you enter your credit card information into a website you (hopefully) are using encryption, otherwise it's trivial to steal your card number. The modern world absolutely requires encryption for day-to-day activities, even if you're not using encryption on files/messages/whatever to avoid others looking at them you ARE using encryption to power your modern life.
Anybody that thinks an encryption ban isn't something to worry about doesn't know how or where encryption works. Your ignorance is obvious to anybody even slightly in the know. If you're not alarmed by the fact that your government is even considering an encryption ban then obviously you're exceptionally uneducated on the subject and you should sit down and shut up while the grown ups are talking.