You're right, that's exactly what I need. I started using Mint (switched from Open SUSE) because I wanted something Ubuntu based, but Neon apparently would have been a better choice.
And It definitely is now. (What the hell, Mint?) Thanks.
It seems likely that if some people think that a trait is bad, and other people think that a trait is neutral, then on balance a simple average would be somewhat negative.
A more interesting analysis might look at whether expressing an opinion that being gay/jewish is bad, is itself bad (i.e.: are racists bad?). In that case you certainly have some people who think that this is bad, but the question is: do racists think that being racist is good? Or neutral? Even if they think it's good they probably aren't going to balance out the anti-racists, but is being anti-gay better or worse than being gay, on average?
The best option for the country seems to be the one none of the politicians are talking about.
You're talking about reducing the size of our military, so that our reduced number of ships/etc. can operate fully manned? Or maybe increasing pay to sailors/soldiers, so that we have less trouble recruiting? I wouldn't say that no one is talking about either of these, they certainly come up from time to time. Though they're not usually framed in those terms.
Corruption aside, spending more on lobbying seems to be an indication of the maturation of a business in the US. If you look at top spenders, the ones mentioned in the article are the youngest of the bunch.
At some point in its life, a company recognizes that it can get better returns from lobbying than it can from any other investment.
So when someone climbs a crossing, walks along a set of tracks, gets on a bridge and jumps onto the ground below it's because of a lack of guard rails?
This is an awfully specific bridge that you're talking about. Maybe it wasn't a very good analogy to begin with? Maybe when I said, "more like," I didn't mean, "exactly like"? Maybe you should read the rest of what I said instead of focusing on your own dumb analogy?
1-5? We're not looking at the same site. The Rotten Tomatoes I know rates on a percentage scale, 0-100%. But that rating is not a measure the quality of the film, it's a measure of the degree of consensus between reviewers.
So a mediocre movie which everyone agrees is a little above average, but which no one thinks is great - that will score very high. While a controversial movie, which some people think is fantastic while others think is bad (or even just a little below average), that will score in the middle.
It would be like blaming gravity for people who jump off a bridge/building.
More like blaming a lack of guard rails. The point is not that having easy access to guns makes suicide possible, yes of course if someone is really determined they can always find a way to kill themselves, the point is that having lots of guns lying around makes suicide quick and easy.
The difference between someone who is dead and someone who had a brief but intense episode of depression is sometimes a matter of convenience - how easy is it for them to kill themselves in that moment?
According to Martin Scorsese, you've got that backwards. Maybe you should read the article - the point is not that film criticism is bad, the problem is in how that criticism is represented by critic aggregators.
He doesn't go into the particular method in by which Rotten Tomatoes calculates its scores, which I think way way off (I can't understand why people go there at all, compared to some of the other aggregators), but rather he talks about the idea that film criticism, which is a sort of art in itself, could be reduced to a single number.
Deaths from suicide are usually included in that figure because people who attempt suicide using guns are much more often successful than those who use other means (like sleeping pills). So easy access to guns results in more deaths from suicide.
What you're really saying is that a 7 or 8" screen is dumb because you've never wanted one yourself.
Oh for gods' sake. Did you read the post that I was replying to? I tried to make it flagrantly obvious that I was just copying his argument in which trading portability for increased functionality was necessarily bad. If anything, the ratio of increased functionality to loss of portability is larger when you go from a tablet to a Chromebook, than it is from a phone to a tablet. Adding a keyboard and Google's browser-based office suit, on top of a larger screen, is a significantly bigger bonus than a larger screen alone.
1) Heavier.
2) Thicker.
3) More expensive.
4) Not available as small, which means further weight gains, thickness, lower battery life, and lack of portability.
And when the idea is portability, those matter a lot.
>"What does a traditional Android phone do that an Android tablet doesn't?
Let's see how:
1) It is not as light as a phone.
2) It is not as thin as a phone.
3) It typically (but not always) costs more than a phone.
4) It isn't typically available as small, like 5", which means even further weight savings, thinness, battery life, and portability.
And when the idea is portability, those matter a lot. Some of us want a phone because tablets are redundant.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm saying that tablets are dumb.
So, you want some sort of "admission of guilt" for something that was CLEARLY a design decision?
I gave three examples of possible explanations there, only one of those was an admission of guilt.
You seem to have mistaken the problem here, along with several other things, so I'm going to try to summarize our conversation: the problem is not that Apple has given additional options for partially turning off wifi. The problem is that Apple has provided an option that says it will turn off wifi, but which does not turn off wifi.
