Seriously, what is the case for leaving this open until April instead of just shutting it down now, at least external access?
There are a lot of people still using it. They're exploring options on where to move next and trying out other places, but Google+ has become their home. I like that Google announces the closing of Google+ well in advance.
It's funny, I remember a lot of people in the photo community being really into Google+ when it first launched. It seemed pretty clear to me it was not going to make it though.
It could easily have made it if Google had handled it better. It was the best social network for a while, but Google kept sabotaging it, and seemed to have goals that didn't align with what Google+ was.
Absolutely. It's easily the best social network available in my opinion, despite Google's own many attempts to sabotage it. Or at least it was the best at the time they had Events and Hangouts integrated, but before they forced Youtube users onto it.
It was a magical place, I met a lot of great people there. It launched many small indie creators and small businesses, connecting them with their fans in the way you would want it to work. Communities sprung up where people really cared about each other.
I'm sad to see it go, but Google has always mismanaged it. Sadder is that the users can't agree on where to go. The people who don't quite hate Facebook enough have already left for Facebook. Others are spreading out over Diaspora, MeWe, Minds, Friendica, Hubzilla, Mastodon, and a few others. I don't think we're going to be able to recreate those few golden years of Google+.
No one should be surprised that Google+ is going away. It never came close to achieving the market penetration they wanted, and was always this weird thing over on the side among social media sites.
It was never a Facebook killer, but in the eyes of many, it was the best social network available for quite some time. Google has been neglecting it, though, and now it's increasingly getting overrun with spam. They've always been eager to kill popular features (Events + Hangouts was a magical combination on G+). They tried to force people on it to boost their numbers, degrading the signal to noise ratio. They were unable to appreciate it for the great interest-based social network that it was.
Reader, Google+, Inbox, Hangouts. Some people suspect Blogger might be next.
Google used to be a place I looked for cool products to use, but it seems they don't really care about that kind of brand recognition anymore. I'm seriously considering running my own social network cloud stuff, so I don't have to rely on the benevolence of profit-driven megacorporations, or the survival of startups. Open source has always promised to put me in control, and maybe that's worth more in the long run than the convenience of corporate products.
Proper code review should certainly prevent this, but how many companies don't do proper code review?
I suspect the easiest way to compromise security this way, is for the government to write a (suitably obfuscated) open source library that does something vague relevant, and tell developers to include it. How many companies reviews all the code of the libraries they include? Maybe it's time they start doing that. That would also prevent incidents like with that recent npm package.
The version I originally heard was that the government could demand an employee to insert a backdoor without the knowledge of the employer. From what I understand from you and others, that's not what this law says. If it was, that would be a whole new level of insanity on top of all the obvious stuff you mention.
But even without that, it's a pretty stupid and harmful law, that basically means nobody will buy Australian software for anything where security is an issue.
I've heard one report that claimed employees may be forced to secretly implement backdoors in their employer's software, and go to prison if they tell their employer what they're working on in company time.
That is pretty insane if you ask me. Hopefully Australian companies take their code review seriously.
I'm not sure how it is in chess, but I noticed that in go, rapid go is a somewhat different game than regular go. In rapid go, it's worthwhile to intentionally create complex situations for the opponent just to waste their time. And in the days before digital clocks, it could be viable to prolong a losing position just to get your opponent to lose on the clock.
I've been able to defeat normally far stronger players by leveraging these kind of "dirty" strategies. The basic rules may be the same, but there's a totally different strategic layer on top of the game.
Signatories doesn't mean they're in the process of phasing out all their coal plants. Germany still has plenty, Netherland doesn't seem to have any concrete plans. I absolutely applaud France for taking these steps, and I hope more countries will follow.
Why do you think increased demand for solar panels will not lead to increased supply?
Are you seriously nuts? Here's a country that actually wants to do something about a problem that far too many countries are still ignoring, and you complain that France is the one hurting the world?
That's a nonsensical put-down. What he says is true, but it hasn't been done. The reasons for that are fairly obvious: France doesn't need or want to generate all the world's energy, they don't want to pave over all of France, and the political decision to invest heavily in solar has not been made in the past: that's the bit that's happening right now.
"It would already have been done" is a ludicrously stupid thing to say in this context.
You don't have to conquer Algeria to invest in solar power there. I think exporting solar power to Europe would be an excellent industry for North-African countries.
But France still has plenty of rooftops that haven't yet been covered with solar panels, and France has plenty of coastline for wind turbines.
All in all, this plan sounds pretty much perfect: replace coal as soon as possible, keep nuclear around for now but see if you can replace it in the future. Whether that's feasible by 2033 remains to be seen, but setting it as a goal requires a lot of investment in solar and wind, and that's definitely good.
Learning new things doesn't make you a worse programmer. If they relate to programming, it makes you a better programmer.
If after a job switch, it becomes necessary to learn new things, because your new employer does things differently, then you may be less effective for a while, but you're not a worse programmer. You're in the process of getting even better.
