For anyone in tech (millenial or otherwise) a browser is pretty essential. I have at least 50 tabs open right now from a fresh browser this am. Only about 5 are for something other than work and 3 of them are open to different articles in my home wiki.
Even if it's just keeping that thing I already searched out earlier open for reference in case I need to go back to it. Many of them will stay open right up till a forced corporate reboot. Human memory is far more valuable than computer memory. Why try to learn or memorize formats, syntax, command options, file locations, etc when the web stores all that information?
Almost all the apps I work with are web based now. Aside from video/graphics heavy tasks, why do any kind of heavy lifting on your client? Slap a web interface on a server that will do the lifting and access it via a browser.
How about stability first? Call me when it's no longer possible for a misbehaving plugin to freeze the entire application as configured out of the box.
Does a modest change in process management in the browser even need a snazzy name? Seriously, it's an item on a changelog... only notable because I dream it will somehow lead to an end to how plugins impact the browser.
Not especially likely for the same reason "absence of evidence to the contrary" regarding it's security isn't much of a metric. Rust is a niche at this point.
I assume you are referring to Article 3 Section 3 which defines treason against the United States. This is treason against the people. The war on terror is a codename for a war against the people.
Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to bypass the requirement of a warrant under any circumstance. A member of congress having any part of this bill is treason.
"The vast majority of cats can be trained, they respond to the actual instructions, and to the consistency of those instructions."
Cats be trained in general. The vast majority of cats are highly independent creatures with absolutely no desire or concern about making you happy. If you'd ever toilet trained a cat you'd know there isn't much instruction involved. The most successful method involves a cover for a toilet with a small amount of litter in it. The plastic gets smaller with a larger hole in the middle and less and less litter. It's like litter box training in the sense that it isn't training at all, you just show it to the cat after each change so they understand and possibly provide a step to give them easy access.
But cats are picky about this. If they don't like the flushable litters you've got a problem. If they've ever fallen in a toilet you have a problem. If like many cats they drink from the toilet because a cat sees no difference between that and their water dish/fountain you've got a problem. If the cat decides at any point they aren't okay with the arrangement you've got a problem. If the cat doesn't like to handled in the final stages they will be in a panicked state of trying to get away and paying no attention when try to show them how to stand on the seat.
Actually I could still sue you if your allegations caused harm or violated my privacy. There are plenty of valid reason to sue someone based on what they say about you. The absolute defense is simply not to bully and harass people for shock and awe ratings.
Even if someone doesn't have a valid suit, it doesn't mean they haven't been horribly wronged by Gawker. But as already stated elsewhere, these aren't frivolous suits. These people are winning valid suits against Gawker for terrible acts Gawker has committed against them. The most notable thing to report here is that a disgruntled billionaire was required for them to find some justice.
It doesn't matter what motive this man had in helping these people. He is helping people who can't defend themselves fight back against a petty and malicious bully who in some cases ruined their lives. That is a just cause and remains so regardless of whether he took it up with a noble spirit or for petty reasons.
Har har. Only the pledged delegates are locked in to Hillary, the super delegates mostly indicated their support before Sanders was even on the table. A 60% in California would give Sanders the lead in pledged delegates at which point he would be "winning." This is certainly quite possible and reasonable since he is the most popular candidate and his opponent is under federal investigation and based on the immunity deal most likely an inevitable indictment.
It would be political suicide to nominate a candidate who will be under federal indictment during the campaign. Unless of course you think Hillary can use her connections to stall that until winning the Presidency at which point she could pardon herself as her first act of presidency. Oh yeah, quite a legacy for the first woman president.
Exactly. It doesn't matter that he's a rich guy who was embarrassed by what Gawker published about him. His motive for funding these cases is irrelevant, the result is a level playing field for people who, according to our justice system, have valid complaints.
If he were funding loads of frivolous suits against Gawker leaving them to try to reclaim legal fees from the poor defendants it would be a different story. That isn't the case here, these victims are winning when they get to be heard in court.
"Peter Thiel, however, has the money to bankroll enough lawsuits to make Gawker's operations difficult simply because he doesn't like what they said."
True, but there is something he needs besides money to do that, a large number of people with valid claims against Gawker. If these were frivolous lawsuits and people were losing, leaving Gawker to try to recoup legal fees from those who don't have them you might have an argument. But they aren't, these people have valid cases and are winning those cases.
If the tabacco industry said something bad about the guy and he decided to fund the cases of people who had loved ones die of smoking related lung issues I doubt you'd be making this claim. Gawker pissed off a guy with means, Gawker hurt a lot other people, the guy with means decided to help those other people. It's called Karma.
