Their side includes several factions, virtually all at odds with Trump in one way or another, so party-line lockstep is not credible.
Lockstep is what we have. If all the Democratic Senators vote against something, it takes all but about three Republican Senators to make a majority. If the Democrats were stonewalling en masse, and the Republicans had any significant factional differences in practice, no bill would pass and no nomination would be confirmed.. This is how the appointments happen: Trump nominates somebody obviously unsuitable, the Republicans vote yes, the Democrats vote no. You may want to speculate why these different factions all vote the same, but the fact is lockstep. Any theoretical reasoning you have to the contrary is false. (Fred T. Jane wrote a book "Heresies of Sea Power" in the early 20th Century, constructing a theoretical framework that explains carefully how the Japanese would win WWII. Same sort of thing.)
Republican lawmakers are screwed, and they know it. Trump has a fairly large core of people supporting him as Fuehrer, enough to dominate the Republican party as a whole. As a general rule, Republicans that break with Trump will have real problems getting renominated. The Republicans that occasionally vote against him are typically planning to retire.
And, in the meantime, they're doing things against the interests of about 99% of the people in the US. People are noticing. Trump has the lowest approval rating since we started watching approval ratings. Republicans are going to pay for that next November.
Currently, we're at about the equivalent time of the Nazis getting authority. The camps didn't come until later.
The parallels aren't exact, but they're enough to give a bad feeling to any student of 1930s German history. Trump is much less competent than Hitler was, and the US has more resistance than Weimar Germany did, to name what I see as the bigger differences.
I'll let my company fight that fight. I'm required to use the work VPN to work from home, and some of my colleagues work from home a lot more than I do.
As I understand it, the problem with treating VOIP packets differently from torrent packets is that people lie. It's hard to prioritize packets based on internal inspection, and the ISP can't rely on any marking of the packets.
This is annoying, because when I'm using VOIP I'm using little bandwidth but require low latency and no interruptions, while my torrenting uses a lot of bandwidth and I don't care if I get low latency or interruptions, but QoS is hard to get right.
The core of NN is that my packets can go where I want them and come from where I want without discrimination. QoS is compatible with that core.
The wedding cake spectacle was about a couple of customers asking for a wedding cake and (as far as I can tell) being verbally abused and later made a target of an internet harassment campaign by the bakers. Anyone supporting the bakers is either ignorant of what happened (not difficult; I had to find the Findings of Fact from the court decision to learn them, as there's darn little about what really happened in the news sources I see; even Snopes has a bad article, although they do have a link to the Findings of Fact) or a homophobic asshole.
I can understand being on the bakers' side on the assumption that there was anything polite about the bakers' side of the transaction, but that does not appear to be the case.
So, I hate someone at work and they walk away from their patched Mac. I walk over and delete their user files or send an embarrassing email to their entire distribution list of something. Having physical access to the machine with an account logged in is never a minor issue.
If I could easily run OSX on non-apple hardware, I'd do it in a heartbeat. (And when I say run, I mean perfectly, flawlessly, without something not working right)
Not going to happen. The advantage of running OSX on Apple hardware is that that's what it's designed to run on. There's no reason why it should have what it needs to run on a Dell or a homebuilt.
The Wikipedia page on Gedit lists Paoli Maggi as the top person involved. Maggi got his Ph.D. in 2002, and is hence not a millennial. If you dislike modern interfaces, blame Generation X.
There's a lot of crap out there by millennials. There's a lot of crap out there by Gen Xers. There's a lot of crap out there by Boomers.
You know? I'm going to blame this crap on Generation X, since it's usually Gen X that makes the bad decisions.
The issue here is that Millennials/Hipsters aren't doing cutting edge work. They're doing very basic work most of the time, but they're making mistakes that we knew about, and how to avoid them, decades ago!
First, you're wrong. Windows 95 was very simple compared to modern versions of Windows. There's always cutting-edge work going on. Modern versions of Windows would scoff at the attacks available in the late 90s, and a 90s OS would be totally pwned today.
Second, the educators, who are usually not millennials, are failing, or the managers, who are usually not millennials, aren't paying for expertise or requiring their developers to learn or giving them enough time to do a good job, or the previous generation, which are not millennials, is crap at passing along knowledge and wisdom.
You're blaming the wrong people. Millennials didn't give the go-ahead for Windows 8; that decision was made by considerably older people. Millennials implemented a lot of it, but they were working to somebody else's stupid ideas and inane specs. If they'd have tried to give it a decent UI, they'd have been fired.
Systemd? Lennart Poettering was born in 1980, and that's generally considered to be the previous generation.
