Reproducing a failure is good, but when it puts lives in the line: your own and others, you dont just do it. Iâ(TM)ve had power supplies blow up and shoot fire, you bet I filled out the paperwork and we found a safe way to repro.
I'm not sure I find anything objectionable about his statement. Almost anything can be used to kill someone, you need to make it anyway provided it's a useful thing that isn't strictly about killing people. Communications in particular, of all types from the land line to the most vapid facebook political post can be used to coordinate a massive terrorist attack, yes, you need to move on anyway. Or else we need to go back to the trees and stop people from using sticks and stones.
I did not read into his statement "You should specifically target and enable terrorists, they bring in the most money", that would be worth fighting over.
No. He is POTUS, if a company is able to behave as he claims they behave, and not be accountable to any laws, he should be changing the laws.
Instead he's flogging the messenger. Every time you hear from a politician that so-and-so isn't paying taxes and is/should be treated as a criminal, you should ask that politician "why aren't they?". Answer is usually they're not doing anything wrong AND we don't want to change the laws to fix it, BUT I want my constituents to like me.
I wouldn't even calling grifting, he no doubt "proved" their theory and made good on the money given to them. As about a hundred people above have said, you can't see the curvature of earth from 2kft in any believable way so he basically gave them another broken talking point.
But he got to blast his old ass up in his mobile home, which is pretty cool on its own, so everyone walks away happy. Ultimately that's a good business deal right there: money changes hands and both parties walk off getting what they think they want.
Pitched as a flat earth screed, no it doesn't belong here.
Pitched as a private individual creating a rocket out of his mobile home, and following through? That's almost the definition of what this site used to be all about. I only hope that in my entire life I do something equally amazing, but I doubt it.
I wouldn't ever encourage it though, this is a really good way to get yourself killed, and he seemed to be well aware of it.
When dealing with flat earthers, attempting to use logic tends to backfire. It may seem obvious to you that "falling off the edge" is the best way to get in to space, they have argumentation about why no edge has been found. In general I expect that any given fact can be countered by fiction you cannot immediately disprove except by using evidence generated by conspiracists, such as, a globe.
For example, and I warn you that the rabbit hole here is real, they believe the earth is a disc, surrounded by a giant ice wall that we call "Antarctica", beyond which no one has passed. I suppose it was constructed by Bran the Builder, and no doubt contains the shoggoths documented in Lovecraft's xenobiology textbook "At The Mountains of Madness".
The Second Amendment is pretty unequivocal on the matter. "Shall not be infringed" leaves very little wiggle room. Unless somebody is convicted of a crime and temporarily has their rights stripped from them as punishment (serving a criminal sentence in prison), the Second Amendment is supposed to ensure that EV ERYONE is able to "keep and bear arms."
The list of ways in which the first amendment alone has been mitigated and re-interpreted for the betterment of everyone is very long. I personally think the plain language of the first amendment leaves no wiggle room, but we have wisely chosen to put some limits on it. How that was justified requires a constitutional lawyer, or perhaps it's justified because nobody challenged it. Quite a few of the other amendments have been curtailed over the years, some i think are nearly ignored (see also: amendment 4).
There's room. The question is do you want to do it the reasonable way, with cool heads, or do you want to do it the hard way, at the hands of an extremist opposition:
Short of a constitutional amendment to revoke that (which would probably cause a civil war in and of itself), I don't see how the NRA can take a compromising stance on "shall not be infringed."
My point is that you really do not want this to happen. Support for this amendment has been waning for decades. Abstracted from the safety of a carefully marketed political party, who is drawing a diverse set of people who do not share every belief but who agree to vote a certain way, you are putting this single issue to popular vote. I would not take bets on the outcome. I know a lot of card carrying republicans who are against gun ownership or in favor of gun control who would gladly support an amendment enabling the government to start imposing such limitations. A lot of them from law enforcement. The amendment would seem benign, it wouldn't be a ban, but it would ultimately undermine the 2nd amendment nearly as completely.
