That is why you need guns, lots of guns... We used them 200+ years ago to get rid of King George, he rather sucked...
You should read the first part of the Deceleration of Independence:
He did. Though unfortunately you rather overestimated how much power the monarch wielded then and then gave all that misunderstood power to the president of the new US. The US president has far more power than he really should have in comparison to even the UK king then.
Arming the populous with guns could make some sense when all the state military had was guns. Now the military has jets, missiles, unmanned drones... you'd probably have to up your civilian militia tech level somewhat to actually have any effective armed power.
However if you're saying that at the same time cyclists should be banned from roads that don't have a dedicated bicycle lane, then I have to vehemently disagree with you,
Pretty sure nobody is saying anything of the sort. Well, no cyclists would, anyway.
I am hopeful for Ara... personally I will fill the thing with batteries and call it a day. But yes soon you may be able to have you list... Well, except 2 & 3.
It *is* an extra attack vector though, since there is now two ways to get into your phone (password and finger) rather than one. Super-convenient, admittedly, but a security gap nonetheless. There's a legal distinction that might cause an issue too - you can't be compelled to give over a password, but information *about* you like your fingerprint is fair game so you can be compelled to provide that.
In some ways fingerprints are terrible security tokens - you leave your token recorded on any surface you touch!
Welcome to the 1960s. The imbalances, as defined by changes in culture, have been identified and largely corrected. I wouldn't claim were at a perfect state of equality, but special treatment for groups of disadvantaged people is surely no longer required. At some point, everyone needs to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and make their own destiny.
What, as determined by... you? You know that's exactly what people said in the 60s. It's the ones who are disadvantaged who are the best at seeing if they are disadvantaged. And the ones that have the advantages belittle and diminish the problem so they can keep the status quo.
The overall problem being that a show loved by (say) 20% of the population but hated by the rest still should have merit, and be financially viable etc, but does badly in a rating system. A mild crowd pleaser does better in the rating, but it's hard to say that it's of greater value.
It's junk food for the SJW agenda and anyone interested in benefiting from it. Men (the least likely to benefit from any modern social justice agenda) are acutely aware of this and develop appropriate opinions.
See, this worries the fuck out of me and is why I'll give time to this so-called agenda even though it riles me too - because since when have we become so fucking selfish that any other group trying to improve their lot immediately means we have to fight it? Maybe we should recognise imbalances (even if they are in our favour) and help to right them?
Ironically this is what/. posts are showing all over this conversation. "Oh noes! My privileged position is being challenged! It must be completely without merit! I'm being oppressed!"
What kind of SJW bullshit is this? Maybe men just have different taste in TV shows. I can't imagine too many men wanting to watch The Bachelorette, either. The low ratings are just a reflection that men don't like the show. It's not sabotage. Cut the SJW bullshit. Why is Slashdot so full of SJW nonsense lately?
It's funny, I find it very difficult to take anyone seriously who uses that ridiculous acronym (let alone in every sentence). It's not even a very good slur... like someone can be proud that they are not interested in social justice.
"add some more products to the "good" list: Android... YouTube... Waze"
None of which were created by Google.
So? They developed them far from where they originally started. Just because something didn't start in-house... after all the years those platforms have been around, the code will now be mostly Google-originated.
Yeah, they are very inconsistent with their inconsistencies. I think the core Android API is pretty good at remaining stable and backwards compatible, but the periphery APIs in like GCM or Payments are completely different every time I have to implement them, they change about once per year. It's very frustrating to have to learn this stuff again every time I do it.
I mean, I don't disagree that he should probably escape from Wikipedia, atleast temporarily... but still people being horrible online isn't just on Wikipedia, it's everywhere. And why just tell him to leave - that will only 'improve' the situation for him. Telling him to leave just grants the trolls their playground rather than removing them or improving them.
says the guy on a US website, probably using a US operating system, on a CPU designed by Americans... etc etc etc.
Hehe... if he's posting from a phone chances are his CPU was designed by a British company, and if that phone runs Android then it has a Linux core written in Finland / highly-internationally. But yes, let's continue this pointless nationalist bullshit...
If you're contemplating suicide based on something going on with the Internet, you have lost perspective and need to go outside.