They're focused on aesthetics and trendiness? Do you know one consistent thing about developers from a long time ago? They're pretty good on providing what they're asked to provide. If they're rewarded for great aesthetics but not for good security or human interfaces, what do you think you're going to get?
There really aren't that many problems attributable to the developers. Most of the problems are management. The developers were told to do A, even when sound software development principles are to do B. Guess what they do? They're told to crank out the code and not care about security. Guess what they do? The manager wants to put NoSQL supervision on his or her resume. Guess what the developers use? Management wants to cheap out on developers and pay the least possible amount. Guess what happens to the code quality?
It's amazing the amount of self-contradictory crap the Millennials get. Earlier generations raised them. Earlier generations manage them. If there's something you don't like about what they produce, Boomers and Xers, it's your generation's fault.
It's not possible to tell from source code that a procedure works reliably. It is possible to tell that a procedure doesn't work reliably, or, at least, that there's plenty of reasonable doubt about it.
Absolute proof is not required for conviction; the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. DNA can be used as part of the evidence for that. I personally would never vote to convict based on it alone, but then I'm the sort of guy who gets to be a peremptory strike from the jury box.
Actually, GP is correct if we're resorting to empirical testing. We would want about six hundred quintillion samples to test against to verify that. To say that the chance is one in 211 quintillion rather than one in 211 quadrillion, which is three orders of magnitude difference, we'd have to have enough testing to show that the error rate was less than one in 211 quadrillion, which means that we'd have to have enough samples so that the failures were significantly less than one in 211 quadrillion. That one we might manage to verify by testing samples from a mere half billion people against each of the other half billion. We leave the problem of getting that much blood out of each test subject as an exercise for the reader.
If the company wants to claim one in 211 quintillion, they need to provide a basis for that belief. To apply a mathematical model to get that number, we'd have to be able to verify the model to that accuracy, and we'd have to make sure all real-world possibilities are accounted for. If there's a one in a trillion chance that accidental contamination of a sample would make it return a false positive, the probability estimate is off by at least eight orders of magnitude.
tl'dr: That probability estimate is completely unfounded, and shows that the company doesn't care about science when it would stop them from throwing around impressive numbers.
With proper help, analysing the code is certainly easier but, if the original developers seriously wanted to hide something in a so complex piece of software, your chances of finding it via code analysis would be extremely low.
That depends heavily on how the software is written. The software can be written to match the algorithm so it's verifiable. It usually isn't, of course, but it would be nice if that were required for forensic software. After all, if we're using this in a court of law, we should be sure past a reasonable doubt that it's valid. I'm a software developer, and I'm frequently not sure beyond a reasonable doubt about software I personally have written, let alone other people's software.
If my choices have no consequences, why bother? If my choices can have consequences I like, then they can have consequences I don't like, if only by comparison. This applies when discussing free will or societal freedom. Freedom from consequences I don't want is perforce ineffectuality.
That doesn't necessarily work. With a Breathalyzer, there's no way to run that same breath through a defense machine. We need to have such devices inspected.
Have you ever taken a medicine that hadn't been previously tested on you?
Yes, sometimes with side effects. I get a rash from sulfa, and I get the lisinoprol cough. I've never seen "five years in prison" listed as a possible side effect on medical data sheets, and if there's the chance of a serious adverse reaction I'm informed in advance and the doctors and nurses take precautions. I've watched for some odd nasty side effects that didn't in fact happen, and was told what to do if, for example, my Achilles tendon softened while on a certain drug.
US Constitution, sixth amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor....". It seems to me that a device that announces something should have some humans, i.e. witnesses, testifying in its favor, but the courts may not agree.
You are aware, I presume, that the rate of sea level rise in the future could be different from 1.7mm/year? There are good reasons to think that it will increase. Nobody exactly knows how by how much, of course. Current models don't predict anywhere near that rise in that time frame, but it's easy to come up with possible ways for it to happen.
Scientific models are scientific. If they turn out to be wrong, that's important information that will be reflected in the next version. Remember that all models are wrong, but some are useful.
Scientists are judged on what they say, since we don't get enough information to discern their intent.
Nope. He had power over her, so any consent is suspect. If she had sex with him, it's hard to tell whether it was because she wanted to or because she feared for her job or prospects of something. Reporting people to HR is dangerous. In some companies, they'll take the woman (or man or nonbinary or whatever) seriously and act appropriately. In some, they'll let the person complained about know about the complaint and do nothing to shield the woman (or whatever) from retaliation.