The media will continue to vilify guns and gun owners, continue to showcase every mass murder and school shooting, continue to parade every half-wit inbred retard who can lift a shotgun on TV as an example of what gun owners are, what exactly do you think the result will be? How long until we get to the tipping point? On the present course, we're headed towards the worst case scenario.
The risk here that people who support gun-rights should fear most is exactly what is happening with their extreme stance on guns: public support will evaporate, and they WILL be taken away. Once taken away, it's gone forever, we all know that. I have no problems with gun or gun ownership for mentally stable adults with no criminal record, who have been trained on how to handle and care for guns, and who are willing to take responsibility for them and own the consequences. I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies. We absolutely should be armed. But not all of us.
The complete abdication of responsibility in favor of total devotion to the second amendment is going to result in them being removed, one way or another. It doesn't seem like it right now, the NRA is still strong and the currently installed government is favorable, but what may not be seen clearly is how tenuous that position is, that much of this government was installed with the bare minimum of popular support, and that on this particular issue, one of many, may not actually be that popular even amongst their own.
The NRA is failing everyone right now, and Facebook is one of a multitude of examples of that. The NRA should be acting as a steward, being the voice of reason that champions gun rights by making sure they're well and properly used. That the people most likely to misuse and abuse their rights are restricted from gun ownership. They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be. Taking a hard-line, extreme, no tolerance stance on gun control is ultimately going to be self-defeating. And we are watching it happen in slow motion.
I think the kind of drugs dealt in this neighborhood is intended to be adderall and maybe some overpriced "designer pot", and "low income" merely means "junior" employees who can't afford million dollar homes or $6k monthly rents.
Dictatorship is still dictatorship. They don't get off the hook until they become a functioning democracy and adopt some form of human rights guarantees and dedication to upholding them.
You may or may not like our president, in fact raw statistics would suggest you probably strongly dislike him. But our press is free to, and perhaps has actually enjoyed criticizing him without fear of retribution. He's twisted the screws, but our police force has been able to successfully investigate him and locked a few of his most corrupt cronies a way, and may yet get him. Protestors that roamed the streets and in a few cases were actually doing dangerous and unjustifiable things in the name of "anger", were not driven over by tanks. Our business leaders, who are split on liking and loathing him, have been able to take appropriate actions to protect the interests of their companies. We have no great firewall, even if Russia demonstrates that perhaps we needed one, my money is on us surviving this and coming out stronger and more discerning.
It's not perfect and there are abuses, but until China can demostrate that they are MORE free and LESS abusive than we are, I'm going to continue to consider them a dangerous dictatorship that needs to be put down when convenient.
I agree, but the trick is to how to get it to allow ME to put my own firmware on (the owner), not anyone else. That's the problem that needs to be solved, but until then Apple is more secure, even if you have to trust them. I trust them more than I trust random OEMs or, especially, my cell phone supplier. But I do think there is money on the table for someone to grab.
I think you need to read into this a very narrow viewpoint. He's specifically referring to the latest OS and hacks injected from downloaded software/apps. He's not focused on any other aspect of the android ecosystem that is presently a source of concern:
1) Devices running old software that isn't secure 2) Devices running co-opted software from various sources (often legit sources) from vendors 3) Devices themselves that contain or allow rogue FW to run, some which may have been placed there by the manufacturer for dubious purposes 4) Devices that have been hacked before the user received them to run co-opted firmware.
Their metric is essentially based on field reports, not design-in security. I've worked in a few places where we have eternal debates about "testing out bugs" versus "designing out bugs". Both are really necessary, but this article seems focused on the former.
Google continues with a very software centric mindset, and trusts its OEMs. To me that's the biggest mistake, particularly given who a few of them are.
And this is what it's about. Linux is a complete joke on the desktop. This is about crushing OS X - and assuming Microsoft can iron out the weird firewall issues and get a decent terminal, it will do handily.
On the desktop: OS X>Linux>Windows, for any sort of engineering & development activity that MS VC doesn't have a wizard for.
