No, 50% of those who voted. Thing is there's quite a few people now who were ineleligible to vote at the time who are now of voting age and they're not happy.
And you know, the referendum wasn't binding. Binding referendums have much tighter rules and if it was binding it would have to be rerun because of fraud by the leave side. Trying to claim there's some sort of mandate is a real subversion of democracy.
There's a reason that binding referendums have tight rules. The leave camp blatantly lied and they're trying to pretend that's OK.
Calling people stupid because they have a certain political view, is in itself stupid.
Some people have the "political view" that I should be murdered, so yeah fuck you.
It's fine when people on the wings agree for the same reasons: some things are just obvious. If people on the wings agree with each other for radically different reasons (and disagree with the middle) that's a pretty good indication they're being massive dumbasses.
These little psychos need to be very publicly judged.
Yep, and so do the bigger psychos in the SWAT team. If you set a rabid dog on someone then you're guilty of their murder. If the rabid dog is actually a person then you're every bit as guilty, but so is the rabid-dog person.
Don't add butter or salt or else you ... or else you mask the flavour of the freshly popped corn. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you need to buy fresh corn, pop it and eat it right away.
Without GNU there would have been no Linux. Linux is now one of the dominant operating systems in the world.
Besides, GNU userland is a clusterfuck of standards non-compliance.
Ha! I was there and no. I first touched unix in '94. By 96 or 97 I fiured out that the first thing to do on a new UNIX box was to install the GNU userland because the vendor tools were awful. Subtly incompatible with each other, often slow and fearful of dynamic memory allocation. GNU sed never segfaulted with a long line...
The GNU userland was more than a breath of fresh air it was a route to sanity.
Besides, GNU userland is a clusterfuck of standards non-compliance.
The GNU tools were often years ahead of the POSIX standard, and frequently have many more user-friendly features. The utilities part hasn't been updated in 10 years. GNU Awk fr instance has been setting the standard for decades and POSIX has been slowly adding those features to its specification.
Personally I'd rather have the tools in a timely manner than 20 years late.
You haven't seen Trump's approval ratings. They've been dropping steadily since the whole thing started. That means the Democrats have already won. The only question left is by how much.
If you're for defending the constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic, then you are a conservative.
Then why do so many conservatives still support Trump.
Remeber he pardoned former Sherriff Arpaio, and that chap was imprisoned literally for violating the constitution. Seems like a pretty direct attack on the consitution to me yet many conservatives support him.
Indeed and yet people still believe it. Remember that poem about the Nazis about how they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up etc? Do you know how it starts? Here let me find it for you:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a socialist.
But apparently in your mind the fact theycalled themselves socialists trumps the fact that thay actually mass murdered socialists.
Do you believe everything people tell you about themselves?
I met Stallman in grad school in the late 1980s and I do admire his coding and his beliefs regarding free software, but he doesn't have the sense of irony that he is castigating Stalinist policies while embracing a large portion of them.
If there's one thing slashdotters love to do, it's make up weird stuff about RMS. But do go on, how on earth is Stalllman stalanist? And please back that up with actual quotes not stuff you heard other people say he said.
The guy sounds very very freedom focussed to me. That's pretty much the opposite of Stalanism.
My point is not about succeeding, it's about trying.
He has excellent points on issues when he talks about technology but his perspectives on how to resolve issues (by insisting on absolutes) are viewed to be more repellent than the issues themselves.
He set up the Free Software foundation. That's the reason we have Linux. People seem to forget that Linux was the LAST piece of the puzzle and the reason it fitted is the entire rest of the OS was already in place from the FSF.
Meh. I didn't get my first cellphone until I was almost 30, so I had plenty of experience with the pre-cellular life. We got along fine only because we spent a lot of extra time and effort on pre-planning.
Um... it wasn't that bad. It was largely the same in that you specified a time and a place. If the place was both large and unfamiliar then sure cell phones are a boon but for like 95% of it (pub? 8pm? the usual?) there wasn't that much difference. We still had regular phones so it's not like you had to write a letter and wait for it to arrive.
About the same degree of planning is usally required because "want to meet whereever whenever let's figure it out closer to the time" doesn't really work for anyone I know (or me) because we both/all have to be free. And if you both have to travel then you still need to set out on time for the expected arrival time otherwise you'll leave the other person waiting.
I mean sure, there's now less uncertainty if one person is running late, you can give an ETA so the on-time person.
I guess cellphones make same-day planning easier, but now I and my friends are older, it's not like we're always free at the drop of a hat anyway so I rarely organise things same day.
Break down on the road? If you can't fix it on the spot you're going to have to hitch a ride to where you can get help, or hope a cop comes buy to radio for a tow truck. And if you were on your way to meet someone, they'll have no idea why you didn't show up.