This is why people with any intelligence and self-control don't get into these relationships. It always has the potential to end badly, and the person with the power never really knows if they've got consent or intimidation.
Slashdot Mirror
Lockstep is what we have. If all the Democratic Senators vote against something, it takes all but about three Republican Senators to make a majority. If the Democrats were stonewalling en masse, and the Republicans had any significant factional differences in practice, no bill would pass and no nomination would be confirmed.. This is how the appointments happen: Trump nominates somebody obviously unsuitable, the Republicans vote yes, the Democrats vote no. You may want to speculate why these different factions all vote the same, but the fact is lockstep. Any theoretical reasoning you have to the contrary is false. (Fred T. Jane wrote a book "Heresies of Sea Power" in the early 20th Century, constructing a theoretical framework that explains carefully how the Japanese would win WWII. Same sort of thing.)
Republican lawmakers are screwed, and they know it. Trump has a fairly large core of people supporting him as Fuehrer, enough to dominate the Republican party as a whole. As a general rule, Republicans that break with Trump will have real problems getting renominated. The Republicans that occasionally vote against him are typically planning to retire.
And, in the meantime, they're doing things against the interests of about 99% of the people in the US. People are noticing. Trump has the lowest approval rating since we started watching approval ratings. Republicans are going to pay for that next November.
Currently, we're at about the equivalent time of the Nazis getting authority. The camps didn't come until later.
The parallels aren't exact, but they're enough to give a bad feeling to any student of 1930s German history. Trump is much less competent than Hitler was, and the US has more resistance than Weimar Germany did, to name what I see as the bigger differences.
I'll let my company fight that fight. I'm required to use the work VPN to work from home, and some of my colleagues work from home a lot more than I do.
As I understand it, the problem with treating VOIP packets differently from torrent packets is that people lie. It's hard to prioritize packets based on internal inspection, and the ISP can't rely on any marking of the packets.
This is annoying, because when I'm using VOIP I'm using little bandwidth but require low latency and no interruptions, while my torrenting uses a lot of bandwidth and I don't care if I get low latency or interruptions, but QoS is hard to get right.
The core of NN is that my packets can go where I want them and come from where I want without discrimination. QoS is compatible with that core.
The wedding cake spectacle was about a couple of customers asking for a wedding cake and (as far as I can tell) being verbally abused and later made a target of an internet harassment campaign by the bakers. Anyone supporting the bakers is either ignorant of what happened (not difficult; I had to find the Findings of Fact from the court decision to learn them, as there's darn little about what really happened in the news sources I see; even Snopes has a bad article, although they do have a link to the Findings of Fact) or a homophobic asshole.
I can understand being on the bakers' side on the assumption that there was anything polite about the bakers' side of the transaction, but that does not appear to be the case.
So, I hate someone at work and they walk away from their patched Mac. I walk over and delete their user files or send an embarrassing email to their entire distribution list of something. Having physical access to the machine with an account logged in is never a minor issue.
That's a lot less true of the iPhone. Apple designs the CPU for that, and does a pretty good job.
Not going to happen. The advantage of running OSX on Apple hardware is that that's what it's designed to run on. There's no reason why it should have what it needs to run on a Dell or a homebuilt.
The Wikipedia page on Gedit lists Paoli Maggi as the top person involved. Maggi got his Ph.D. in 2002, and is hence not a millennial. If you dislike modern interfaces, blame Generation X.
There's a lot of crap out there by millennials. There's a lot of crap out there by Gen Xers. There's a lot of crap out there by Boomers.
You know? I'm going to blame this crap on Generation X, since it's usually Gen X that makes the bad decisions.
First, you're wrong. Windows 95 was very simple compared to modern versions of Windows. There's always cutting-edge work going on. Modern versions of Windows would scoff at the attacks available in the late 90s, and a 90s OS would be totally pwned today.
Second, the educators, who are usually not millennials, are failing, or the managers, who are usually not millennials, aren't paying for expertise or requiring their developers to learn or giving them enough time to do a good job, or the previous generation, which are not millennials, is crap at passing along knowledge and wisdom.
You're blaming the wrong people. Millennials didn't give the go-ahead for Windows 8; that decision was made by considerably older people. Millennials implemented a lot of it, but they were working to somebody else's stupid ideas and inane specs. If they'd have tried to give it a decent UI, they'd have been fired.
Systemd? Lennart Poettering was born in 1980, and that's generally considered to be the previous generation.
They're focused on aesthetics and trendiness? Do you know one consistent thing about developers from a long time ago? They're pretty good on providing what they're asked to provide. If they're rewarded for great aesthetics but not for good security or human interfaces, what do you think you're going to get?