To you and everyone else who uses the "go outside" meme - the internet is not some weird geeky subsection of humanity any more. I would have thought on this site - people commenting on this particular *website* - would know better than to try and diminish it. The internet is where some of us spend more time than anywhere else, and yes these are a valid way of interacting socially. The outside isn't intrinsically a more virtuous place to be. Every time you tell someone they're the one at fault you make excuses to abusive and unacceptable behaviour, and we give licence for the trolls to continue. The only reason the 'outside' isn't a terrible place to be is because these people can't act that way, because there are social consequences (being shunned or punched). We really need to find a way to bring some consequences to bad internet behaviour.
Certainly he's lost perspective, but we are social creatures and when people treat you shittily constantly enough, it's easy to do.
Spectators of sports seem to have some sort of illness that makes them irrationally believe that other people doing something more or less benign like kicking a ball around has something to do with them. They seem to believe at both an emotional and physical level that if some hairy tattooed guy with limited cognitive capacity jumps over a stick... this persons action effects them somehow.
For the desktop app to function, users still need to have their phone connected to the Internet.
So what's the point of a desktop program if it requires a smartphone?
Keyboard, mainly. Far more convenient for browsing and writing messages if you happen to be sitting at a computer.
I think it's pretty interesting how the WhatsApp stuff was put together, more like POP3 than the modern way of thinking about messaging. It's essentially massively decentralised, for privacy (apparently), and it hugely reduces their cost. All their servers do is hold messages in transport and deliver them to a single device. It's restrictive for the end-user but it's meant they could scale far faster than a normal startup for less money, and it maintains privacy of messages since they don't actually exist on their server.
Probably also fair to say Linus probably didn't expect git to become as big as it has (and harm Bitkeeper) - he needed a source control system that fulfilled his needs for the kernel, so he wrote exactly that. It also happened to be great in general for everybody, and then took over the world, but like Linux itself, it started as a personal tool for a particular purpose.
No - in my world, in all our worlds, there are people who will cause us problems because of their own hangups. And you can't always avoid them, as you so elegantly evaded acknowledging those people I mentioned that you can't avoid. Yes, your friends won't care likely, but your boss might. Your co-workers might. Your parents might. And you can't always just get another job - I doubt my tech boss cares, but if I were a teacher or in a more old-boy network then they are likely to look down. The world has many people who think homosexuality is a crime and will make a gay teacher's life impossible because of a suspicion. And that's the prejudice that you *can* see, the ones you never know about because someone does a google search on your CV and sees some pictures and makes a snap judgement not to interview you.
Clearly we are no longer talking about just children here, the right to have control over your privacy is one that is important at all ages.
Good for you. I'm glad that your world does not excessively punish you for those pictures.
Not everybody gets to be in that situation though - and that's exactly why privacy is important, and why *you* shouldn't get to decide what other people have to reveal or be ok about having revealed about themselves. There are a whole bunch of prejudices and assumptions about what a picture says about someone, whether it reveals their sexuality, disability, or whatever. I'm assuming that you're not one to judge, but some people are. And those people sometimes have great power over you, be they a teacher or a boss or a policeman. Privacy is what prevents flawed judgemental people from harming us.
I grew up in a country where a rite of passage is the posting of deeply embarrassing pictures of the first 21st years of a person's life on their 21st birthday in front of as many friends and family members as possible.
Yeah, but you wouldn't tolerate someone doing that to you now, would you? You value your privacy now, right? But anyone younger has to give up any control over their image because.... they're young and fuck'em?
The internet never forgets, it would be nice if parents took that into consideration when enforcing an online identity on their spawn. I got a friend-request from a friend's newborn the other day... *sigh*
Yeah, also why is it "quietly"? Quietly implies that there's something nefarious or suspicious going on, not just a normal adjustment due to increasing storage size available in newer technology...
tablets can be had for 50 bucks these days. one doesnt need to be rich to have a tablet
also if the expense that that much maybe you dont need a tablet either
Ah yes, such certainty. Who are you to determine that someone should be able to afford 2 things or none at all? And tablets might be cheap now, but they were $200-300 only a couple of years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
That is why you need guns, lots of guns... We used them 200+ years ago to get rid of King George, he rather sucked...
You should read the first part of the Deceleration of Independence:
He did. Though unfortunately you rather overestimated how much power the monarch wielded then and then gave all that misunderstood power to the president of the new US. The US president has far more power than he really should have in comparison to even the UK king then.
