Also, since Amazon is being targeted by President Trump right now, it's probably better that it waits until he leaves office. Starting a new business venture in pharmaceuticals when a branch of the government is out to get you is a very bad idea.
In this particular case, I agree. She could have easily used a large knife or a car to inflict the same damage.
Also, I don't like blaming inanimate objects either. In the case of the Las Vegas shooter for instance, where 59 people were killed and 527 injured, I don't blame the 47 guns he owned, nor do I blame the 23 guns he had in his hotel room. In that case, I blame the shooter and also our Federal government for not placing a reasonable limit on the ownership of guns on someone who was not a gun shop owner and someone who was not even an active member of a militia or of a military reserve.
"On Hello, we do not share data with third parties. We have our own registration and login and so the data doesn't follow you anywhere,"
I don't think the founder understands the internet.
By requiring us to have an iTunes account or a Google Play account in order to download the app, he's effectively forcing us to share our information with Apple or Google and get us flagged as Hello users.
Not allowing us to download the app and install it as a third party app (at least on Android) was a very deliberate decision on his part. Me thinks this guy's PR firm simply noticed the PR disaster that Zuckerberg just went through and decided to capitalize on that to get some free publicity.
Personally, I would feel a lot better about a privacy-focused social network if it was founded by someone with a track record of valuing privacy of others. But may be I'm asking for too much, and perhaps a privacy-focused social networking platform is too much of an oxymoron.
Personally, I disagree with the assertion that all vegans are violent. That is just silly.
But for this part, the OP described exactly what I was thinking when I initially saw that picture with her take on it.
"anti-vegan animal business supporting criminals trying to harm me/kill me" (with picture of what look to be a nail stuck in a car's tyre, with tyre remaining inflated).
Even if someone had wanted to kill her, there are far more effective ways to do it than driving a nail or a screw into one of her tires. And her accusation is so overly broad, it's clear to me that she has no real-life concrete enemies to point to that could have done this to her tire.
And to me at least, that points to some kind of paranoid delusions. And yes, I know mental health professionals are not supposed to diagnose people remotely, but since I'm not a health professional, nor am I a doctor of any kind, I'm just a layperson, I reserve the right to label anyone with paranoid delusions (if I think that's what they have/had).
Do you have any evidence that anyone familiar with OpenBSD was using the term "open source" back then consistently or frequently? Because I have yet to see any.
Again, why does it have to be consistently or frequently?
For determining who used a particular term, one merely has to see the term cited in the right context, and this has to be done only once (because the assumption is that if you can find just a single citation, it probably means that it has been used many more times around that same time period, even if none of those other instances can now be found).
For evidence, I've already provided it, you can look to my posting history for the links. But the domain name opensource.com was registered in early January of 1998, not in February of 1998 and not by Christine. This very fact, by itself, should be all that's needed.
But if you're curious to know where that term was inspired from (directly or indirectly), you only have to look to OpenBSD. The project name OpenBSD name was used as a public repo name and was first registered as a domain name in 1995. The abbreviation OpenBSD means Open Berkeley Software Distribution. And the Berkeley Software Distribution license itself was included as a file in the source code itself of OpenBSD. And if this wasn't enough, the BSD license itself claims to be a license about the "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that..."
Considering that context, it makes perfect sense that the OSI group only trademarked the term "Open Source Initiative", and not "Open Source". Open Souce was already in use and it was already in use in the context of computer software.
You've been pushing this lie a long time, but in fact there was no significant usage of the term "open source" before 1998.
Significant? So tell me, which one should we consider more significant?
Someone uttering a term at a meeting in February 1998 (that everyone familiar with OpenBSD should have already been familiar with).
Or someone using that term and putting it into actual practice with an actual repository and an actual domain name in 1995.
Tell me, do you believe the same thing about patents? That it's not the earlier practitioner, but the later person that supposedly gets the "idea" that should get the entire credit for it. Do you realize how ludicrous this sounds?
As part of this malicious effort, you're finding stray instances of people revealing their (non-modifable) source code and acting like it proves Christine Peterson/the OSI are bad people who are lying.
Please stop with the persecution complex, no one is calling anyone a liar. People repeat things they've previously heard all the time. That doesn't make them liars or bad people. That just makes them human beings, just like the rest of us. And yes, it's possible for human beings to be mistaken.