LSW is okay, I have found uses for it. But It's a long way from having a proper shell and proper shell integration. I'm not even sure MS would want to fix some of those problems. The biggest problem I have right now is you cannot launch windows apps from LSW command line, thus cannot launch them with different environment options. Even Windows Apps that also have OS X and Linux versions that work properly. And you can't launch linux UI apps, which means there's no way out of it and you can't get full command line & environment power. Your UI ends up mostly disassociated from the linux subsystem, which is not helpful. I believe the filesystems are "separate but unequal" as well, but I have not messed with it in a year or so, and just ocntented myself with a pure linux environment.
It is very good for things that can be done purely from the command line, I use this instead of the old dos command prompt or powershit all the time. But we appear to be years away from any true integration.
I actually think, in a different way, this is why Google Fiber failed. I believe entrenched telecom interest ended up influencing (effectively controlling) Google from the board & investor perspective, and (with help) forced the creation of Alphabet. That effectively broke up Google allowing investors to have an ala-carte platter of knobs to turn, whereas when Google was monolithic they didn't get to have that level of insight or control. It isn't hard to win investor support on the idea that Google Fiber is a bad short term investment (it's a fact!), and with the facts exposed more clearly as they are now, that put a nail in the coffin.
If you look at how Google bifurcated, its more difficult now for the cash cow (Google) to provided the nearly unlimited funding Google Fiber would take to deploy. There's no question that down the road, Google Fiber would become hugely profitable... but that wasn't allowed to happen and there will be no competition for AT&T/Comcast/etc. I'm not sure Google wanted to have all these shell companies, it just became the political fallout of them having tried to take on a number of really big enemies, and those enemies fighting back hard.
I still recalling a professor telling me I was screwing up by not pursuing a PhD and focusing on engineering, that AI would replace me in 15 years. That was 20 years ago. It's still 15-20 years away from doing that kind of stuff.
Clothing that was only pre-worn by svelte runway models, hand fed on vegan non-GMO wood pellets and rainwater direct from the skies, unsullied by man-made chemicals. Clothing whose materials are only the finest naturally grown, recycled hemp, crafted in the dark by underprivileged, overpaid tibetan monks. Clothing that is always one of a kind, and intentionally may not fit anyone perfectly to enhance our body positive vibes.
Large corporation does not necessarily mean stack rating, but I know of a few and worked for one. I quit as soon as was good for me. I did have to endure a few really bad years around 2008, but dropped it like a bad habit afterwards.
If you work for a company that uses stack rating, they are telling you nicely that they're more interested in your business acumen than your engineering/technical ability. In that case, you have a decision to make. You either want to play ball, do the promotion and powerpoint slog and combat your peers for peanuts. Or you are a technical person first and need to find appropriate challenges. There ARE good jobs out there, even in large corporations, that value engineers and developers for their technical skills. Go to them.
There is a very large gap between being abusive (Dr. House), and possessing no soft skills. No one is going to tolerate you being abusive, I've never seen that turn out well. Even if you really are as smart as you think you are, even if you are also absolutely right, you're going to get burnt. And, no one is that smart, not even Dr. House who nearly kills someone in every show.
That said, soft skills involve a great many things of which social skills are but a part. Soft skills also involve project management, organization, schedule management, logistics, seeing the big picture and reading between lines. Many of those are anathemic to what successful technical people embody, for one reason or another. For example if your project management skills are good, very likely that's all you will ever do. Don't be too good. If you are seeing big pictures and reading between lines, you're probably making assumptions. That's also something technical people should, at the very least, be afraid of.
There's no particular reason why a competent technical person should worry overly much about soft-skills at all. My only comment is that technical fields are highly elitist and if you're not at least in the top 20%, you should consider rounding out your profile and pivoting to a less technical field in which soft-skills may be crucial.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you really can't. But you're gonna try anyway!
Let's Duet
Parking spots and housing plots are examples of things that are smaller in Texas.
Reproducing a failure is good, but when it puts lives in the line: your own and others, you dont just do it. Iâ(TM)ve had power supplies blow up and shoot fire, you bet I filled out the paperwork and we found a safe way to repro.