Lets see, there are two cases here. Either Oracle are being sexist; great put them against the wall.
sure.
Maybe Oracle isn't sexist and the pay difference is based on initial salary negotiations
If that gives you a gender bias then you have a problem and have done something illegal. Salary negotiation is unrelated to performance of a developer so if you see a gender bias due to salary negotiation then it's unrelated to performance and hence against the law.
Performance related bias is allowed. Anything else isn't. If you're relying heavily on salary negotiations then you're leaving yourself open for a lawsuit.
I don't make the law, but I'm telling you how it works. You're trying to argue the rationality of the law with me when I' trying to tell you how it works. Yes, that is stupid, because courts do not enforce the letter of the law.
I disagree with you, initial salaries should
Should doesn't come into it. If you're paying women less than men for anything unrelated to performance then you're inviting a lawsuit. And you'll lose, because the law is clear.
Not really, but I am deeply curious how far you'll persist in your stupidity. It's a guilty pleasure to be sure, but it's entertaining.
I'm a "fool" and a "moron" for telling you that a 24/96 sample has more information that a 44/16 one?
No you're a fool and a moron for dismissing well established science as "opinion". You're also foolish for trying to pretend I said something other than what I said.
I find this sort of thing interesting. When someone I'm debating with essentially privately (no one else is reading now) intentionally misrepresents my arguments it means they're trying to fool themselves because there's no one else left to fool. What is funny to me is that you're so invested in this that you just feel compelled to bull through good sense, rationality and even honsety just to "win".
And for telling you that pro-audio moved to 24-bit digital in 1988 for a reason
Well you just brought up that. They moved to 24 bit for plenty of good reasons. The original reason is that they don't have to set everything perfectly to get the full range of 16 bits without clipping. They can set approximately and mix it afterwards. Also, they can apply lots of effects each of which introduces quantisation error without hitting the 16 bit noise floor.
And yes at the end they mix it down to 16 bit and you can't tell the difference.
Now, why is that I wonder?
I explained: and it's not because humans can hear more than 44/16.
Now in pro audio, 32 bit float is the thing. Are you now going to try to presuade me that that's because 24 bit isn't enough and actually humans can hear over a range of 1800dB?
I'm just a "fool" and a "moron".
Yes because you dismiss established science as "opinion". It's not an opinion that humans are incapable of hearing the difference between 44/16 and 192/24. It's established science.
But it seems you're an audiophile and those monster cables with deoxygenated copper trump double blind studies and mathematically rigorous sampling theory.
It's not relevant how much informal it contains. The only thing relevant to audio is whether it contains more audible information. It does not.
Why would anyone care of an audio system contains inaudible information.
Ad homenim is attacking the person, not the argument. I attacked your argument and then reached the entirely logical conclusion that you're a fool. Given that you dismiss established scientific fact as opinion, that was a justified and logical conclusion.
How about you try to prove what the poster said was wrong
How many times do I have to prove him wrong before it's reasonable to assume what he's saying is bullshit? 10? 20? It's probably been that many by now.
In the real world if you act like a denialst repeatedly then it's a reasonable assumption that something linked to from an ovbiously incrediably biased source is clearly denialist bullshit.
You know this too and that makes you as bad as he is. You very well know that it's easier to spew bullshit to rebut it. However you won't admit to that because you want your bullshit to "win".
It's not my opinion you moron it's a scientific fact. No listening tests that have stood the test of time show that humans are able to perceive the limits of 16 but audio at 44kHz sampling rates.
Oh I live internet climate "skeptics". You neither know nor understand the science yet are "skeptical" of it.
And yet when an organisation wiht the name "Science and Environmental Policy Project" which is clearly from the name a political thinktank says something like you guzzle it greedily down.
You're not a skeptic, you're only skeptical about things which challenege your political worldview. IOW you're just another foolish partisan blowhard.
That's what happens when liberals raise taxes, attack businesses, and generally fuck everything up...
Yes without taxes it would be practical to transport constructed rocket prototypes to the testing range in Texas. Damn librulhs they're even affecting physics with their taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
>50% of people voted for Brexit.
No, 50% of those who voted. Thing is there's quite a few people now who were ineleligible to vote at the time who are now of voting age and they're not happy.
And you know, the referendum wasn't binding. Binding referendums have much tighter rules and if it was binding it would have to be rerun because of fraud by the leave side. Trying to claim there's some sort of mandate is a real subversion of democracy.
There's a reason that binding referendums have tight rules. The leave camp blatantly lied and they're trying to pretend that's OK.
Calling people stupid because they have a certain political view, is in itself stupid.
Some people have the "political view" that I should be murdered, so yeah fuck you.