And no, OpenBSD was not "(non-modifiable)". It was modifiable. It just wasn't copyleft. Have you even heard of the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license?
And no, I'm not trying to demean the copyleft licensing model. In fact, I find that licensing model far superior to anything else we've got. And the OSI folks should be proud of what they have accomplished. If anything, the only demeaning thing is the fact that some are unwilling to admit a minor mistake of original attribution (which is actually important in our circles) and just move on with far more important things to do.
Since you thought of the term 'open source' on February 2nd, 1998, were you aware that someone else had already registered the OpenSource.com domain name on January 8th, 1998?
Were you also aware that an open source software developer, Theo de Raadt, had already registered the domain name openbsd.org on October 12th, 1995 and created a public source code repo called OpenBSD on October 18th, 1995?
And if not, do you still believe you can claim you coined that term 'open source' when it was clearly in use for published source code several years before 1998?
Or maybe he'll make sure that the slurry used is mostly clay (which is where you want to dig anyway, because having tunnels dug in clay makes them easier to keep watertight), he'll license the patent from this manufacturer or do a variation of that design, and he'll pour the slurry of clay into some honeycomb-like/lego-like molds that he bakes. That's it.
After all, it's not like his flame flower is using groundbreaking technology either, but he has been able to sell a huge number of them at a pretty ridiculous price. In some ways, he reminds me of the Cards Against Humanity people and their silly stunts.
Yes, Obama was supremely boring. We can all agree about that. It's not just the fact that he won two elections quite decisively, so no one took a close look at the results and at what could have made the difference.
It's the fact that the American public has the attention span of a fruit fly. If Obama had stories that included the use of Ukrainian hookers for political blackmail, nepotism up the wazzoo, Russian money mules like the Mercers trying to influence the elections, and Russian hackers and trolls, you can bet that the American public would have tuned in.
What kind of political intrigue and sex scandals did Obama give us? Really? Can you even remember anything? The Weiner guy. That's about it. That was funny for five minutes, and then that was funny when he did the same thing again and again, but after a certain point, it got boring. Plus, I don't think you can credit Obama for that one.
All this outrage and calls for regulation and boycotting - because it was Trump of course - over something that Trump didn't use.
Cambridge Analytica is owned by the Mercers and the Mercers have been laundering Russian money for years.
Cambridge Analytica's admission that they used Ukrainian prostitutes to blackmail politicians is interesting because Breitbart (another outfit owned by the Mercers) is the one that broke the news that Representative Conyers (a Democrat) had Congress pay 27 thousand dollars for a sexual harassment claim (out of the 17 million dollar fund that a number of other representatives used, although their names haven't been exposed).
So the question then becomes, which other US politicians are the Russian-backed Mercers blackmailing? And is this the reason why the RNC is so unified behind President Trump? Did they also receive Russian money? And how many of them have actually been blackmailed with prostitutes? or blackmailed through the paper trail that Congress has on the sexual harassment settlements they've made?
Frankly, it doesn't matter if Trump was the mastermind. He may not have been the mastermind, he very well could just be a pawn in this entire affair. But it can't be good to even have a pawn in the white house.
If the safety driver had seen the woman one second earlier, he could have slammed on his brakes and at least slowed down the vehicle before hitting her (which may, or may not, have made a difference). But the rest of your point is a good one.
Electric cars are generally safer because the batteries reinforce the structure of the car and because placing the batteries at the bottom of the car lowers the center of gravity. But your design wouldn't take advantage of those properties.
In any case, BMW is no Tesla, so if they start mass producing electric cars, they'll start cannibalizing the sales of their own combustion cars, plus they'll have a glut of electrical cars sitting on their lots that they can't sell at the price they want.
Scroll down past the two images and take a look at the fourth video:
Driving in SF (4 of 4): Cyclists are everywhere https://www.recode.net/2017/10... Cyclist cutting off a car at night. The driver took over, but post-analysis shows our vehicle was already braking and would have stopped in time to avoid a collision.
Granted, this is not the video of the woman in Arizona who got killed. No one got hurt in this one. But this just goes to show you that some collisions can be super difficult to avoid.
That doesn't make us "monsters". That makes us pragmatic human beings, that need to travel at above 5 miles an hour (despite all the pedestrians, skateboarders, and bicyclists who are so used to getting the right of way, they'll gamble with their lives over this expectation).