Right, because the cops are trigger happy. That's the only reason SWATting is inherently dangerous.
The cops are absolutely at fault. Or arguably the entire law enforcement system. But the caller knew that very well, and intentionally sent trigger-happy thugs to an innocent person's house. He is absolutely culpable.
And you don't see that as the biggest problem here? Just living a life where that is true is a horrible stressor and itself contributes to the likelihood that someone would attempt something like this.
Of course, and that needs to get fixed. But that doesn't mean that it's somehow okay to abuse the broken system to get some people shot.
A deadly prank that got someone killed. Intentionally. He didn't send some actors dressed as cops, he sent real cops with guns and reason to believe they would have to shoot someone. That is murder. It doesn't matter that someone else was holding the gun. Hiring a hitman as a prank is also going to get you sent to prison.
And then there was that officer who was fired for not shooting someone he suspected was unarmed. I'm pretty sure the system is a big part of the problem.
Many US cops are absolutely far too trigger-happy. However, if you intentionally make use of that in order to get someone killed, you're still intentionally trying to get someone killed. Cop and swatter are both at fault, but the cop committed manslaughter at worst, while the swatter committed murder.
Maybe they could also argue that the name infringes. Witte Wieven are ghostly witches. Heksen are witches. These are honestly the only two Dutch cheeses I know that have supernatural creatures in their name (though I don't claim to know all). If they're also very similar in content, it's rather obvious it's an intentional copy.
Yeah that's bullshit. If it's viable outside the womb and you kill it, you've committed murder and killed a child
That's what I said. That's murder, not abortion. Don't confuse the two.
Look if you don't like the left's actual positions that's fine but don't think crap like this
Like I said, this isn't even a left-wing position, it's a libertarian position. Right-wing libertarians like Gary Johnson and Ayn Rand also support the right to have an abortion, for the very simple reason that it's your body. It's a bodily autonomy thing, and has nothing to do with economic equality or inequality.
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably the perspective you're looking for: https://xkcd.com/1732/
Seriously, what is the case for leaving this open until April instead of just shutting it down now, at least external access?
There are a lot of people still using it. They're exploring options on where to move next and trying out other places, but Google+ has become their home. I like that Google announces the closing of Google+ well in advance.
It's funny, I remember a lot of people in the photo community being really into Google+ when it first launched. It seemed pretty clear to me it was not going to make it though.
It could easily have made it if Google had handled it better. It was the best social network for a while, but Google kept sabotaging it, and seemed to have goals that didn't align with what Google+ was.
Absolutely. It's easily the best social network available in my opinion, despite Google's own many attempts to sabotage it. Or at least it was the best at the time they had Events and Hangouts integrated, but before they forced Youtube users onto it.
It was a magical place, I met a lot of great people there. It launched many small indie creators and small businesses, connecting them with their fans in the way you would want it to work. Communities sprung up where people really cared about each other.
I'm sad to see it go, but Google has always mismanaged it. Sadder is that the users can't agree on where to go. The people who don't quite hate Facebook enough have already left for Facebook. Others are spreading out over Diaspora, MeWe, Minds, Friendica, Hubzilla, Mastodon, and a few others. I don't think we're going to be able to recreate those few golden years of Google+.
No one should be surprised that Google+ is going away. It never came close to achieving the market penetration they wanted, and was always this weird thing over on the side among social media sites.
It was never a Facebook killer, but in the eyes of many, it was the best social network available for quite some time. Google has been neglecting it, though, and now it's increasingly getting overrun with spam. They've always been eager to kill popular features (Events + Hangouts was a magical combination on G+). They tried to force people on it to boost their numbers, degrading the signal to noise ratio. They were unable to appreciate it for the great interest-based social network that it was.
Reader, Google+, Inbox, Hangouts. Some people suspect Blogger might be next.
Google used to be a place I looked for cool products to use, but it seems they don't really care about that kind of brand recognition anymore. I'm seriously considering running my own social network cloud stuff, so I don't have to rely on the benevolence of profit-driven megacorporations, or the survival of startups. Open source has always promised to put me in control, and maybe that's worth more in the long run than the convenience of corporate products.
If you want a good Sci-Fi movie that was made in the last 20 years, Tom Cruise was probably in it.
I must have missed him in Interstellar and The Martian. Or Gravity. Was he in the new Bladerunner too? Do the Marvel movies count?
I enjoyed Edge of Tomorrow, but there are tons of great SciFi movies that didn't have Tom Cruise.
You don't owe Tom Cruise a thing, and I don't like him either, but in Edge of Tomorrow, you can see him die a lot.
Also, it's Groundhog Day meets Warhammer 40,000. As movie concepts go, that's pretty good.
Proper code review should certainly prevent this, but how many companies don't do proper code review?