"However, private citizens also don't have the right to shut others up simply because they don't like what the person/group is saying."
Actually, depending on the nature of what those others are saying in many cases private citizens do have a right to shut others up. Defamation, liable, slander... any of this sound familiar?
"In the US, people have is the ability to report the truth and not get sued for it being embarrassing to the parties involved."
What an odd thing to post under a story about a guy funding people who proved that your blanket statement is not accurate. The government is the only entity that has a right not to be sued. Publicly shaming people aka bullying not only makes you a terrible person it also puts you at risk of lawsuits because of the damage it causes.
"So instead of fighting back against Gawker directly, he used his money to help others sue Gawker with the goal of shutting them up."
In other words he funded the perfectly valid suits of others who couldn't afford to pursue them otherwise. Certainly nothing wrong with that. He couldn't have done so if Gawker weren't trash engaging in shady practices because there would be no valid suits to fund. It isn't necessarily true that he himself didn't have valid cause to sue Gawker, he might have just wanted to avoid the spotlight. Gawker made their own bed here.
" If this is allowed, how long until other news organizations - or even individual people - are sued into silence for reporting on things that Random Rich Guys find embarrassing?"
Legitimate news agencies? Forever. Legitimate news agencies won't have used and abused their rag to humiliate random people, therefore there won't be legitimate cases for the rich guy to fund. Instead, "legitimate" news agencies will just continue reporting the trash that specific groups of rich people tell them to.
Just let me know when they start reporting that Hillary Clinton is under federal investigation and the IT staffer who set up her mail server has been granted immunity based on the information he is able to provide. Let me know when they mention her lead over Sanders is statistical noise that can be defeated by a modest victory in California. Keep an eye out for when they report the proven voter fraud with diebold systems deleting votes, the quarter million disenfranchised voters, the funneling of funds from state DNC contributions to Clinton, and the appointment of Clinton supporters in all strategic positions for the convention. Let's just wait for more coverage of the ties between Clinton's approval of international arms deals only after donations to the Clinton Foundation. These stories are all factual and during a Primary would soar ratings through the roof along with destroying her chances for nomination yet none of this has gotten more than a quick blurb followed by several hours of complaining about Clinton being hurt by Sanders who just won't seem to drop out... and attempts to spin the numbers to distract you from the fact the race is nearly tied.
Is growing human organs even a new thing? There certainly is already cross species blending of genetics.
The objection to this seems like it comes from a time when people didn't know we were just another of the animals lucky enough to have thumbs, the physical requirements for auditory speech, and a brain capable of utilizing those things. Animals, even those of lesser intelligence than humans (which is not all, some are believed to even have superior intelligence) are known to have consciousness. Only a human could have "human" consciousness but there is nothing special about it, that's just a label. Human intelligence is still just animal intelligence.
I for one would welcome giving dolphins arms and hands with thumbs in addition to their flippers. How about thumbs for other primates? Everyone jumps on this as way to grow organs for humans and the like. What about giving our cousins a helping hand?
"The elderly have better passwords because the things they do have passwords to are vital to their survival. That is, their online banking, brokerage, pension, insurance company, medicare, social security."
That's true but only the part where they only have crucial accounts is their fault. The rest of those things have atypically strong password requirements so the elderly have no choice but to use secure passwords. The elderly actually fall into the most likely to use category for a single digit, a family member birth year, or sequential number like 1234 as a pin code for their atm for example.
I've done a lot of the same once upon a time and professionally. This study has it backwards. It's the elderly that use 1234 or a birth year as a pin code. If this trend is down it's because you can't use those easy passwords for most things anymore.
The elderly have fewer accounts, use them less, are less likely to be specifically targeted, and are less likely to know when their account has been compromised. This is a much more plausible explanation for reduced reports of compromised accounts.
"Just going by the data, there are clearly not as many women giving reviews"
It says right in the summary that 60% of the reviews with an average of 8.0 are from women. There are more women giving reviews.
I don't think the target audience of a show is relevant to the review. The show was not released to only women, the target audience of the review site is not only women. As a man when I scroll through the top 100 or 250 or whatever looking at titles this is the score I'd see if that title were listed and this is the score that would determine if that show is listed.
The target audience is relevant only to the makers of a show/movie. There are men who like Sex in the city and men who hate it and men who feel inbetween; there are women all over the spectrum as well.
"I'm not saying that makes anyone more or less special."
I'll let you respond by quoting your parent post in which you did exactly that with a sexist generalization.
