Agreed. They're going to be worried about voting against this. This will help get people who don't normally vote come out. Not a big deal in a primary, but in a general election, that's very dangerous.
Trump was just found to be taking what might be illegal campaign contributions from AT&T through the fake consulting company which paid for Stormy Daniel's silence.
Agreed. It's so huge a problem that people are confused by your statement.
It's like the pay-to-use operated bathrooms you sometimes see in very poor countries. Any American who has to pay a trivially small foreign coin to pee will do it, and at the same time immediately think "This is CRAZY. I can afford this, but this encourages people to pee on walls, shit in the grass, etc. This should be free because it helps society and EASILY pays for itself."
Anyone from almost any country other than the US would come to the US and see the same thing in the healthcare system. But people from the US are used to it and cannot see the insanity of it.
Since this is England, the whole thing directly relates to class. Upper-class (or perhaps the Brits call that 'Middle-class') jobs essentially require a an internship now before you can get a real job. Finishing an internship means being able to afford to live with no paycheck in London for six months. This means only the wealthy can afford to have an internship. This locks the educated non-wealthy out of the higher-class professions.
So this is not about serfdom -- a path with no escape. It's about making people pay for jobs. You have to BUY your job. (LIke you'd BUY a commission in the army in a Jane Austin novel.) And if you cannot afford to buy your job, you're the wrong sort of person for work here anyhow. Nudge nudge wink wink.
You Jesus freaks make up all sorts of crap to fit your absurd worldview. Only 2018 years?!!?!? We know for a fact the world is 6000+ years old, and we have the tablets to prove it.
That sounds like a good point, until you think about how science advances and such and realize that the guy who proposed the name in the first place had VERY little to go on compared to an armchair palaeontologist today.
I agree. And Charles Lindbergh was pro-Germany at the start of WWII. Give Ubuntu it's due for its great work, then hold Ubuntu to the fire on systemd. It's crap. They should remove it, so we can go back to focusing on their heroism.
Your post is marked flamebait and I personally hate all the nastiness against Ubuntu or, really, anything that moves or doesn't move on Slashdot.
But YEAH. At least on the systemd, I agree with your sentiment. Ubuntu would be a much better distribution without it.
I don't want to use gnome 3. Or really gnome anything. I like my systems simpler than that. But I can use KDE or even TWM if I want to. I'm not forced to use another distro because Ubuntu has gnome 3. Me running some other window manager doesn't affect how postgres or nmap or httpd runs. On the other hand, favoring systemd and not caring much about the development of init scripts has the potential to crap up anything I might do on Ubuntu.
Stand down, there. You weren't conned into funding Bernie. Bernie was the better candidate in almost every way. We should vote for the better man. We should fund the better man.
There's fake news and there's problematic news. The bots will push both if they think either is useful, but that doesn't make problematic news fake news. The Democratic party really did shoot itself in the ass by intentionally hamstringing Bernie. If they hadn't for example delayed the debates (which are massively helpful for putting candidates on the map such that you start to look into what he/she candidate offers) Bernie's numbers would have been enough to win. If you look at his progress as a graph you can see he passes Clinton if the race goes on longer or starts earlier -- and the race really only gets started after the first debate, so delaying the debate made Clinton, who had more brand recognition at the outset, inevitable. And there's no way Trump could have beaten Bernie -- He was shown in multiple polls to be significantly further ahead of Trump than Clinton. (The polls had a systematic anti-Trump bias, but in a Trump vs. Bernie vs Clinton poll that would even out and so doesn't matter for these polls.) We have the Democratic party to thank for Trump.
So long as you didn't vote for Trump or stay home, you did the right thing.
As for your money needing to go to Hillary, it wasn't lack of money which kept her from winning. She outspent Trump almost 2 to 1. In large part it was HOW she was spending it. TV advertising costs a fortune, doesn't do much to move people, and is the primary expenditure for most campaigns (second to payroll for Clinton). It gets the most spending because the campaign folks who place the ads get a percentage back from the TV stations. It's TV spending that makes campaign folks rich. For numbers, look at these URLs: http://metrocosm.com/where-doe... and https://www.bloomberg.com/poli... In retrospect, it's clear she needed more legal staff to contest voter suppression and more ground staff to get people to the polls.