You posted a link to an article which claimed to offer an explanation for why Apple did this, but it did not offer an explanation for why Apple did this.
I pointed out that the article did not offer an explanation for why Apple did this.
You repeated that it did, and said that I couldn't read.
I described what such an explanation would look like, with examples, and pointed out that there is no such thing in the article.
You... evidently read none of that, and stepped up your abuse.
So that's the conversation so far. Even if you hadn't decided to throw a tantrum and leave, I'm not sure that this could go anywhere. I doubt that you know why Apple did this, and I certainly don't, so it's not like we would have figured anything out between us. But the fact remains: what Apple has provided is not an explanation for why this is the way it is. It is only a description of how it works.
Yep, I read that. I also read the article that it links to. That's still not a reason why.
Maybe I can clarify. When someone asks, "Why doesn't the wifi and bluetooth shut off when I tell the wifi and bluetooth to shut off?"
An answer to that question is not, "When you tell the wifi and bluetooth to shut off, it disables wifi and bluetooth to non-Apple services."
That's a description of what happens. It is how that order is executed. It is not an explanation of why.
An explanation would look something like, "Because Larry goofed up when he wrote that bit and it's easier to pretend that it's on purpose than it is to fix it." or "Because we have decided that you never really want to turn off Apple services, despite whatever you might say." or even "Because Apple knows best, trust in Apple. There there, shhh. It'll all be okay."
You say that your linked article explains why iOS doesn't shut off WiFi or bluetooth when you tell it to shut off WiFi and Bluetooth. And the title of the article you link is: "Apple clarifies why iOS 11 Control Center toggles don’t fully disable Bluetooth and Wi-Fi" but... the article does not offer a reason why iOS does this. It only describes how iOS does this.
That's good information to have too, but it's pretty far from a reasonable explanation. It's not any explanation.
Links are not the problem. In-line links can be a problem, but referencing sources is a practice which is always good and should never be discouraged. Honestly, this kind of headline is just bait: "Whaaat?" people say, "Hyperlinks can be bad? You made me drop my monocle!"
Just take the time to do it right - put your links at the end, or put them in a footnote. We have well-established and functional mechanisms for making references.
Can you get the Netflix original series through the DVD service? That's not something that ever occurred to me before, but it seems like an obvious thing now. No reason why they couldn't print those out and add them to their DVD collection.
... What? There is no Nobel committee (singular), each prize is evaluated by a separate committee. The one which awards the peace prize is called the Norwegian Nobel Committee. This committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, but is not a part of the Norwegian government.
If this upsets you... Well, let's consider for a moment: supposing that each committee should be a panel of experts in the given field, and that the peace prize is an explicitly political prize, who is more qualified to identify experts on politics than politicians?
Yes yes, I know, each and every politician the world over is a walking incarnation of Satan himself. Fine. Moving past that, why did Alfred Nobel, who was Swedish, pick the Norwegian parliament to select the committee? I don't know, and I don't believe that anyone knows for sure, but there's reasonable speculation that he did this to show respect and, perhaps, to help foster good relations between Sweden and Norway. All of the other prizes are awarded by Swedish committees.
If that's the case, than this is the first example of the peace prize being used proactively. Not an award for a past action, but a tool to help foster peace in the future. The peace prize is frequently used for this purpose, maybe half of the time it's given out, including the award to Obama that some people like to caterwaul over.
First, you're not contradicting the parent. He's saying that regardless of the legal weight of the comments (none), they will still be used as an excuse when passing legislation. That is exactly how the US government works.
Second, this is a misrepresentation of the situation:
but because they can show that they have a mandate by law to correct the error committed by the previous commission
They most certainly can not show that. The most generous interpretation of events is that the FCC has conflicting mandates: one to promote broadband deployment, and another to promote investment and innovation. Neither this commission nor the previous one would make this claim, however. In both cases they would say that the thing they're doing is promoting one without harming the other. So this generous interpretation amounts to a difference of opinion.
Saying, "they can show," implies evidence. There is no substantive evidence that the current FCC is trying to correct an error. Most of the evidence seems to be leaning in the other direction: to their shareholders, the major ISPs have been forward about the fact that net neutrality will not stymie broadband deployment. Even as they announce publicly that it will.