On a side-note, if you have a skateboarder in your family, go out with them to make sure they get the right size, and buy them a helmet. I know it's not cool to wear helmets if you're a skateboarder. But I was giving a ride to someone recently and their friend had just died from head trauma while skateboarding. The skateboarder was 21 years old, he was going to a local University. Everyone liked him by all accounts. But he struck a car and suffered injuries that he would have easily survived, had he been wearing a helmet.
Also, if you see someone wearing headphones while they're riding their electric skateboard going up to 35 miles per hour right in the middle of traffic (this is especially a problem in San Francisco, hopefully, it hasn't reached your city yet). But please yell at them and tell them that they're being idiots. No one should be riding with headphones on. I'd rather those guys wear a boombox that's blasting music to everyone, instead of just wearing headphones. At least with the latter, people might hear them coming. But right now, these guys are super stealthy, they don't make any noise, they go very quickly, and top of that, if they're listening to music on their headphone, that means they're much less aware of their surroundings.
Slashdot Mirror
The Russian trolls are hard at work again.
Also, since Amazon is being targeted by President Trump right now, it's probably better that it waits until he leaves office. Starting a new business venture in pharmaceuticals when a branch of the government is out to get you is a very bad idea.
In this particular case, I agree. She could have easily used a large knife or a car to inflict the same damage.
Also, I don't like blaming inanimate objects either. In the case of the Las Vegas shooter for instance, where 59 people were killed and 527 injured, I don't blame the 47 guns he owned, nor do I blame the 23 guns he had in his hotel room. In that case, I blame the shooter and also our Federal government for not placing a reasonable limit on the ownership of guns on someone who was not a gun shop owner and someone who was not even an active member of a militia or of a military reserve.
"On Hello, we do not share data with third parties. We have our own registration and login and so the data doesn't follow you anywhere,"
I don't think the founder understands the internet.
By requiring us to have an iTunes account or a Google Play account in order to download the app, he's effectively forcing us to share our information with Apple or Google and get us flagged as Hello users.
Not allowing us to download the app and install it as a third party app (at least on Android) was a very deliberate decision on his part. Me thinks this guy's PR firm simply noticed the PR disaster that Zuckerberg just went through and decided to capitalize on that to get some free publicity.
Personally, I would feel a lot better about a privacy-focused social network if it was founded by someone with a track record of valuing privacy of others. But may be I'm asking for too much, and perhaps a privacy-focused social networking platform is too much of an oxymoron.
England is covered with cameras but you never hear stories about them doing any good.
Are you sure? Even for those terrorists planting bombs?
Do you think it was a security-related bug?
Can't their AI tell when someone is making eye-contact? Japanese photo-booths have been able to find human eyes for years now.
Japanese photo-booths don't drive 35 miles per hour. That's their autonomous coffee dispensers that do that.
Also in the US, we're so used to DARPA having funded cool projects. It's the last thing US-based researchers would want to boycott.
For those of you outside the US, DARPA means Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and it falls under the purview of the Department of Defense.
There is no objective way to judge aesthetics.
Yes, there is. Symmetry is one way to judge aesthetics.
Another way is double-blind group surveys.
Personally, I disagree with the assertion that all vegans are violent. That is just silly.
But for this part, the OP described exactly what I was thinking when I initially saw that picture with her take on it.
"anti-vegan animal business supporting criminals trying to harm me/kill me" (with picture of what look to be a nail stuck in a car's tyre, with tyre remaining inflated).
Even if someone had wanted to kill her, there are far more effective ways to do it than driving a nail or a screw into one of her tires. And her accusation is so overly broad, it's clear to me that she has no real-life concrete enemies to point to that could have done this to her tire.
And to me at least, that points to some kind of paranoid delusions. And yes, I know mental health professionals are not supposed to diagnose people remotely, but since I'm not a health professional, nor am I a doctor of any kind, I'm just a layperson, I reserve the right to label anyone with paranoid delusions (if I think that's what they have/had).
Do you have any evidence that anyone familiar with OpenBSD was using the term "open source" back then consistently or frequently? Because I have yet to see any.
Again, why does it have to be consistently or frequently?