Piss off bootlicker. Taxi driving is more dangerous than policing, but they don't get to murder freely.
If you can't do your job without the odd bit of murder, then don't fucking stay in that job.
It's fine when people on the wings agree for the same reasons: some things are just obvious. If people on the wings agree with each other for radically different reasons (and disagree with the middle) that's a pretty good indication they're being massive dumbasses.
See also Brexit.
I must say, your post is level and reasonable with absolutely **no** prior agenda and prejudices. Right?
Full disclosure, I have an agenda that the police don't slaughter innocent citizens. And I'm prejusiced against the ones that do.
These little psychos need to be very publicly judged.
Yep, and so do the bigger psychos in the SWAT team. If you set a rabid dog on someone then you're guilty of their murder. If the rabid dog is actually a person then you're every bit as guilty, but so is the rabid-dog person.
Don't add butter or salt or else you ... or else you mask the flavour of the freshly popped corn. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you need to buy fresh corn, pop it and eat it right away.
They're still more then double congress's approval rating.
So? You were referring to the president, not congress. And besides, the congress approval ratings have been in the toilet for ages.
Anyway, Trump DGAF about approval ratings, as that would require a bit of dignity.
Well, at least we agree he has none of that.
Please, Linux is 90% of the puzzle.
Without GNU there would have been no Linux. Linux is now one of the dominant operating systems in the world.
Besides, GNU userland is a clusterfuck of standards non-compliance.
Ha! I was there and no. I first touched unix in '94. By 96 or 97 I fiured out that the first thing to do on a new UNIX box was to install the GNU userland because the vendor tools were awful. Subtly incompatible with each other, often slow and fearful of dynamic memory allocation. GNU sed never segfaulted with a long line...
The GNU userland was more than a breath of fresh air it was a route to sanity.
Besides, GNU userland is a clusterfuck of standards non-compliance.
The GNU tools were often years ahead of the POSIX standard, and frequently have many more user-friendly features. The utilities part hasn't been updated in 10 years. GNU Awk fr instance has been setting the standard for decades and POSIX has been slowly adding those features to its specification.
Personally I'd rather have the tools in a timely manner than 20 years late.
Wow, that's actually a really good example. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll use it myself if don't mind!
Thanks, and please do!
You haven't seen Trump's approval ratings. They've been dropping steadily since the whole thing started. That means the Democrats have already won. The only question left is by how much.
If you're for defending the constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic, then you are a conservative.
Then why do so many conservatives still support Trump.
Remeber he pardoned former Sherriff Arpaio, and that chap was imprisoned literally for violating the constitution. Seems like a pretty direct attack on the consitution to me yet many conservatives support him.
Why, that's preposterous
Indeed and yet people still believe it. Remember that poem about the Nazis about how they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up etc? Do you know how it starts? Here let me find it for you:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a socialist.
But apparently in your mind the fact theycalled themselves socialists trumps the fact that thay actually mass murdered socialists.
Do you believe everything people tell you about themselves?
I met Stallman in grad school in the late 1980s and I do admire his coding and his beliefs regarding free software, but he doesn't have the sense of irony that he is castigating Stalinist policies while embracing a large portion of them.
If there's one thing slashdotters love to do, it's make up weird stuff about RMS. But do go on, how on earth is Stalllman stalanist? And please back that up with actual quotes not stuff you heard other people say he said.
The guy sounds very very freedom focussed to me. That's pretty much the opposite of Stalanism.
My point is not about succeeding, it's about trying.
He has excellent points on issues when he talks about technology but his perspectives on how to resolve issues (by insisting on absolutes) are viewed to be more repellent than the issues themselves.
He set up the Free Software foundation. That's the reason we have Linux. People seem to forget that Linux was the LAST piece of the puzzle and the reason it fitted is the entire rest of the OS was already in place from the FSF.
Meh. I didn't get my first cellphone until I was almost 30, so I had plenty of experience with the pre-cellular life. We got along fine only because we spent a lot of extra time and effort on pre-planning.
Um... it wasn't that bad. It was largely the same in that you specified a time and a place. If the place was both large and unfamiliar then sure cell phones are a boon but for like 95% of it (pub? 8pm? the usual?) there wasn't that much difference. We still had regular phones so it's not like you had to write a letter and wait for it to arrive.
About the same degree of planning is usally required because "want to meet whereever whenever let's figure it out closer to the time" doesn't really work for anyone I know (or me) because we both/all have to be free. And if you both have to travel then you still need to set out on time for the expected arrival time otherwise you'll leave the other person waiting.
I mean sure, there's now less uncertainty if one person is running late, you can give an ETA so the on-time person.
I guess cellphones make same-day planning easier, but now I and my friends are older, it's not like we're always free at the drop of a hat anyway so I rarely organise things same day.