Agreed, but the Waymo guys have to decide that's relevant and then educate the jury. (They get to do this while Uber shouts "Fake News" over and over in the background.)
No jail. No dip into the fortunes of the people who directed the fraud. No keeping these thieves from working at another financial institution. No systematic attempt to fix the sabotaging of the careers of the workers who refused to commit fraud. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...
A. You're right, and the article acknowledges that these jobs currently suck. B. Look again. This is a classic short-term analysis we see all the time on automation. Look forward past the first step. Improvements will increase in self-driving (probably very rapidly) until no one will be driving those local deliveries. Anyone actually on the truck will have a different job: security guard.
More and more secrets / Less and less declassification. And it seems like FOIA got much tougher under Bush, then worse under Obama, and are now are deflectable with ludicrous excuses/lies.
Apps should not do this unless they're using a robust library for it. There's too much which can go wrong. This is admirably demonstrated by Windows. You open an app then close it, you switch your monitor, and your app appears OFFSCREEN. I know this is basics, but I work with several apps which make this mistake. And not unsurprisingly, those apps tend to be the type which mess with the way the window manager works with them, making them harder to actually bring onto screen.
So yes, but only if there's a good standard lib which handles corner cases on this. And frankly, that makes me think this should be the role of the window manager.
Telco equipment can be very modern (imagine a single rack of DC-powered commodity blade computers with OC3's coming in the back, taking just 30 inches of rack space to handle thousands of lines) or very old (imagine rows of racks, mostly empty with each line handles by four twisted wires going to a large, sparsely populated board featuring, I am not making this up, Zilog Z-80 SIO chips -- depending on the age other the boards they may feature other SIO chips -- remember your phone call is just a stream of 64kbps 8 bit data at the switch level). A technical change which requires anything different from how things currently work is easy on the new stuff, but impossible on the old stuff and obsoleting the old stuff would put some smaller telcos out of business.
The current 911 model (at least in the midwest) is a database with the phone number as the index key. This doesn't get seen/used at all from the person-to-switch level. There's NO meta-information. The rows and rows of ancient equipment do feed into one rack of slightly more modern stuff which can actually use a DB to look up info when the call is to the number 911. That looks in the DB to figure out what call center to send the call to. The call center can then look up that same record when the call comes to them based on caller-id.
That's why you don't get magical data-passing about location. It would be trivial to do, but everything would have to be modern.
Now, let's just talk about that database for a moment. I haven't looked at it in five years, but last I checked, it was a colossal pile of crap, filled with misspellings, illogical data, non-contained overlaps, etc. This has been the case since day one, and has never been improved. This means you need to have humans make a judgement call on where an address should actually be whenever a new person gets a land-line. If you get someone else's old phone number, it could be bound to the wrong address. A more likely situation would be that your 911 call would be routed to the wrong emergency call center, which either causes a scramble to reroute your call or a long drive from the wrong firestation. There's automatic checking to make sure someone signs off on your 911 info, but no checking to make sure it's right.
I see what you mean here, and you're RIGHT about how to do it. I think I saw a paper on this.
But to 99.9% of the US, what you've written makes ZERO sense. We need better language, better metaphores, better interfaces to make this sort of thing work.
In the meantime, we need to stop the bleeding. The point where things go south in current paper-less systems is that the votes are tallied into excel files or access databases. Changing those post-hoc is trivial. Those need to GO and be replaced by paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. They're going to be worried about voting against this. This will help get people who don't normally vote come out. Not a big deal in a primary, but in a general election, that's very dangerous.
Trump was just found to be taking what might be illegal campaign contributions from AT&T through the fake consulting company which paid for Stormy Daniel's silence.
He can be played such that he'll sign.
Agreed. It's so huge a problem that people are confused by your statement.
It's like the pay-to-use operated bathrooms you sometimes see in very poor countries. Any American who has to pay a trivially small foreign coin to pee will do it, and at the same time immediately think "This is CRAZY. I can afford this, but this encourages people to pee on walls, shit in the grass, etc. This should be free because it helps society and EASILY pays for itself."
Anyone from almost any country other than the US would come to the US and see the same thing in the healthcare system. But people from the US are used to it and cannot see the insanity of it.
This is a simple numeric fallacy. You look at the outliers and assume they represent the mean.
