What makes you think you have a machine? You don't have a job, so you couldn't possibly have bought the machine, or the feedstock matter supply, or the copyrighted/patented/exclusively licensed fabrication patterns that the machine uses to create the "anything" you had in mind.
Post-scarcity economy is fiction because if anyone can secure proprietary advantage over others they will. If necessary, scarcity can be completely artificial, but it will still exist, and as a consequence, we will always have "haves" and "have-nots".
6) {insert lesser barely-rational and irrational reasons here}
Ferinstance, lulz. We'll always have lulz. On some level, I think lulz are a requirement for the development of intelligence. Oh sure, cognitive psychologists call it "play", but we all know the correct name is "lulz".
So aliens would visit us for the lulz. And we wouldn't like it. Lulz aren't fun for the victim, only the lulzer. If your victim is chuckling along, you're doing it wrong. Unless it's the "heh, heh, I'm a loser, you sure got me" nervous chuckling. The kind a lulz victim does because it's a viable alternative to crying or impotent rage.
True. But you have to admit, much COBOL was stored on and run from 80-column or maybe IBM 96-column) cards. Boxes and boxes of them, given the amazingly low code density (i.e., verbosity) of the language.
I would venture here and now in the 21st Century COBOL is safely away from punched cards. However, my Air Force computer programming curriculum 30 years ago was 4 weeks (out of a 6-week class) of COBOL punched onto cards and run in batch mode. Rubber bands and the designated runner of the day to take the decks across the base (6 blocks) to the system room to be compiled and run.
You absolutely DID NOT use the compiler to check your syntax when your code-compile-checkout cycle was measured in hours and you had two days to complete a project. Fanatical desk checking was the rule of the day. And since the instructors were competitive assholes and introduced an under-the-table prize for the first in the class to complete the project, so was sabotage of everyone else's decks. The runner of the day was a hell of a job... wonderful opportunities for bribery and also threats.
Ok, really. How is this perceptibly different than pump-and-dump spam?
Sigh. I wonder what reddit's doing right now. Even if they're railroading some innocent kid for the atrocity-of-the-day, it's gotta be better than this.
You estimate. Precisely, down to the work-hour. With productivity allowances for workers, working days available (holidays, scheduled time off), etc.
Then you lay your task into a PERT chart and capture the sequential and parallel dependencies, givers/receivers, and internal milestones (inchstones, really) and the predicted hit dates for those, including precisely predicting hours required to reach each milestone.
Then, when you begin executing your schedule, you fudge the reporting to match expectations, because otherwise you'll have to brief your variances to leadership. Even beneficial variances, when you get ahead of schedule or execute to schedule below budget. All variances are frowned on, because they're variances. Plan uber alles.
Yeah. you estimate precisely, and you precisely hit your estimates, or you can look for another job.
Good point. It took super-rapid wireless interpersonal connectivity to put the "flash" before the "mob". Pretty soon we'll put "flash" in front of other famous "mob" phrases, like "lynch" and "rampaging".
Time is, for all practical purposes, linear. Your task will take a specific quantity of time to complete. You don't know that quantity of time in advance, because you don't control all factors, so you're guessing.
Now, what is the environment of your guess? You are trying to pick out a specific point in the future at which your task will be done.
Balance that against the infinite number of points of time in the unbounded future in which your task could actually be completed in.
1 estimated point against an infinite number of possible points. That's your odds of picking the CORRECT point in the future. 1 divided by infinity. Although it's not necessarily mathematically correct, it's a useful convention to reduce that expression to "0". And that is your precise odds of estimating the completion time correctly. Zero.
Which is why we're going to hear about his tragic and inexplicable suicide* any day now, probably before this case is decided.
*May not be suicide. May be an unfortunate traffic accident. Or random unsolvable act of violence. Yeah, I'm hedging my bet. Other than the part in which a thorn is plucked out of the lion's paw and discarded.
What part of "anonymous death threats" didn't you understand? Oh, right. Anonymous.
Death threats being illegal doesn't help if you can't track who sent them. Blocking Tor would, in principle, make it easier to track people who send death threats, so that the existing law can be applied.
And again. Death threats through the mail are anonymous. Since they're in an envelope in which source information is completely optional.
So, while you're at it, ban envelopes. Everyone uses postcards.
Not that I approve of blocking it, but you seem to have completely missed the point.
Not that I approve of your last-moment and half-hearted disavowal of your obvious support for blocking TOR, but you seem to have completely missed the real point: outlawing encryption solves NO law enforcement problem but denies law-abiding citizens their rightful privacy.
Seriously. As old as the shark-jumping meme is, and how typically it's misapplied, I have a sad and ominous feeling that this may have been Slashdot's shark-jumping episode.