There really aren't that many problems attributable to the developers. Most of the problems are management. The developers were told to do A, even when sound software development principles are to do B. Guess what they do? They're told to crank out the code and not care about security. Guess what they do? The manager wants to put NoSQL supervision on his or her resume. Guess what the developers use? Management wants to cheap out on developers and pay the least possible amount. Guess what happens to the code quality?
It's amazing the amount of self-contradictory crap the Millennials get. Earlier generations raised them. Earlier generations manage them. If there's something you don't like about what they produce, Boomers and Xers, it's your generation's fault.
Not only is it not Windows, it's Unix. Mac OSX is a user-friendly Unix that runs Office. Try finding anything else like that in the market today.
It's not possible to tell from source code that a procedure works reliably. It is possible to tell that a procedure doesn't work reliably, or, at least, that there's plenty of reasonable doubt about it.
Absolute proof is not required for conviction; the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. DNA can be used as part of the evidence for that. I personally would never vote to convict based on it alone, but then I'm the sort of guy who gets to be a peremptory strike from the jury box.
The voting tabulators my state uses can be not available for public examination, because we check against hand counts.
If killer bots are used in warfare, the public doesn't need the details. If they're used in police work, it darn well does.
Actually, GP is correct if we're resorting to empirical testing. We would want about six hundred quintillion samples to test against to verify that. To say that the chance is one in 211 quintillion rather than one in 211 quadrillion, which is three orders of magnitude difference, we'd have to have enough testing to show that the error rate was less than one in 211 quadrillion, which means that we'd have to have enough samples so that the failures were significantly less than one in 211 quadrillion. That one we might manage to verify by testing samples from a mere half billion people against each of the other half billion. We leave the problem of getting that much blood out of each test subject as an exercise for the reader.
If the company wants to claim one in 211 quintillion, they need to provide a basis for that belief. To apply a mathematical model to get that number, we'd have to be able to verify the model to that accuracy, and we'd have to make sure all real-world possibilities are accounted for. If there's a one in a trillion chance that accidental contamination of a sample would make it return a false positive, the probability estimate is off by at least eight orders of magnitude.
tl'dr: That probability estimate is completely unfounded, and shows that the company doesn't care about science when it would stop them from throwing around impressive numbers.
That depends heavily on how the software is written. The software can be written to match the algorithm so it's verifiable. It usually isn't, of course, but it would be nice if that were required for forensic software. After all, if we're using this in a court of law, we should be sure past a reasonable doubt that it's valid. I'm a software developer, and I'm frequently not sure beyond a reasonable doubt about software I personally have written, let alone other people's software.
If my choices have no consequences, why bother? If my choices can have consequences I like, then they can have consequences I don't like, if only by comparison. This applies when discussing free will or societal freedom. Freedom from consequences I don't want is perforce ineffectuality.
That doesn't necessarily work. With a Breathalyzer, there's no way to run that same breath through a defense machine. We need to have such devices inspected.
Yes, sometimes with side effects. I get a rash from sulfa, and I get the lisinoprol cough. I've never seen "five years in prison" listed as a possible side effect on medical data sheets, and if there's the chance of a serious adverse reaction I'm informed in advance and the doctors and nurses take precautions. I've watched for some odd nasty side effects that didn't in fact happen, and was told what to do if, for example, my Achilles tendon softened while on a certain drug.
US Constitution, sixth amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor....". It seems to me that a device that announces something should have some humans, i.e. witnesses, testifying in its favor, but the courts may not agree.
You are aware, I presume, that the rate of sea level rise in the future could be different from 1.7mm/year? There are good reasons to think that it will increase. Nobody exactly knows how by how much, of course. Current models don't predict anywhere near that rise in that time frame, but it's easy to come up with possible ways for it to happen.
Scientific models are scientific. If they turn out to be wrong, that's important information that will be reflected in the next version. Remember that all models are wrong, but some are useful.
Scientists are judged on what they say, since we don't get enough information to discern their intent.
Nope. He had power over her, so any consent is suspect. If she had sex with him, it's hard to tell whether it was because she wanted to or because she feared for her job or prospects of something. Reporting people to HR is dangerous. In some companies, they'll take the woman (or man or nonbinary or whatever) seriously and act appropriately. In some, they'll let the person complained about know about the complaint and do nothing to shield the woman (or whatever) from retaliation.
This is why people with any intelligence and self-control don't get into these relationships. It always has the potential to end badly, and the person with the power never really knows if they've got consent or intimidation.
Personally, there's a fair number of things I "just want to" do, that I don't.