"Even if the viewership were equally split between men and women, many women would probably not log in simply to give something a bad rating."
"If I go to a southern Baptist church and ask them their opinion on gays getting married, do you think I'll get a acceptance rate that is similar to nationwide average?"
Do you think you can exclude 40% of the national population by gender (males) and get a result that is similar to the nationwide average? What if you exclude the slightly higher than half in the major cities? What if you exclude the slightly less than half outside the cities but who include the majority of communities? Doing any of these things would radically change the results vs the national average.
The target audience for the results is the general user base of the site, therefore the ideal sampling of people giving a rating should be the general audience of the site including men and people who hate the show.
Yes the middle class white male, the only one who is not allowed to be proud of who they are. The only group which gets no advantages, no special starting wealth, no advantages or special funds to try to start a business or go to college or get a job. You know what it is when everyone but you gets an advantage? A disadvantage and yes it is oppression.
Does anyone log in just to give something a rating? Surely most reviewers are just using the site and give ratings while they are there. And what makes women so special and superior?
The more people who give ratings the better and I certainly hope people are giving bad ratings as well as good ones otherwise the rating will all be skewed and it will be used as justification to make more bad movies!
This is ridiculous. If men don't like the show and are giving it poor ratings that is nothing more than an honest review. Stop gender biasing your material and target audience and you won't have this problem. Likewise with the poor ratings women can and do give on things targeted at men.
About 60% of the population is female and 40% of those who seen the show think it sucks. If 40% of the people in the world think a show sucks it shouldn't be possible to achieve better than 6/10. It isn't as if only females see the rating.
of shows aimed for men. Seriously, what is this nonsense? Next up, those who prefer certain skin tones when selecting sexual partners are racist! Only eye, hair, breast, and wallet size are allowed. Men are allowed to indicate they dislike shows just as much as women are allowed to indicate they like them. If anything the system is unfair to men because there are more women than men in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
For anyone in tech (millenial or otherwise) a browser is pretty essential. I have at least 50 tabs open right now from a fresh browser this am. Only about 5 are for something other than work and 3 of them are open to different articles in my home wiki.
Even if it's just keeping that thing I already searched out earlier open for reference in case I need to go back to it. Many of them will stay open right up till a forced corporate reboot. Human memory is far more valuable than computer memory. Why try to learn or memorize formats, syntax, command options, file locations, etc when the web stores all that information?
Almost all the apps I work with are web based now. Aside from video/graphics heavy tasks, why do any kind of heavy lifting on your client? Slap a web interface on a server that will do the lifting and access it via a browser.
How about stability first? Call me when it's no longer possible for a misbehaving plugin to freeze the entire application as configured out of the box.
That and Chrome spies on you and it's UI sucks.
Does a modest change in process management in the browser even need a snazzy name? Seriously, it's an item on a changelog... only notable because I dream it will somehow lead to an end to how plugins impact the browser.
Not especially likely for the same reason "absence of evidence to the contrary" regarding it's security isn't much of a metric. Rust is a niche at this point.
I assume you are referring to Article 3 Section 3 which defines treason against the United States. This is treason against the people. The war on terror is a codename for a war against the people.
Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to bypass the requirement of a warrant under any circumstance. A member of congress having any part of this bill is treason.
"The vast majority of cats can be trained, they respond to the actual instructions, and to the consistency of those instructions."
Cats be trained in general. The vast majority of cats are highly independent creatures with absolutely no desire or concern about making you happy. If you'd ever toilet trained a cat you'd know there isn't much instruction involved. The most successful method involves a cover for a toilet with a small amount of litter in it. The plastic gets smaller with a larger hole in the middle and less and less litter. It's like litter box training in the sense that it isn't training at all, you just show it to the cat after each change so they understand and possibly provide a step to give them easy access.
But cats are picky about this. If they don't like the flushable litters you've got a problem. If they've ever fallen in a toilet you have a problem. If like many cats they drink from the toilet because a cat sees no difference between that and their water dish/fountain you've got a problem. If the cat decides at any point they aren't okay with the arrangement you've got a problem. If the cat doesn't like to handled in the final stages they will be in a panicked state of trying to get away and paying no attention when try to show them how to stand on the seat.
Actually I could still sue you if your allegations caused harm or violated my privacy. There are plenty of valid reason to sue someone based on what they say about you. The absolute defense is simply not to bully and harass people for shock and awe ratings.