I suspect the easiest way to compromise security this way, is for the government to write a (suitably obfuscated) open source library that does something vague relevant, and tell developers to include it. How many companies reviews all the code of the libraries they include? Maybe it's time they start doing that. That would also prevent incidents like with that recent npm package.
The version I originally heard was that the government could demand an employee to insert a backdoor without the knowledge of the employer. From what I understand from you and others, that's not what this law says. If it was, that would be a whole new level of insanity on top of all the obvious stuff you mention.
But even without that, it's a pretty stupid and harmful law, that basically means nobody will buy Australian software for anything where security is an issue.
I've heard one report that claimed employees may be forced to secretly implement backdoors in their employer's software, and go to prison if they tell their employer what they're working on in company time.
That is pretty insane if you ask me. Hopefully Australian companies take their code review seriously.
I'm not sure how it is in chess, but I noticed that in go, rapid go is a somewhat different game than regular go. In rapid go, it's worthwhile to intentionally create complex situations for the opponent just to waste their time. And in the days before digital clocks, it could be viable to prolong a losing position just to get your opponent to lose on the clock.
I've been able to defeat normally far stronger players by leveraging these kind of "dirty" strategies. The basic rules may be the same, but there's a totally different strategic layer on top of the game.
Signatories doesn't mean they're in the process of phasing out all their coal plants. Germany still has plenty, Netherland doesn't seem to have any concrete plans. I absolutely applaud France for taking these steps, and I hope more countries will follow.
Why do you think increased demand for solar panels will not lead to increased supply?
"At what cost to the rest of the world?"
Are you seriously nuts? Here's a country that actually wants to do something about a problem that far too many countries are still ignoring, and you complain that France is the one hurting the world?
But power consumption is not constant 24/7/365. So you're going to need storage anyway.
That's a nonsensical put-down. What he says is true, but it hasn't been done. The reasons for that are fairly obvious: France doesn't need or want to generate all the world's energy, they don't want to pave over all of France, and the political decision to invest heavily in solar has not been made in the past: that's the bit that's happening right now.
"It would already have been done" is a ludicrously stupid thing to say in this context.
You don't have to conquer Algeria to invest in solar power there. I think exporting solar power to Europe would be an excellent industry for North-African countries.
But France still has plenty of rooftops that haven't yet been covered with solar panels, and France has plenty of coastline for wind turbines.
All in all, this plan sounds pretty much perfect: replace coal as soon as possible, keep nuclear around for now but see if you can replace it in the future. Whether that's feasible by 2033 remains to be seen, but setting it as a goal requires a lot of investment in solar and wind, and that's definitely good.
Learning new things doesn't make you a worse programmer. If they relate to programming, it makes you a better programmer.
If after a job switch, it becomes necessary to learn new things, because your new employer does things differently, then you may be less effective for a while, but you're not a worse programmer. You're in the process of getting even better.
That too is a problem. Maybe there needs to be an independent DA for this sort of thing. Or it needs to be handled by a federal prosecutor.
Right, because the cops are trigger happy. That's the only reason SWATting is inherently dangerous.
The cops are absolutely at fault. Or arguably the entire law enforcement system. But the caller knew that very well, and intentionally sent trigger-happy thugs to an innocent person's house. He is absolutely culpable.
And you don't see that as the biggest problem here? Just living a life where that is true is a horrible stressor and itself contributes to the likelihood that someone would attempt something like this.
Of course, and that needs to get fixed. But that doesn't mean that it's somehow okay to abuse the broken system to get some people shot.
A deadly prank that got someone killed. Intentionally. He didn't send some actors dressed as cops, he sent real cops with guns and reason to believe they would have to shoot someone. That is murder. It doesn't matter that someone else was holding the gun. Hiring a hitman as a prank is also going to get you sent to prison.
And then there was that officer who was fired for not shooting someone he suspected was unarmed. I'm pretty sure the system is a big part of the problem.
Many US cops are absolutely far too trigger-happy. However, if you intentionally make use of that in order to get someone killed, you're still intentionally trying to get someone killed. Cop and swatter are both at fault, but the cop committed manslaughter at worst, while the swatter committed murder.
We need judges with better taste buds.
Maybe they could also argue that the name infringes. Witte Wieven are ghostly witches. Heksen are witches. These are honestly the only two Dutch cheeses I know that have supernatural creatures in their name (though I don't claim to know all). If they're also very similar in content, it's rather obvious it's an intentional copy.
Yeah that's bullshit. If it's viable outside the womb and you kill it, you've committed murder and killed a child
That's what I said. That's murder, not abortion. Don't confuse the two.
Look if you don't like the left's actual positions that's fine but don't think crap like this
Like I said, this isn't even a left-wing position, it's a libertarian position. Right-wing libertarians like Gary Johnson and Ayn Rand also support the right to have an abortion, for the very simple reason that it's your body. It's a bodily autonomy thing, and has nothing to do with economic equality or inequality.