Arming the populous with guns could make some sense when all the state military had was guns. Now the military has jets, missiles, unmanned drones... you'd probably have to up your civilian militia tech level somewhat to actually have any effective armed power.
However if you're saying that at the same time cyclists should be banned from roads that don't have a dedicated bicycle lane, then I have to vehemently disagree with you,
Pretty sure nobody is saying anything of the sort. Well, no cyclists would, anyway.
I am hopeful for Ara... personally I will fill the thing with batteries and call it a day. But yes soon you may be able to have you list... Well, except 2 & 3.
It *is* an extra attack vector though, since there is now two ways to get into your phone (password and finger) rather than one. Super-convenient, admittedly, but a security gap nonetheless. There's a legal distinction that might cause an issue too - you can't be compelled to give over a password, but information *about* you like your fingerprint is fair game so you can be compelled to provide that.
In some ways fingerprints are terrible security tokens - you leave your token recorded on any surface you touch!
Welcome to the 1960s. The imbalances, as defined by changes in culture, have been identified and largely corrected. I wouldn't claim were at a perfect state of equality, but special treatment for groups of disadvantaged people is surely no longer required. At some point, everyone needs to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and make their own destiny.
What, as determined by... you? You know that's exactly what people said in the 60s. It's the ones who are disadvantaged who are the best at seeing if they are disadvantaged. And the ones that have the advantages belittle and diminish the problem so they can keep the status quo.
The overall problem being that a show loved by (say) 20% of the population but hated by the rest still should have merit, and be financially viable etc, but does badly in a rating system. A mild crowd pleaser does better in the rating, but it's hard to say that it's of greater value.
It's junk food for the SJW agenda and anyone interested in benefiting from it. Men (the least likely to benefit from any modern social justice agenda) are acutely aware of this and develop appropriate opinions.
See, this worries the fuck out of me and is why I'll give time to this so-called agenda even though it riles me too - because since when have we become so fucking selfish that any other group trying to improve their lot immediately means we have to fight it? Maybe we should recognise imbalances (even if they are in our favour) and help to right them?
Its the victim mentality.
Ironically this is what /. posts are showing all over this conversation. "Oh noes! My privileged position is being challenged! It must be completely without merit! I'm being oppressed!"
What kind of SJW bullshit is this? Maybe men just have different taste in TV shows. I can't imagine too many men wanting to watch The Bachelorette, either. The low ratings are just a reflection that men don't like the show. It's not sabotage. Cut the SJW bullshit. Why is Slashdot so full of SJW nonsense lately?
It's funny, I find it very difficult to take anyone seriously who uses that ridiculous acronym (let alone in every sentence). It's not even a very good slur... like someone can be proud that they are not interested in social justice.
"add some more products to the "good" list: Android... YouTube ... Waze"
None of which were created by Google.
So? They developed them far from where they originally started. Just because something didn't start in-house... after all the years those platforms have been around, the code will now be mostly Google-originated.
Yeah, they are very inconsistent with their inconsistencies. I think the core Android API is pretty good at remaining stable and backwards compatible, but the periphery APIs in like GCM or Payments are completely different every time I have to implement them, they change about once per year. It's very frustrating to have to learn this stuff again every time I do it.
I mean, I don't disagree that he should probably escape from Wikipedia, atleast temporarily... but still people being horrible online isn't just on Wikipedia, it's everywhere. And why just tell him to leave - that will only 'improve' the situation for him. Telling him to leave just grants the trolls their playground rather than removing them or improving them.
says the guy on a US website, probably using a US operating system, on a CPU designed by Americans... etc etc etc.
Hehe... if he's posting from a phone chances are his CPU was designed by a British company, and if that phone runs Android then it has a Linux core written in Finland / highly-internationally. But yes, let's continue this pointless nationalist bullshit...
If you're contemplating suicide based on something going on with the Internet, you have lost perspective and need to go outside.