For determining who used a particular term, one merely has to see the term cited in the right context, and this has to be done only once (because the assumption is that if you can find just a single citation, it probably means that it has been used many more times around that same time period, even if none of those other instances can now be found).
For evidence, I've already provided it, you can look to my posting history for the links. But the domain name opensource.com was registered in early January of 1998, not in February of 1998 and not by Christine. This very fact, by itself, should be all that's needed.
But if you're curious to know where that term was inspired from (directly or indirectly), you only have to look to OpenBSD. The project name OpenBSD name was used as a public repo name and was first registered as a domain name in 1995. The abbreviation OpenBSD means Open Berkeley Software Distribution. And the Berkeley Software Distribution license itself was included as a file in the source code itself of OpenBSD. And if this wasn't enough, the BSD license itself claims to be a license about the "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that..."
Considering that context, it makes perfect sense that the OSI group only trademarked the term "Open Source Initiative", and not "Open Source". Open Souce was already in use and it was already in use in the context of computer software.
You've been pushing this lie a long time, but in fact there was no significant usage of the term "open source" before 1998.
Significant? So tell me, which one should we consider more significant?
Someone uttering a term at a meeting in February 1998 (that everyone familiar with OpenBSD should have already been familiar with).
Or someone using that term and putting it into actual practice with an actual repository and an actual domain name in 1995.
Tell me, do you believe the same thing about patents? That it's not the earlier practitioner, but the later person that supposedly gets the "idea" that should get the entire credit for it. Do you realize how ludicrous this sounds?
As part of this malicious effort, you're finding stray instances of people revealing their (non-modifable) source code and acting like it proves Christine Peterson/the OSI are bad people who are lying.
Please stop with the persecution complex, no one is calling anyone a liar. People repeat things they've previously heard all the time. That doesn't make them liars or bad people. That just makes them human beings, just like the rest of us. And yes, it's possible for human beings to be mistaken.
And no, OpenBSD was not "(non-modifiable)". It was modifiable. It just wasn't copyleft. Have you even heard of the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license?
And no, I'm not trying to demean the copyleft licensing model. In fact, I find that licensing model far superior to anything else we've got. And the OSI folks should be proud of what they have accomplished. If anything, the only demeaning thing is the fact that some are unwilling to admit a minor mistake of original attribution (which is actually important in our circles) and just move on with far more important things to do.
Since you thought of the term 'open source' on February 2nd, 1998, were you aware that someone else had already registered the OpenSource.com domain name on January 8th, 1998?
Were you also aware that an open source software developer, Theo de Raadt, had already registered the domain name openbsd.org on October 12th, 1995 and created a public source code repo called OpenBSD on October 18th, 1995?
And if not, do you still believe you can claim you coined that term 'open source' when it was clearly in use for published source code several years before 1998?
Dinosaurs? Fake NEWS!
Actually he is correct. If anyone of my employees attempted to propose a microsoft solution they would be fired on the spot.
All your employees must be terrified of suggesting anything.
At my workplace, if someone suggests something stupid, we may say "That's stupid", but we don't fire the guy.
Or maybe he'll make sure that the slurry used is mostly clay (which is where you want to dig anyway, because having tunnels dug in clay makes them easier to keep watertight), he'll license the patent from this manufacturer or do a variation of that design, and he'll pour the slurry of clay into some honeycomb-like/lego-like molds that he bakes. That's it.
After all, it's not like his flame flower is using groundbreaking technology either, but he has been able to sell a huge number of them at a pretty ridiculous price. In some ways, he reminds me of the Cards Against Humanity people and their silly stunts.
Some Android models use iris recognition, which makes it a lot more accurate and harder to fool.
In any case, the main submission is just flamebait.
Face ID / Iris scanning may be great for some security form factors, but they're not the most optimal for phones.
That's the real story, here.
I think we all know the real reason.
Yes, Obama was supremely boring. We can all agree about that. It's not just the fact that he won two elections quite decisively, so no one took a close look at the results and at what could have made the difference.
It's the fact that the American public has the attention span of a fruit fly. If Obama had stories that included the use of Ukrainian hookers for political blackmail, nepotism up the wazzoo, Russian money mules like the Mercers trying to influence the elections, and Russian hackers and trolls, you can bet that the American public would have tuned in.