In reality, an honest difference of opinion is unlikely to be the motivation here. It's probably corruption, but could possibly be naive idealism or vindictive partisanship or all of the above.
once you make the jump to go on a killing rampage the only real allegiance you have is to violent authoritarianism
Where'd you get this idea? Someone like this could just as easily be an anarchist. Or a nihilist, who doesn't fall anywhere on the left-right political spectrum. This sort of thing doesn't have to be motivated by ideals or mental illness. Disillusionment is enough, in some cases.
I guess that's most of the point that you were making. And that's a fine point.
This is absolutely wrong, it's literally the opposite of true. I realize that rhetoric in the US has corrupted the terms "political right" and "political left" but dude, come on.
To repeat the historical origin, which I'm sure you've heard but... I don't know man. Anyway: the terms "political left" and "political right" come from the French Revolution. Supporters of the king (i.e.: "the dude in charge," "the government," "the authority") sat to the right in the hall where the National Assembly convened. Those opposed to the king (i.e.: anti-"the dude in charge," anti-"the government," anti-"the authority") sat on the left.
Thus the left were the anti-authoritarians, anti-establishment, and in the most extreme examples: the anarchists. They are people who want less top-down rule. The right were the opposite of those things. Where you fell on this spectrum generally reflected what you feared the most: authoritarian rule, or mob rule. Fascism didn't exist yet, but the two extremes of the left-right political spectrum are typically given as anarchy on the left and fascism on the right.
I don't know how these terms have become so corrupted in the US, but a guess: the US rebelled against rule by a central authority, and most of the popular rhetoric centers around anti-authoritarianism. "All men are created equal," "Democracy is good," yadda yadda. Thus both sides of the political spectrum have to make claims about being anti-authority, even while they may simultaneously give pro-authority speeches about needing "strong leadership" and so on.
"Collectivism" falls nowhere on this spectrum. A preference for working or living as a group does not imply a central authority, nor does it reject a central authority. There is no reason why an anarchist can't be a collectivist, nor any reason why a fascist can't be a collectivist. In fact, anarchist collectives are common. Here's the first example a search turned up for me.
That may be, but Trump looks out for number one and he seems to be extremely concerned with his public image. If this got enough traction (it won't) then Trump would fire Pai in second, regardless of whether or not he agreed with him.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, that's exactly what I need. I started using Mint (switched from Open SUSE) because I wanted something Ubuntu based, but Neon apparently would have been a better choice.
And It definitely is now. (What the hell, Mint?) Thanks.
It seems likely that if some people think that a trait is bad, and other people think that a trait is neutral, then on balance a simple average would be somewhat negative.
A more interesting analysis might look at whether expressing an opinion that being gay/jewish is bad, is itself bad (i.e.: are racists bad?). In that case you certainly have some people who think that this is bad, but the question is: do racists think that being racist is good? Or neutral? Even if they think it's good they probably aren't going to balance out the anti-racists, but is being anti-gay better or worse than being gay, on average?
The best option for the country seems to be the one none of the politicians are talking about.
You're talking about reducing the size of our military, so that our reduced number of ships/etc. can operate fully manned? Or maybe increasing pay to sailors/soldiers, so that we have less trouble recruiting? I wouldn't say that no one is talking about either of these, they certainly come up from time to time. Though they're not usually framed in those terms.
Corruption aside, spending more on lobbying seems to be an indication of the maturation of a business in the US. If you look at top spenders, the ones mentioned in the article are the youngest of the bunch.
At some point in its life, a company recognizes that it can get better returns from lobbying than it can from any other investment.
So when someone climbs a crossing, walks along a set of tracks, gets on a bridge and jumps onto the ground below it's because of a lack of guard rails?
This is an awfully specific bridge that you're talking about. Maybe it wasn't a very good analogy to begin with? Maybe when I said, "more like," I didn't mean, "exactly like"? Maybe you should read the rest of what I said instead of focusing on your own dumb analogy?
1-5? We're not looking at the same site. The Rotten Tomatoes I know rates on a percentage scale, 0-100%. But that rating is not a measure the quality of the film, it's a measure of the degree of consensus between reviewers.
So a mediocre movie which everyone agrees is a little above average, but which no one thinks is great - that will score very high. While a controversial movie, which some people think is fantastic while others think is bad (or even just a little below average), that will score in the middle.
It would be like blaming gravity for people who jump off a bridge/building.
More like blaming a lack of guard rails. The point is not that having easy access to guns makes suicide possible, yes of course if someone is really determined they can always find a way to kill themselves, the point is that having lots of guns lying around makes suicide quick and easy.