I'm not sure I find anything objectionable about his statement. Almost anything can be used to kill someone, you need to make it anyway provided it's a useful thing that isn't strictly about killing people. Communications in particular, of all types from the land line to the most vapid facebook political post can be used to coordinate a massive terrorist attack, yes, you need to move on anyway. Or else we need to go back to the trees and stop people from using sticks and stones.
I did not read into his statement "You should specifically target and enable terrorists, they bring in the most money", that would be worth fighting over.
Besides, Trump is 100% right.
No. He is POTUS, if a company is able to behave as he claims they behave, and not be accountable to any laws, he should be changing the laws.
Instead he's flogging the messenger. Every time you hear from a politician that so-and-so isn't paying taxes and is/should be treated as a criminal, you should ask that politician "why aren't they?". Answer is usually they're not doing anything wrong AND we don't want to change the laws to fix it, BUT I want my constituents to like me.
"What the fuck is a Palm device?", asked anyone born after 1985.
Please, people born after 1985 know what a fleshlight is.
I wouldn't even calling grifting, he no doubt "proved" their theory and made good on the money given to them. As about a hundred people above have said, you can't see the curvature of earth from 2kft in any believable way so he basically gave them another broken talking point.
But he got to blast his old ass up in his mobile home, which is pretty cool on its own, so everyone walks away happy. Ultimately that's a good business deal right there: money changes hands and both parties walk off getting what they think they want.
Pitched as a flat earth screed, no it doesn't belong here.
Pitched as a private individual creating a rocket out of his mobile home, and following through? That's almost the definition of what this site used to be all about. I only hope that in my entire life I do something equally amazing, but I doubt it.
I wouldn't ever encourage it though, this is a really good way to get yourself killed, and he seemed to be well aware of it.
When dealing with flat earthers, attempting to use logic tends to backfire. It may seem obvious to you that "falling off the edge" is the best way to get in to space, they have argumentation about why no edge has been found. In general I expect that any given fact can be countered by fiction you cannot immediately disprove except by using evidence generated by conspiracists, such as, a globe.
For example, and I warn you that the rabbit hole here is real, they believe the earth is a disc, surrounded by a giant ice wall that we call "Antarctica", beyond which no one has passed. I suppose it was constructed by Bran the Builder, and no doubt contains the shoggoths documented in Lovecraft's xenobiology textbook "At The Mountains of Madness".
I'm not making (some of) this up:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequent...
The Second Amendment is pretty unequivocal on the matter. "Shall not be infringed" leaves very little wiggle room. Unless somebody is convicted of a crime and temporarily has their rights stripped from them as punishment (serving a criminal sentence in prison), the Second Amendment is supposed to ensure that EV
ERYONE is able to "keep and bear arms."
The list of ways in which the first amendment alone has been mitigated and re-interpreted for the betterment of everyone is very long. I personally think the plain language of the first amendment leaves no wiggle room, but we have wisely chosen to put some limits on it. How that was justified requires a constitutional lawyer, or perhaps it's justified because nobody challenged it. Quite a few of the other amendments have been curtailed over the years, some i think are nearly ignored (see also: amendment 4).
There's room. The question is do you want to do it the reasonable way, with cool heads, or do you want to do it the hard way, at the hands of an extremist opposition:
Short of a constitutional amendment to revoke that (which would probably cause a civil war in and of itself), I don't see how the NRA can take a compromising stance on "shall not be infringed."
My point is that you really do not want this to happen. Support for this amendment has been waning for decades. Abstracted from the safety of a carefully marketed political party, who is drawing a diverse set of people who do not share every belief but who agree to vote a certain way, you are putting this single issue to popular vote. I would not take bets on the outcome. I know a lot of card carrying republicans who are against gun ownership or in favor of gun control who would gladly support an amendment enabling the government to start imposing such limitations. A lot of them from law enforcement. The amendment would seem benign, it wouldn't be a ban, but it would ultimately undermine the 2nd amendment nearly as completely.