What kind of political intrigue and sex scandals did Obama give us? Really? Can you even remember anything? The Weiner guy. That's about it. That was funny for five minutes, and then that was funny when he did the same thing again and again, but after a certain point, it got boring. Plus, I don't think you can credit Obama for that one.
All this outrage and calls for regulation and boycotting - because it was Trump of course - over something that Trump didn't use.
Cambridge Analytica is owned by the Mercers and the Mercers have been laundering Russian money for years.
Cambridge Analytica's admission that they used Ukrainian prostitutes to blackmail politicians is interesting because Breitbart (another outfit owned by the Mercers) is the one that broke the news that Representative Conyers (a Democrat) had Congress pay 27 thousand dollars for a sexual harassment claim (out of the 17 million dollar fund that a number of other representatives used, although their names haven't been exposed).
So the question then becomes, which other US politicians are the Russian-backed Mercers blackmailing? And is this the reason why the RNC is so unified behind President Trump? Did they also receive Russian money? And how many of them have actually been blackmailed with prostitutes? or blackmailed through the paper trail that Congress has on the sexual harassment settlements they've made?
Frankly, it doesn't matter if Trump was the mastermind. He may not have been the mastermind, he very well could just be a pawn in this entire affair. But it can't be good to even have a pawn in the white house.
Not stop, but slow down.
If the safety driver had seen the woman one second earlier, he could have slammed on his brakes and at least slowed down the vehicle before hitting her (which may, or may not, have made a difference). But the rest of your point is a good one.
Electric cars are generally safer because the batteries reinforce the structure of the car and because placing the batteries at the bottom of the car lowers the center of gravity. But your design wouldn't take advantage of those properties.
In any case, BMW is no Tesla, so if they start mass producing electric cars, they'll start cannibalizing the sales of their own combustion cars, plus they'll have a glut of electrical cars sitting on their lots that they can't sell at the price they want.
Oh my! I am really getting old.
In the pre-internet days, Penthouse was considered hardcore porn, not softcore porn.
Scroll down past the two images and take a look at the fourth video:
Driving in SF (4 of 4): Cyclists are everywhere
https://www.recode.net/2017/10...
Cyclist cutting off a car at night. The driver took over, but post-analysis shows our vehicle was already braking and would have stopped in time to avoid a collision.
Granted, this is not the video of the woman in Arizona who got killed. No one got hurt in this one. But this just goes to show you that some collisions can be super difficult to avoid.
That doesn't make us "monsters". That makes us pragmatic human beings, that need to travel at above 5 miles an hour (despite all the pedestrians, skateboarders, and bicyclists who are so used to getting the right of way, they'll gamble with their lives over this expectation).
On a side-note, if you have a skateboarder in your family, go out with them to make sure they get the right size, and buy them a helmet. I know it's not cool to wear helmets if you're a skateboarder. But I was giving a ride to someone recently and their friend had just died from head trauma while skateboarding. The skateboarder was 21 years old, he was going to a local University. Everyone liked him by all accounts. But he struck a car and suffered injuries that he would have easily survived, had he been wearing a helmet.
Also, if you see someone wearing headphones while they're riding their electric skateboard going up to 35 miles per hour right in the middle of traffic (this is especially a problem in San Francisco, hopefully, it hasn't reached your city yet). But please yell at them and tell them that they're being idiots. No one should be riding with headphones on. I'd rather those guys wear a boombox that's blasting music to everyone, instead of just wearing headphones. At least with the latter, people might hear them coming. But right now, these guys are super stealthy, they don't make any noise, they go very quickly, and top of that, if they're listening to music on their headphone, that means they're much less aware of their surroundings.
. . . which Google will promptly resell.
Google doesn't resell information. Reselling such information and you can only resell it once.
However, selling targeted advertisements, you can do that an infinite amount of times.
In other words, the original post should have said
Google will probably expect the media companies to provide them with subscriber lists . . .
. . . which Google will promptly use to sell more expensive ads (including ads purchased by the newspapers own competitors).
First of all, collision doesn't mean collusion. The two terms are not even related.
Second, when someone says that x AND y "turned out to be entirely false".
I just need to prove one of those claims NOT false and I can ignore the rest. That's it. That's the beauty of boolean logic.
Seriously, I thought that Russian trolls would have been better at logic. Next time, please just escalate me directly to your supervisor.