Besides, a suicide vest usually has a trigger. If the subject has the trigger in hand, popping stun grenades or flashbangs might just make him (voluntarily or in-) set the thing off. Bonus points if it's a deadman's trigger and all it requires to set the vest off is that the subject relax or drop the trigger.
Sorry, if the perp has an honest-to-Allah bomb vest on, taking him or her alive will require his active and conscious cooperation, barring an absolutely miracle.
Which is likely to be the source of trusted certificates for locally-provisioned HTTPS. Sure, no one's hijacking connections to US sites, but a local-language and locally-sited Google or Facebook or Twitter could be fair game.
In which you can compose a new email, and look at old email you've received, but exchange no actual email?
Yeah. I know they didn't invent offline mode. But that doesn't change the fact that offline mode in an email program is like no-engine mode in a car. You can sit on a comfy seat out of the rain and listen to the radio, but you're not doing the one thing people actually want a car for: driving.
I'm sure no cloud contract has a 100% uptime guarantee, but it is "sold" as the perfect solution all the time
And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between a signed SLA and marketing.
I'm sure it's inconvenient and unfortunate and maddening to the many affected, but it's not as if your internal fully-owned fully-self-managed infrastructure never have a backhoe network outage or a widely-deployed OS patch-o-death that knocks your operations into a loop for hours or days.
The cloud is just another variant. Its failure modes and victimology aren't necessarily more interesting or damaging; just more headline-worthy.
The humorous irony of pointing out the mild cluelessness of our Great Northern Neighbor, while pointedly ignoring the huge festering carbuncle of batshit insanity known as Facebook, is deliciously effective.
Unless you're serious. In that case, man, turn around and face the facepalm.
Microsoft may have done some innovation and may have the patents to prove it, but given their history as an abuser of the patent system, legal system, innocent chairs, and the very word "innovation", nobody is going to just take their word for it.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think you have a machine? You don't have a job, so you couldn't possibly have bought the machine, or the feedstock matter supply, or the copyrighted/patented/exclusively licensed fabrication patterns that the machine uses to create the "anything" you had in mind.
Post-scarcity economy is fiction because if anyone can secure proprietary advantage over others they will. If necessary, scarcity can be completely artificial, but it will still exist, and as a consequence, we will always have "haves" and "have-nots".
No problem. No one who's arrested is ever innocent, and no innocent person is ever arrested.
At least at first, and as long as the arrest statistics and conviction rates stay up, who cares about later?
Interesting.
Did you examine your word count in that post? Or your spelling?
No, I didn't see any obvious errors. You even spelled "repertoire" correctly. But I'm just asking.
At some point, you have to examine whether you should be examining everything. I think you just started. Congratulations.
6) {insert lesser barely-rational and irrational reasons here}
Ferinstance, lulz. We'll always have lulz. On some level, I think lulz are a requirement for the development of intelligence. Oh sure, cognitive psychologists call it "play", but we all know the correct name is "lulz".
So aliens would visit us for the lulz. And we wouldn't like it. Lulz aren't fun for the victim, only the lulzer. If your victim is chuckling along, you're doing it wrong. Unless it's the "heh, heh, I'm a loser, you sure got me" nervous chuckling. The kind a lulz victim does because it's a viable alternative to crying or impotent rage.
True. But you have to admit, much COBOL was stored on and run from 80-column or maybe IBM 96-column) cards. Boxes and boxes of them, given the amazingly low code density (i.e., verbosity) of the language.
I would venture here and now in the 21st Century COBOL is safely away from punched cards. However, my Air Force computer programming curriculum 30 years ago was 4 weeks (out of a 6-week class) of COBOL punched onto cards and run in batch mode. Rubber bands and the designated runner of the day to take the decks across the base (6 blocks) to the system room to be compiled and run.
You absolutely DID NOT use the compiler to check your syntax when your code-compile-checkout cycle was measured in hours and you had two days to complete a project. Fanatical desk checking was the rule of the day. And since the instructors were competitive assholes and introduced an under-the-table prize for the first in the class to complete the project, so was sabotage of everyone else's decks. The runner of the day was a hell of a job... wonderful opportunities for bribery and also threats.
Now get off my runway!
Ok, really. How is this perceptibly different than pump-and-dump spam?
Sigh. I wonder what reddit's doing right now. Even if they're railroading some innocent kid for the atrocity-of-the-day, it's gotta be better than this.
Now, define "know".
Is it the kind of "know" that torturers use when they say "we know you did it, just admit it and we'll stop waterboarding you"? Not very helpful.
You don't work with EVMS, do you?
You estimate. Precisely, down to the work-hour. With productivity allowances for workers, working days available (holidays, scheduled time off), etc.
Then you lay your task into a PERT chart and capture the sequential and parallel dependencies, givers/receivers, and internal milestones (inchstones, really) and the predicted hit dates for those, including precisely predicting hours required to reach each milestone.