The media will continue to vilify guns and gun owners, continue to showcase every mass murder and school shooting, continue to parade every half-wit inbred retard who can lift a shotgun on TV as an example of what gun owners are, what exactly do you think the result will be? How long until we get to the tipping point? On the present course, we're headed towards the worst case scenario.
The risk here that people who support gun-rights should fear most is exactly what is happening with their extreme stance on guns: public support will evaporate, and they WILL be taken away. Once taken away, it's gone forever, we all know that. I have no problems with gun or gun ownership for mentally stable adults with no criminal record, who have been trained on how to handle and care for guns, and who are willing to take responsibility for them and own the consequences. I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies. We absolutely should be armed. But not all of us.
The complete abdication of responsibility in favor of total devotion to the second amendment is going to result in them being removed, one way or another. It doesn't seem like it right now, the NRA is still strong and the currently installed government is favorable, but what may not be seen clearly is how tenuous that position is, that much of this government was installed with the bare minimum of popular support, and that on this particular issue, one of many, may not actually be that popular even amongst their own.
The NRA is failing everyone right now, and Facebook is one of a multitude of examples of that. The NRA should be acting as a steward, being the voice of reason that champions gun rights by making sure they're well and properly used. That the people most likely to misuse and abuse their rights are restricted from gun ownership. They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be. Taking a hard-line, extreme, no tolerance stance on gun control is ultimately going to be self-defeating. And we are watching it happen in slow motion.
Idiocracy is not a how-to video.
I think the kind of drugs dealt in this neighborhood is intended to be adderall and maybe some overpriced "designer pot", and "low income" merely means "junior" employees who can't afford million dollar homes or $6k monthly rents.
Dictatorship is still dictatorship. They don't get off the hook until they become a functioning democracy and adopt some form of human rights guarantees and dedication to upholding them.
You may or may not like our president, in fact raw statistics would suggest you probably strongly dislike him. But our press is free to, and perhaps has actually enjoyed criticizing him without fear of retribution. He's twisted the screws, but our police force has been able to successfully investigate him and locked a few of his most corrupt cronies a way, and may yet get him. Protestors that roamed the streets and in a few cases were actually doing dangerous and unjustifiable things in the name of "anger", were not driven over by tanks. Our business leaders, who are split on liking and loathing him, have been able to take appropriate actions to protect the interests of their companies. We have no great firewall, even if Russia demonstrates that perhaps we needed one, my money is on us surviving this and coming out stronger and more discerning.
It's not perfect and there are abuses, but until China can demostrate that they are MORE free and LESS abusive than we are, I'm going to continue to consider them a dangerous dictatorship that needs to be put down when convenient.
I agree, but the trick is to how to get it to allow ME to put my own firmware on (the owner), not anyone else. That's the problem that needs to be solved, but until then Apple is more secure, even if you have to trust them. I trust them more than I trust random OEMs or, especially, my cell phone supplier. But I do think there is money on the table for someone to grab.
I think you need to read into this a very narrow viewpoint. He's specifically referring to the latest OS and hacks injected from downloaded software/apps. He's not focused on any other aspect of the android ecosystem that is presently a source of concern:
1) Devices running old software that isn't secure
2) Devices running co-opted software from various sources (often legit sources) from vendors
3) Devices themselves that contain or allow rogue FW to run, some which may have been placed there by the manufacturer for dubious purposes
4) Devices that have been hacked before the user received them to run co-opted firmware.
Their metric is essentially based on field reports, not design-in security. I've worked in a few places where we have eternal debates about "testing out bugs" versus "designing out bugs". Both are really necessary, but this article seems focused on the former.
Google continues with a very software centric mindset, and trusts its OEMs. To me that's the biggest mistake, particularly given who a few of them are.
That made me throw up. No. Not now, not ever.
And this is what it's about. Linux is a complete joke on the desktop. This is about crushing OS X - and assuming Microsoft can iron out the weird firewall issues and get a decent terminal, it will do handily.