The difference between someone who is dead and someone who had a brief but intense episode of depression is sometimes a matter of convenience - how easy is it for them to kill themselves in that moment?
Maybe I'm part of the elite.
According to Martin Scorsese, you've got that backwards. Maybe you should read the article - the point is not that film criticism is bad, the problem is in how that criticism is represented by critic aggregators.
He doesn't go into the particular method in by which Rotten Tomatoes calculates its scores, which I think way way off (I can't understand why people go there at all, compared to some of the other aggregators), but rather he talks about the idea that film criticism, which is a sort of art in itself, could be reduced to a single number.
You think Martin Scorsese has been releasing a lot of shitty movies?
Deaths from suicide are usually included in that figure because people who attempt suicide using guns are much more often successful than those who use other means (like sleeping pills). So easy access to guns results in more deaths from suicide.
What you're really saying is that a 7 or 8" screen is dumb because you've never wanted one yourself.
Oh for gods' sake. Did you read the post that I was replying to? I tried to make it flagrantly obvious that I was just copying his argument in which trading portability for increased functionality was necessarily bad. If anything, the ratio of increased functionality to loss of portability is larger when you go from a tablet to a Chromebook, than it is from a phone to a tablet. Adding a keyboard and Google's browser-based office suit, on top of a larger screen, is a significantly bigger bonus than a larger screen alone.
That would make it:
1) Heavier.
2) Thicker.
3) More expensive.
4) Not available as small, which means further weight gains, thickness, lower battery life, and lack of portability.
And when the idea is portability, those matter a lot.
>"What does a traditional Android phone do that an Android tablet doesn't? Let's see how:
1) It is not as light as a phone.
2) It is not as thin as a phone.
3) It typically (but not always) costs more than a phone.
4) It isn't typically available as small, like 5", which means even further weight savings, thinness, battery life, and portability.
And when the idea is portability, those matter a lot. Some of us want a phone because tablets are redundant.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm saying that tablets are dumb.
That doesn't seem to be a quote from the article, so I'll ask: why is this a problem? Is that a nonprofitable demographic or something?
So, you want some sort of "admission of guilt" for something that was CLEARLY a design decision?
I gave three examples of possible explanations there, only one of those was an admission of guilt.
You seem to have mistaken the problem here, along with several other things, so I'm going to try to summarize our conversation: the problem is not that Apple has given additional options for partially turning off wifi. The problem is that Apple has provided an option that says it will turn off wifi, but which does not turn off wifi.
You posted a link to an article which claimed to offer an explanation for why Apple did this, but it did not offer an explanation for why Apple did this.
I pointed out that the article did not offer an explanation for why Apple did this.
You repeated that it did, and said that I couldn't read.
I described what such an explanation would look like, with examples, and pointed out that there is no such thing in the article.
You... evidently read none of that, and stepped up your abuse.
So that's the conversation so far. Even if you hadn't decided to throw a tantrum and leave, I'm not sure that this could go anywhere. I doubt that you know why Apple did this, and I certainly don't, so it's not like we would have figured anything out between us. But the fact remains: what Apple has provided is not an explanation for why this is the way it is. It is only a description of how it works.
Yep, I read that. I also read the article that it links to. That's still not a reason why.
Maybe I can clarify. When someone asks, "Why doesn't the wifi and bluetooth shut off when I tell the wifi and bluetooth to shut off?"
An answer to that question is not, "When you tell the wifi and bluetooth to shut off, it disables wifi and bluetooth to non-Apple services."
That's a description of what happens. It is how that order is executed. It is not an explanation of why.
An explanation would look something like, "Because Larry goofed up when he wrote that bit and it's easier to pretend that it's on purpose than it is to fix it." or "Because we have decided that you never really want to turn off Apple services, despite whatever you might say." or even "Because Apple knows best, trust in Apple. There there, shhh. It'll all be okay."
Those are explanations.
You say that your linked article explains why iOS doesn't shut off WiFi or bluetooth when you tell it to shut off WiFi and Bluetooth. And the title of the article you link is: "Apple clarifies why iOS 11 Control Center toggles don’t fully disable Bluetooth and Wi-Fi" but... the article does not offer a reason why iOS does this. It only describes how iOS does this.
That's good information to have too, but it's pretty far from a reasonable explanation. It's not any explanation.
Links are not the problem. In-line links can be a problem, but referencing sources is a practice which is always good and should never be discouraged. Honestly, this kind of headline is just bait: "Whaaat?" people say, "Hyperlinks can be bad? You made me drop my monocle!"