To you and everyone else who uses the "go outside" meme - the internet is not some weird geeky subsection of humanity any more. I would have thought on this site - people commenting on this particular *website* - would know better than to try and diminish it. The internet is where some of us spend more time than anywhere else, and yes these are a valid way of interacting socially. The outside isn't intrinsically a more virtuous place to be. Every time you tell someone they're the one at fault you make excuses to abusive and unacceptable behaviour, and we give licence for the trolls to continue. The only reason the 'outside' isn't a terrible place to be is because these people can't act that way, because there are social consequences (being shunned or punched). We really need to find a way to bring some consequences to bad internet behaviour.
Certainly he's lost perspective, but we are social creatures and when people treat you shittily constantly enough, it's easy to do.
Amazingly when all was said and done I got off with a warning
A warning for what? What concocted law did they say you broke?
Spectators of sports seem to have some sort of illness that makes them irrationally believe that other people doing something more or less benign like kicking a ball around has something to do with them. They seem to believe at both an emotional and physical level that if some hairy tattooed guy with limited cognitive capacity jumps over a stick... this persons action effects them somehow.
Yikes... well, aren't you the superior being...
So what's the point of a desktop program if it requires a smartphone?
Keyboard, mainly. Far more convenient for browsing and writing messages if you happen to be sitting at a computer.
I think it's pretty interesting how the WhatsApp stuff was put together, more like POP3 than the modern way of thinking about messaging. It's essentially massively decentralised, for privacy (apparently), and it hugely reduces their cost. All their servers do is hold messages in transport and deliver them to a single device. It's restrictive for the end-user but it's meant they could scale far faster than a normal startup for less money, and it maintains privacy of messages since they don't actually exist on their server.
Probably also fair to say Linus probably didn't expect git to become as big as it has (and harm Bitkeeper) - he needed a source control system that fulfilled his needs for the kernel, so he wrote exactly that. It also happened to be great in general for everybody, and then took over the world, but like Linux itself, it started as a personal tool for a particular purpose.
No - in my world, in all our worlds, there are people who will cause us problems because of their own hangups. And you can't always avoid them, as you so elegantly evaded acknowledging those people I mentioned that you can't avoid. Yes, your friends won't care likely, but your boss might. Your co-workers might. Your parents might. And you can't always just get another job - I doubt my tech boss cares, but if I were a teacher or in a more old-boy network then they are likely to look down. The world has many people who think homosexuality is a crime and will make a gay teacher's life impossible because of a suspicion. And that's the prejudice that you *can* see, the ones you never know about because someone does a google search on your CV and sees some pictures and makes a snap judgement not to interview you.
Clearly we are no longer talking about just children here, the right to have control over your privacy is one that is important at all ages.
I survived
Good for you. I'm glad that your world does not excessively punish you for those pictures.
Not everybody gets to be in that situation though - and that's exactly why privacy is important, and why *you* shouldn't get to decide what other people have to reveal or be ok about having revealed about themselves. There are a whole bunch of prejudices and assumptions about what a picture says about someone, whether it reveals their sexuality, disability, or whatever. I'm assuming that you're not one to judge, but some people are. And those people sometimes have great power over you, be they a teacher or a boss or a policeman. Privacy is what prevents flawed judgemental people from harming us.
I grew up in a country where a rite of passage is the posting of deeply embarrassing pictures of the first 21st years of a person's life on their 21st birthday in front of as many friends and family members as possible.
Yeah, but you wouldn't tolerate someone doing that to you now, would you? You value your privacy now, right? But anyone younger has to give up any control over their image because.... they're young and fuck'em?
The internet never forgets, it would be nice if parents took that into consideration when enforcing an online identity on their spawn. I got a friend-request from a friend's newborn the other day... *sigh*
If you RTFA he recovered from backups. It's a non-story.
How can this be a non-story? It's a horrendous bug, and that's the best-case interpretation.
I for one will not vote for that woman. If that means President Trump, then so be it. We can survive 4 years of Trump,
*You* can survive four years of Trump. Not everyone is so lucky. Carry on you high-horse.
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
Yeah, also why is it "quietly"? Quietly implies that there's something nefarious or suspicious going on, not just a normal adjustment due to increasing storage size available in newer technology...
tablets can be had for 50 bucks these days. one doesnt need to be rich to have a tablet
also if the expense that that much maybe you dont need a tablet either
Ah yes, such certainty. Who are you to determine that someone should be able to afford 2 things or none at all? And tablets might be cheap now, but they were $200-300 only a couple of years ago.