I have to agree with this. People willing to step on people do so to assume positions of power over groups.
Most people are decent. Decent people don't get ahead as often as bastards do. "Getting ahead" means getting to make the decisions.
This is old enough news that the backlash against this has already hit print media.
The Guardian print version is here:
https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
Or if you prefer the same content as a podcast, it's here:
https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
Since this is England, the whole thing directly relates to class. Upper-class (or perhaps the Brits call that 'Middle-class') jobs essentially require a an internship now before you can get a real job. Finishing an internship means being able to afford to live with no paycheck in London for six months. This means only the wealthy can afford to have an internship. This locks the educated non-wealthy out of the higher-class professions.
So this is not about serfdom -- a path with no escape. It's about making people pay for jobs. You have to BUY your job. (LIke you'd BUY a commission in the army in a Jane Austin novel.) And if you cannot afford to buy your job, you're the wrong sort of person for work here anyhow. Nudge nudge wink wink.
You Jesus freaks make up all sorts of crap to fit your absurd worldview. Only 2018 years?!!?!? We know for a fact the world is 6000+ years old, and we have the tablets to prove it.
That sounds like a good point, until you think about how science advances and such and realize that the guy who proposed the name in the first place had VERY little to go on compared to an armchair palaeontologist today.
i LIKE Unity. But nothing about Ubuntu compels you to use it. Run Gnome or KDE, or whatever.
I agree. And Charles Lindbergh was pro-Germany at the start of WWII. Give Ubuntu it's due for its great work, then hold Ubuntu to the fire on systemd. It's crap. They should remove it, so we can go back to focusing on their heroism.
Your post is marked flamebait and I personally hate all the nastiness against Ubuntu or, really, anything that moves or doesn't move on Slashdot.
But YEAH. At least on the systemd, I agree with your sentiment. Ubuntu would be a much better distribution without it.
I don't want to use gnome 3. Or really gnome anything. I like my systems simpler than that. But I can use KDE or even TWM if I want to. I'm not forced to use another distro because Ubuntu has gnome 3. Me running some other window manager doesn't affect how postgres or nmap or httpd runs. On the other hand, favoring systemd and not caring much about the development of init scripts has the potential to crap up anything I might do on Ubuntu.
They need to drop systemd.
Dude you just have to trivially search. Why, here's something that's OBVIOUSLY a Google chromecast dongle:
https://www.amazon.com/Miracas...
Oh. Wait.... Ah, I mean this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Display...
Oh, no. Hang on... AH THIS ONE!
https://www.amazon.com/Cymocho...
See the G? Clearly that's Google.
Stand down, there. You weren't conned into funding Bernie. Bernie was the better candidate in almost every way. We should vote for the better man. We should fund the better man.
There's fake news and there's problematic news. The bots will push both if they think either is useful, but that doesn't make problematic news fake news. The Democratic party really did shoot itself in the ass by intentionally hamstringing Bernie. If they hadn't for example delayed the debates (which are massively helpful for putting candidates on the map such that you start to look into what he/she candidate offers) Bernie's numbers would have been enough to win. If you look at his progress as a graph you can see he passes Clinton if the race goes on longer or starts earlier -- and the race really only gets started after the first debate, so delaying the debate made Clinton, who had more brand recognition at the outset, inevitable. And there's no way Trump could have beaten Bernie -- He was shown in multiple polls to be significantly further ahead of Trump than Clinton. (The polls had a systematic anti-Trump bias, but in a Trump vs. Bernie vs Clinton poll that would even out and so doesn't matter for these polls.) We have the Democratic party to thank for Trump.
So long as you didn't vote for Trump or stay home, you did the right thing.
As for your money needing to go to Hillary, it wasn't lack of money which kept her from winning. She outspent Trump almost 2 to 1. In large part it was HOW she was spending it. TV advertising costs a fortune, doesn't do much to move people, and is the primary expenditure for most campaigns (second to payroll for Clinton). It gets the most spending because the campaign folks who place the ads get a percentage back from the TV stations. It's TV spending that makes campaign folks rich. For numbers, look at these URLs: http://metrocosm.com/where-doe... and https://www.bloomberg.com/poli... In retrospect, it's clear she needed more legal staff to contest voter suppression and more ground staff to get people to the polls.