Break down on the road? If you can't fix it on the spot you're going to have to hitch a ride to where you can get help, or hope a cop comes buy to radio for a tow truck. And if you were on your way to meet someone, they'll have no idea why you didn't show up.
That is indisputably better with cellphones.
I love how a demand for evidence when someone posts lies is met with downmods, but the original lies aren't.
Pathetic.
Lets see, there are two cases here. Either Oracle are being sexist; great put them against the wall.
sure.
Maybe Oracle isn't sexist and the pay difference is based on initial salary negotiations
If that gives you a gender bias then you have a problem and have done something illegal. Salary negotiation is unrelated to performance of a developer so if you see a gender bias due to salary negotiation then it's unrelated to performance and hence against the law.
Performance related bias is allowed. Anything else isn't. If you're relying heavily on salary negotiations then you're leaving yourself open for a lawsuit.
I don't make the law, but I'm telling you how it works. You're trying to argue the rationality of the law with me when I' trying to tell you how it works. Yes, that is stupid, because courts do not enforce the letter of the law.
I disagree with you, initial salaries should
Should doesn't come into it. If you're paying women less than men for anything unrelated to performance then you're inviting a lawsuit. And you'll lose, because the law is clear.
Wow. This is really serious to you, isn't it?
Not really, but I am deeply curious how far you'll persist in your stupidity. It's a guilty pleasure to be sure, but it's entertaining.
I'm a "fool" and a "moron" for telling you that a 24/96 sample has more information that a 44/16 one?
No you're a fool and a moron for dismissing well established science as "opinion". You're also foolish for trying to pretend I said something other than what I said.
I find this sort of thing interesting. When someone I'm debating with essentially privately (no one else is reading now) intentionally misrepresents my arguments it means they're trying to fool themselves because there's no one else left to fool. What is funny to me is that you're so invested in this that you just feel compelled to bull through good sense, rationality and even honsety just to "win".
And for telling you that pro-audio moved to 24-bit digital in 1988 for a reason
Well you just brought up that. They moved to 24 bit for plenty of good reasons. The original reason is that they don't have to set everything perfectly to get the full range of 16 bits without clipping. They can set approximately and mix it afterwards. Also, they can apply lots of effects each of which introduces quantisation error without hitting the 16 bit noise floor.
And yes at the end they mix it down to 16 bit and you can't tell the difference.
Now, why is that I wonder?
I explained: and it's not because humans can hear more than 44/16.
Now in pro audio, 32 bit float is the thing. Are you now going to try to presuade me that that's because 24 bit isn't enough and actually humans can hear over a range of 1800dB?
I'm just a "fool" and a "moron".
Yes because you dismiss established science as "opinion". It's not an opinion that humans are incapable of hearing the difference between 44/16 and 192/24. It's established science.
But it seems you're an audiophile and those monster cables with deoxygenated copper trump double blind studies and mathematically rigorous sampling theory.
It's not relevant how much informal it contains. The only thing relevant to audio is whether it contains more audible information. It does not.
Why would anyone care of an audio system contains inaudible information.
Ad homenim is attacking the person, not the argument. I attacked your argument and then reached the entirely logical conclusion that you're a fool. Given that you dismiss established scientific fact as opinion, that was a justified and logical conclusion.
The fanaticism, the demonisation of men, particularly white men,
Oooh I see: you're just making shit up!
Prove it and quote any time I ever demonised men, particularly white men.
How about you try to prove what the poster said was wrong
How many times do I have to prove him wrong before it's reasonable to assume what he's saying is bullshit? 10? 20? It's probably been that many by now.
In the real world if you act like a denialst repeatedly then it's a reasonable assumption that something linked to from an ovbiously incrediably biased source is clearly denialist bullshit.
You know this too and that makes you as bad as he is. You very well know that it's easier to spew bullshit to rebut it. However you won't admit to that because you want your bullshit to "win".
It's not my opinion you moron it's a scientific fact. No listening tests that have stood the test of time show that humans are able to perceive the limits of 16 but audio at 44kHz sampling rates.
Both contain the same amount of information audible to a human.
Containing inaudible information is utterly irrelevant.
Oh I live internet climate "skeptics". You neither know nor understand the science yet are "skeptical" of it.
And yet when an organisation wiht the name "Science and Environmental Policy Project" which is clearly from the name a political thinktank says something like you guzzle it greedily down.
You're not a skeptic, you're only skeptical about things which challenege your political worldview. IOW you're just another foolish partisan blowhard.
That's what happens when liberals raise taxes, attack businesses, and generally fuck everything up...
Yes without taxes it would be practical to transport constructed rocket prototypes to the testing range in Texas. Damn librulhs they're even affecting physics with their taxes.