On the desktop: OS X>Linux>Windows, for any sort of engineering & development activity that MS VC doesn't have a wizard for.
LSW is okay, I have found uses for it. But It's a long way from having a proper shell and proper shell integration. I'm not even sure MS would want to fix some of those problems. The biggest problem I have right now is you cannot launch windows apps from LSW command line, thus cannot launch them with different environment options. Even Windows Apps that also have OS X and Linux versions that work properly. And you can't launch linux UI apps, which means there's no way out of it and you can't get full command line & environment power. Your UI ends up mostly disassociated from the linux subsystem, which is not helpful. I believe the filesystems are "separate but unequal" as well, but I have not messed with it in a year or so, and just ocntented myself with a pure linux environment.
It is very good for things that can be done purely from the command line, I use this instead of the old dos command prompt or powershit all the time. But we appear to be years away from any true integration.
I actually think, in a different way, this is why Google Fiber failed. I believe entrenched telecom interest ended up influencing (effectively controlling) Google from the board & investor perspective, and (with help) forced the creation of Alphabet. That effectively broke up Google allowing investors to have an ala-carte platter of knobs to turn, whereas when Google was monolithic they didn't get to have that level of insight or control. It isn't hard to win investor support on the idea that Google Fiber is a bad short term investment (it's a fact!), and with the facts exposed more clearly as they are now, that put a nail in the coffin.
If you look at how Google bifurcated, its more difficult now for the cash cow (Google) to provided the nearly unlimited funding Google Fiber would take to deploy. There's no question that down the road, Google Fiber would become hugely profitable... but that wasn't allowed to happen and there will be no competition for AT&T/Comcast/etc. I'm not sure Google wanted to have all these shell companies, it just became the political fallout of them having tried to take on a number of really big enemies, and those enemies fighting back hard.
I still recalling a professor telling me I was screwing up by not pursuing a PhD and focusing on engineering, that AI would replace me in 15 years. That was 20 years ago. It's still 15-20 years away from doing that kind of stuff.
My new product line:
Clothing that was only pre-worn by svelte runway models, hand fed on vegan non-GMO wood pellets and rainwater direct from the skies, unsullied by man-made chemicals. Clothing whose materials are only the finest naturally grown, recycled hemp, crafted in the dark by underprivileged, overpaid tibetan monks. Clothing that is always one of a kind, and intentionally may not fit anyone perfectly to enhance our body positive vibes.
My brand is Smug - I'm Simply Better Than You.
This.
Large corporation does not necessarily mean stack rating, but I know of a few and worked for one. I quit as soon as was good for me. I did have to endure a few really bad years around 2008, but dropped it like a bad habit afterwards.
If you work for a company that uses stack rating, they are telling you nicely that they're more interested in your business acumen than your engineering/technical ability. In that case, you have a decision to make. You either want to play ball, do the promotion and powerpoint slog and combat your peers for peanuts. Or you are a technical person first and need to find appropriate challenges. There ARE good jobs out there, even in large corporations, that value engineers and developers for their technical skills. Go to them.
There is a very large gap between being abusive (Dr. House), and possessing no soft skills. No one is going to tolerate you being abusive, I've never seen that turn out well. Even if you really are as smart as you think you are, even if you are also absolutely right, you're going to get burnt. And, no one is that smart, not even Dr. House who nearly kills someone in every show.
That said, soft skills involve a great many things of which social skills are but a part. Soft skills also involve project management, organization, schedule management, logistics, seeing the big picture and reading between lines. Many of those are anathemic to what successful technical people embody, for one reason or another. For example if your project management skills are good, very likely that's all you will ever do. Don't be too good. If you are seeing big pictures and reading between lines, you're probably making assumptions. That's also something technical people should, at the very least, be afraid of.
There's no particular reason why a competent technical person should worry overly much about soft-skills at all. My only comment is that technical fields are highly elitist and if you're not at least in the top 20%, you should consider rounding out your profile and pivoting to a less technical field in which soft-skills may be crucial.