Agreed, but the Waymo guys have to decide that's relevant and then educate the jury. (They get to do this while Uber shouts "Fake News" over and over in the background.)
No jail.
No dip into the fortunes of the people who directed the fraud.
No keeping these thieves from working at another financial institution.
No systematic attempt to fix the sabotaging of the careers of the workers who refused to commit fraud.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...
This little bit of Old Harry's Game is spot on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A. You're right, and the article acknowledges that these jobs currently suck.
B. Look again. This is a classic short-term analysis we see all the time on automation. Look forward past the first step. Improvements will increase in self-driving (probably very rapidly) until no one will be driving those local deliveries. Anyone actually on the truck will have a different job: security guard.
No, these are just the flying monkeys.
Donny would be able to figure out how to post, and if someone set it up for him he wouldn't be able to form a sentence.
Agreed. And the FISA courts are just part of that.
This is old but illustrates the point: https://unredacted.com/2010/04..., and is backed up by this: https://dqydj.com/the-governme...
More and more secrets / Less and less declassification. And it seems like FOIA got much tougher under Bush, then worse under Obama, and are now are deflectable with ludicrous excuses/lies.
Apps should not do this unless they're using a robust library for it. There's too much which can go wrong. This is admirably demonstrated by Windows. You open an app then close it, you switch your monitor, and your app appears OFFSCREEN. I know this is basics, but I work with several apps which make this mistake. And not unsurprisingly, those apps tend to be the type which mess with the way the window manager works with them, making them harder to actually bring onto screen.
So yes, but only if there's a good standard lib which handles corner cases on this. And frankly, that makes me think this should be the role of the window manager.
Seems like a joke, but it's not. I sometimes run just twm or fvwm on plain old X.org.
What would this do to that situation? Would the apps still work? Would they revert to older behavior?
Watch the old Carl Sagan Cosmos episodes together.
And you could 1985 "Insignificance." https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But watch that on your own, for pointers.
I don't know about the bolt, but the pick-up on electric vehicles is sometimes surprisingly/frighteningly good.
Telco equipment can be very modern (imagine a single rack of DC-powered commodity blade computers with OC3's coming in the back, taking just 30 inches of rack space to handle thousands of lines) or very old (imagine rows of racks, mostly empty with each line handles by four twisted wires going to a large, sparsely populated board featuring, I am not making this up, Zilog Z-80 SIO chips -- depending on the age other the boards they may feature other SIO chips -- remember your phone call is just a stream of 64kbps 8 bit data at the switch level). A technical change which requires anything different from how things currently work is easy on the new stuff, but impossible on the old stuff and obsoleting the old stuff would put some smaller telcos out of business.
The current 911 model (at least in the midwest) is a database with the phone number as the index key. This doesn't get seen/used at all from the person-to-switch level. There's NO meta-information. The rows and rows of ancient equipment do feed into one rack of slightly more modern stuff which can actually use a DB to look up info when the call is to the number 911. That looks in the DB to figure out what call center to send the call to. The call center can then look up that same record when the call comes to them based on caller-id.
That's why you don't get magical data-passing about location. It would be trivial to do, but everything would have to be modern.
Now, let's just talk about that database for a moment. I haven't looked at it in five years, but last I checked, it was a colossal pile of crap, filled with misspellings, illogical data, non-contained overlaps, etc. This has been the case since day one, and has never been improved. This means you need to have humans make a judgement call on where an address should actually be whenever a new person gets a land-line. If you get someone else's old phone number, it could be bound to the wrong address. A more likely situation would be that your 911 call would be routed to the wrong emergency call center, which either causes a scramble to reroute your call or a long drive from the wrong firestation. There's automatic checking to make sure someone signs off on your 911 info, but no checking to make sure it's right.
Agreed.
Paper ballots are actually pretty good.
I see what you mean here, and you're RIGHT about how to do it. I think I saw a paper on this.
But to 99.9% of the US, what you've written makes ZERO sense. We need better language, better metaphores, better interfaces to make this sort of thing work.
In the meantime, we need to stop the bleeding. The point where things go south in current paper-less systems is that the votes are tallied into excel files or access databases. Changing those post-hoc is trivial. Those need to GO and be replaced by paper.