Even if someone doesn't have a valid suit, it doesn't mean they haven't been horribly wronged by Gawker. But as already stated elsewhere, these aren't frivolous suits. These people are winning valid suits against Gawker for terrible acts Gawker has committed against them. The most notable thing to report here is that a disgruntled billionaire was required for them to find some justice.
It doesn't matter what motive this man had in helping these people. He is helping people who can't defend themselves fight back against a petty and malicious bully who in some cases ruined their lives. That is a just cause and remains so regardless of whether he took it up with a noble spirit or for petty reasons.
Har har. Only the pledged delegates are locked in to Hillary, the super delegates mostly indicated their support before Sanders was even on the table. A 60% in California would give Sanders the lead in pledged delegates at which point he would be "winning." This is certainly quite possible and reasonable since he is the most popular candidate and his opponent is under federal investigation and based on the immunity deal most likely an inevitable indictment.
It would be political suicide to nominate a candidate who will be under federal indictment during the campaign. Unless of course you think Hillary can use her connections to stall that until winning the Presidency at which point she could pardon herself as her first act of presidency. Oh yeah, quite a legacy for the first woman president.
Exactly. It doesn't matter that he's a rich guy who was embarrassed by what Gawker published about him. His motive for funding these cases is irrelevant, the result is a level playing field for people who, according to our justice system, have valid complaints.
If he were funding loads of frivolous suits against Gawker leaving them to try to reclaim legal fees from the poor defendants it would be a different story. That isn't the case here, these victims are winning when they get to be heard in court.
"Peter Thiel, however, has the money to bankroll enough lawsuits to make Gawker's operations difficult simply because he doesn't like what they said."
True, but there is something he needs besides money to do that, a large number of people with valid claims against Gawker. If these were frivolous lawsuits and people were losing, leaving Gawker to try to recoup legal fees from those who don't have them you might have an argument. But they aren't, these people have valid cases and are winning those cases.
If the tabacco industry said something bad about the guy and he decided to fund the cases of people who had loved ones die of smoking related lung issues I doubt you'd be making this claim. Gawker pissed off a guy with means, Gawker hurt a lot other people, the guy with means decided to help those other people. It's called Karma.
"However, private citizens also don't have the right to shut others up simply because they don't like what the person/group is saying."
Actually, depending on the nature of what those others are saying in many cases private citizens do have a right to shut others up. Defamation, liable, slander... any of this sound familiar?
"In the US, people have is the ability to report the truth and not get sued for it being embarrassing to the parties involved."
What an odd thing to post under a story about a guy funding people who proved that your blanket statement is not accurate. The government is the only entity that has a right not to be sued. Publicly shaming people aka bullying not only makes you a terrible person it also puts you at risk of lawsuits because of the damage it causes.
"So instead of fighting back against Gawker directly, he used his money to help others sue Gawker with the goal of shutting them up."
In other words he funded the perfectly valid suits of others who couldn't afford to pursue them otherwise. Certainly nothing wrong with that. He couldn't have done so if Gawker weren't trash engaging in shady practices because there would be no valid suits to fund. It isn't necessarily true that he himself didn't have valid cause to sue Gawker, he might have just wanted to avoid the spotlight. Gawker made their own bed here.
" If this is allowed, how long until other news organizations - or even individual people - are sued into silence for reporting on things that Random Rich Guys find embarrassing?"
Legitimate news agencies? Forever. Legitimate news agencies won't have used and abused their rag to humiliate random people, therefore there won't be legitimate cases for the rich guy to fund. Instead, "legitimate" news agencies will just continue reporting the trash that specific groups of rich people tell them to.
Just let me know when they start reporting that Hillary Clinton is under federal investigation and the IT staffer who set up her mail server has been granted immunity based on the information he is able to provide. Let me know when they mention her lead over Sanders is statistical noise that can be defeated by a modest victory in California. Keep an eye out for when they report the proven voter fraud with diebold systems deleting votes, the quarter million disenfranchised voters, the funneling of funds from state DNC contributions to Clinton, and the appointment of Clinton supporters in all strategic positions for the convention. Let's just wait for more coverage of the ties between Clinton's approval of international arms deals only after donations to the Clinton Foundation. These stories are all factual and during a Primary would soar ratings through the roof along with destroying her chances for nomination yet none of this has gotten more than a quick blurb followed by several hours of complaining about Clinton being hurt by Sanders who just won't seem to drop out... and attempts to spin the numbers to distract you from the fact the race is nearly tied.
Who is being fucked over? He's helping people Gawker fucked over.
"Everyone hates Gawker so nobody here will defend them, even though this is fucking chilling for a free press."