Just take the time to do it right - put your links at the end, or put them in a footnote. We have well-established and functional mechanisms for making references.
Can you get the Netflix original series through the DVD service? That's not something that ever occurred to me before, but it seems like an obvious thing now. No reason why they couldn't print those out and add them to their DVD collection.
... What? There is no Nobel committee (singular), each prize is evaluated by a separate committee. The one which awards the peace prize is called the Norwegian Nobel Committee. This committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, but is not a part of the Norwegian government.
If this upsets you... Well, let's consider for a moment: supposing that each committee should be a panel of experts in the given field, and that the peace prize is an explicitly political prize, who is more qualified to identify experts on politics than politicians?
Yes yes, I know, each and every politician the world over is a walking incarnation of Satan himself. Fine. Moving past that, why did Alfred Nobel, who was Swedish, pick the Norwegian parliament to select the committee? I don't know, and I don't believe that anyone knows for sure, but there's reasonable speculation that he did this to show respect and, perhaps, to help foster good relations between Sweden and Norway. All of the other prizes are awarded by Swedish committees.
If that's the case, than this is the first example of the peace prize being used proactively. Not an award for a past action, but a tool to help foster peace in the future. The peace prize is frequently used for this purpose, maybe half of the time it's given out, including the award to Obama that some people like to caterwaul over.
Second, this is a misrepresentation of the situation:
but because they can show that they have a mandate by law to correct the error committed by the previous commission
They most certainly can not show that. The most generous interpretation of events is that the FCC has conflicting mandates: one to promote broadband deployment, and another to promote investment and innovation. Neither this commission nor the previous one would make this claim, however. In both cases they would say that the thing they're doing is promoting one without harming the other. So this generous interpretation amounts to a difference of opinion.
Saying, "they can show," implies evidence. There is no substantive evidence that the current FCC is trying to correct an error. Most of the evidence seems to be leaning in the other direction: to their shareholders, the major ISPs have been forward about the fact that net neutrality will not stymie broadband deployment. Even as they announce publicly that it will.
In reality, an honest difference of opinion is unlikely to be the motivation here. It's probably corruption, but could possibly be naive idealism or vindictive partisanship or all of the above.
Well, huh. I have never heard that definition of authoritarian. Okay, fair enough.
once you make the jump to go on a killing rampage the only real allegiance you have is to violent authoritarianism
Where'd you get this idea? Someone like this could just as easily be an anarchist. Or a nihilist, who doesn't fall anywhere on the left-right political spectrum. This sort of thing doesn't have to be motivated by ideals or mental illness. Disillusionment is enough, in some cases.
I guess that's most of the point that you were making. And that's a fine point.
This is absolutely wrong, it's literally the opposite of true. I realize that rhetoric in the US has corrupted the terms "political right" and "political left" but dude, come on.
To repeat the historical origin, which I'm sure you've heard but... I don't know man. Anyway: the terms "political left" and "political right" come from the French Revolution. Supporters of the king (i.e.: "the dude in charge," "the government," "the authority") sat to the right in the hall where the National Assembly convened. Those opposed to the king (i.e.: anti-"the dude in charge," anti-"the government," anti-"the authority") sat on the left.
Thus the left were the anti-authoritarians, anti-establishment, and in the most extreme examples: the anarchists. They are people who want less top-down rule. The right were the opposite of those things. Where you fell on this spectrum generally reflected what you feared the most: authoritarian rule, or mob rule. Fascism didn't exist yet, but the two extremes of the left-right political spectrum are typically given as anarchy on the left and fascism on the right.
I don't know how these terms have become so corrupted in the US, but a guess: the US rebelled against rule by a central authority, and most of the popular rhetoric centers around anti-authoritarianism. "All men are created equal," "Democracy is good," yadda yadda. Thus both sides of the political spectrum have to make claims about being anti-authority, even while they may simultaneously give pro-authority speeches about needing "strong leadership" and so on.
"Collectivism" falls nowhere on this spectrum. A preference for working or living as a group does not imply a central authority, nor does it reject a central authority. There is no reason why an anarchist can't be a collectivist, nor any reason why a fascist can't be a collectivist. In fact, anarchist collectives are common. Here's the first example a search turned up for me.
That may be, but Trump looks out for number one and he seems to be extremely concerned with his public image. If this got enough traction (it won't) then Trump would fire Pai in second, regardless of whether or not he agreed with him.