Then, when you begin executing your schedule, you fudge the reporting to match expectations, because otherwise you'll have to brief your variances to leadership. Even beneficial variances, when you get ahead of schedule or execute to schedule below budget. All variances are frowned on, because they're variances. Plan uber alles.
Yeah. you estimate precisely, and you precisely hit your estimates, or you can look for another job.
Good point. It took super-rapid wireless interpersonal connectivity to put the "flash" before the "mob". Pretty soon we'll put "flash" in front of other famous "mob" phrases, like "lynch" and "rampaging".
Think about it.
Time is, for all practical purposes, linear. Your task will take a specific quantity of time to complete. You don't know that quantity of time in advance, because you don't control all factors, so you're guessing.
Now, what is the environment of your guess? You are trying to pick out a specific point in the future at which your task will be done.
Balance that against the infinite number of points of time in the unbounded future in which your task could actually be completed in.
1 estimated point against an infinite number of possible points. That's your odds of picking the CORRECT point in the future. 1 divided by infinity. Although it's not necessarily mathematically correct, it's a useful convention to reduce that expression to "0". And that is your precise odds of estimating the completion time correctly. Zero.
Indeed, it is a Dilbert nightmare.
This particular one, in fact.
Relevant quote: "Anything I don't understand is easy to do."
It is only logical.
I like this guy. He's of the good ones.
Which is why we're going to hear about his tragic and inexplicable suicide* any day now, probably before this case is decided.
*May not be suicide. May be an unfortunate traffic accident. Or random unsolvable act of violence. Yeah, I'm hedging my bet. Other than the part in which a thorn is plucked out of the lion's paw and discarded.
What part of "anonymous death threats" didn't you understand? Oh, right. Anonymous.
Death threats being illegal doesn't help if you can't track who sent them. Blocking Tor would, in principle, make it easier to track people who send death threats, so that the existing law can be applied.
And again. Death threats through the mail are anonymous. Since they're in an envelope in which source information is completely optional.
So, while you're at it, ban envelopes. Everyone uses postcards.
Not that I approve of blocking it, but you seem to have completely missed the point.
Not that I approve of your last-moment and half-hearted disavowal of your obvious support for blocking TOR, but you seem to have completely missed the real point: outlawing encryption solves NO law enforcement problem but denies law-abiding citizens their rightful privacy.
You missed the part where maintaining an active unauthenticated guest account on a personal laptop constitutes "too stupid to keep breathing".
Which tracks well with the profile built up from the submitter's not-quite-breathtaking language skill.
Seriously. As old as the shark-jumping meme is, and how typically it's misapplied, I have a sad and ominous feeling that this may have been Slashdot's shark-jumping episode.
Besides, a suicide vest usually has a trigger. If the subject has the trigger in hand, popping stun grenades or flashbangs might just make him (voluntarily or in-) set the thing off. Bonus points if it's a deadman's trigger and all it requires to set the vest off is that the subject relax or drop the trigger.
Sorry, if the perp has an honest-to-Allah bomb vest on, taking him or her alive will require his active and conscious cooperation, barring an absolutely miracle.
So, your argument is... circumvention?
According to your reasoning, the LGPL has no place.
Which is likely to be the source of trusted certificates for locally-provisioned HTTPS. Sure, no one's hijacking connections to US sites, but a local-language and locally-sited Google or Facebook or Twitter could be fair game.
Gmail actually has an "offline" mode
In which you can compose a new email, and look at old email you've received, but exchange no actual email?
Yeah. I know they didn't invent offline mode. But that doesn't change the fact that offline mode in an email program is like no-engine mode in a car. You can sit on a comfy seat out of the rain and listen to the radio, but you're not doing the one thing people actually want a car for: driving.
I'm sure no cloud contract has a 100% uptime guarantee, but it is "sold" as the perfect solution all the time
And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between a signed SLA and marketing.
I'm sure it's inconvenient and unfortunate and maddening to the many affected, but it's not as if your internal fully-owned fully-self-managed infrastructure never have a backhoe network outage or a widely-deployed OS patch-o-death that knocks your operations into a loop for hours or days.
The cloud is just another variant. Its failure modes and victimology aren't necessarily more interesting or damaging; just more headline-worthy.
Well played, Doofus. Very well done.
The humorous irony of pointing out the mild cluelessness of our Great Northern Neighbor, while pointedly ignoring the huge festering carbuncle of batshit insanity known as Facebook, is deliciously effective.
Unless you're serious. In that case, man, turn around and face the facepalm.
I hear snu-snu isn't bad. Well, I mean it's bad, but in a good way.
Microsoft may have done some innovation and may have the patents to prove it, but given their history as an abuser of the patent system, legal system, innocent chairs, and the very word "innovation", nobody is going to just take their word for it.
Well, apparently, the USPTO did. But they were under a lot of pressure at the time...