There is no such thing as first amendment protections from private citizens. You are free to speak against the government not private citizens.
You are right though, Gawker has made their own bed and not many are inclined to defend them.
Is growing human organs even a new thing? There certainly is already cross species blending of genetics.
The objection to this seems like it comes from a time when people didn't know we were just another of the animals lucky enough to have thumbs, the physical requirements for auditory speech, and a brain capable of utilizing those things. Animals, even those of lesser intelligence than humans (which is not all, some are believed to even have superior intelligence) are known to have consciousness. Only a human could have "human" consciousness but there is nothing special about it, that's just a label. Human intelligence is still just animal intelligence.
I for one would welcome giving dolphins arms and hands with thumbs in addition to their flippers. How about thumbs for other primates? Everyone jumps on this as way to grow organs for humans and the like. What about giving our cousins a helping hand?
A small subset of cats can successfully be trained to do so.
"The elderly have better passwords because the things they do have passwords to are vital to their survival. That is, their online banking, brokerage, pension, insurance company, medicare, social security."
That's true but only the part where they only have crucial accounts is their fault. The rest of those things have atypically strong password requirements so the elderly have no choice but to use secure passwords. The elderly actually fall into the most likely to use category for a single digit, a family member birth year, or sequential number like 1234 as a pin code for their atm for example.
I've done a lot of the same once upon a time and professionally. This study has it backwards. It's the elderly that use 1234 or a birth year as a pin code. If this trend is down it's because you can't use those easy passwords for most things anymore.
The elderly have fewer accounts, use them less, are less likely to be specifically targeted, and are less likely to know when their account has been compromised. This is a much more plausible explanation for reduced reports of compromised accounts.
"Just going by the data, there are clearly not as many women giving reviews"
It says right in the summary that 60% of the reviews with an average of 8.0 are from women. There are more women giving reviews.
I don't think the target audience of a show is relevant to the review. The show was not released to only women, the target audience of the review site is not only women. As a man when I scroll through the top 100 or 250 or whatever looking at titles this is the score I'd see if that title were listed and this is the score that would determine if that show is listed.
The target audience is relevant only to the makers of a show/movie. There are men who like Sex in the city and men who hate it and men who feel inbetween; there are women all over the spectrum as well.
"I'm not saying that makes anyone more or less special."
I'll let you respond by quoting your parent post in which you did exactly that with a sexist generalization.
"Even if the viewership were equally split between men and women, many women would probably not log in simply to give something a bad rating."
"If I go to a southern Baptist church and ask them their opinion on gays getting married, do you think I'll get a acceptance rate that is similar to nationwide average?"
Do you think you can exclude 40% of the national population by gender (males) and get a result that is similar to the nationwide average? What if you exclude the slightly higher than half in the major cities? What if you exclude the slightly less than half outside the cities but who include the majority of communities? Doing any of these things would radically change the results vs the national average.
The target audience for the results is the general user base of the site, therefore the ideal sampling of people giving a rating should be the general audience of the site including men and people who hate the show.
"they simply don't vote about shows that are clearly not intended for them."
Riiiight.
"if women all of a sudden started downvoting sports shows and dudebro shows"
And what makes you think they don't? Along with action flicks and t&a movies.
"WOMEN DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION"
Ratings do not have an intended audience.
Yes the middle class white male, the only one who is not allowed to be proud of who they are. The only group which gets no advantages, no special starting wealth, no advantages or special funds to try to start a business or go to college or get a job. You know what it is when everyone but you gets an advantage? A disadvantage and yes it is oppression.
Does anyone log in just to give something a rating? Surely most reviewers are just using the site and give ratings while they are there. And what makes women so special and superior?
The more people who give ratings the better and I certainly hope people are giving bad ratings as well as good ones otherwise the rating will all be skewed and it will be used as justification to make more bad movies!
This is ridiculous. If men don't like the show and are giving it poor ratings that is nothing more than an honest review. Stop gender biasing your material and target audience and you won't have this problem. Likewise with the poor ratings women can and do give on things targeted at men.
About 60% of the population is female and 40% of those who seen the show think it sucks. If 40% of the people in the world think a show sucks it shouldn't be possible to achieve better than 6/10. It isn't as if only females see the rating.
of shows aimed for men. Seriously, what is this nonsense? Next up, those who prefer certain skin tones when selecting sexual partners are racist! Only eye, hair, breast, and wallet size are allowed. Men are allowed to indicate they dislike shows just as much as women are allowed to indicate they like them. If anything the system is unfair to men because there are more women than men in the world.